Question
Both Porters and Strupp's articles cover the same event and raise the ethical question of weather or not to publish a disturbing photo of a baby who later died as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. What is the argument of each? How does the first person testimony by porter convey a different perspective than Strupp's more journalistic coverage? What rhetorical strategies are at work in each one?
Response: The argument in Charles Porters article is not really much of an argument, he just writes about how the picture came to be and what he got out of it and I guess as readers we just assume that he felt it was okay to publish the picture where in Joe Strupp’s article the argument is clearly that he felt it was okay,even though he does discuss both sides …show more content…
It’s not something that you necessarily want to look at during breakfast but they are riveting”. Obviously. having a first person kind of experience toward something gives you much more credibility but unfortunately for me in this case, I think Charles Porters testimony was actually way less credible than Joe Strupp's. Where Charles porter mainly talks about what he got out of it he completely ignores any real news or input about the actual incident where, Joe Strupp goes more deep with his writing and actually questions himself and others asking various individuals for their input about the incident and just overall putting more effort into his article, Making a much larger impact than Porters article ever could. Ethos, Pathos and Logos all come into play in the two articles, Pathos especially. Even
Both Porters and Strupp's articles cover the same event and raise the ethical question of weather or not to publish a disturbing photo of a baby who later died as a result of the Oklahoma City bombing. What is the argument of each? How does the first person testimony by porter convey a different perspective than Strupp's more journalistic coverage? What rhetorical strategies are at work in each one?
Response: The argument in Charles Porters article is not really much of an argument, he just writes about how the picture came to be and what he got out of it and I guess as readers we just assume that he felt it was okay to publish the picture where in Joe Strupp’s article the argument is clearly that he felt it was okay,even though he does discuss both sides …show more content…
It’s not something that you necessarily want to look at during breakfast but they are riveting”. Obviously. having a first person kind of experience toward something gives you much more credibility but unfortunately for me in this case, I think Charles Porters testimony was actually way less credible than Joe Strupp's. Where Charles porter mainly talks about what he got out of it he completely ignores any real news or input about the actual incident where, Joe Strupp goes more deep with his writing and actually questions himself and others asking various individuals for their input about the incident and just overall putting more effort into his article, Making a much larger impact than Porters article ever could. Ethos, Pathos and Logos all come into play in the two articles, Pathos especially. Even