Since their portrayal of terrorism runs, as mentioned, essentially contrary to the overwhelming majority of media outlets, the reader’s interest is immediately held. In the same vein, the authors cater to skeptical readers by providing stories and statistics to back their claims – in fact, evidentiary exposition comprises roughly half of the two page article. And finally, in presenting their main claims, the authors use mitigating language to make their arguments both stronger and more appealing. However, their arguments are by no means bland – if another large-scale, well-planned terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil tomorrow, most of the claims in this article would seem incredibly arrogant and foolish. That danger represents both the greatest weakness and strength of mockery: it strengthens the authors’ claims by staking their reputation and image on them. Daniel Byman and Amanda Fair’s choice to write a piece using a mocking tone makes explicitly clear their belief that such an attack is unlikely, which is perhaps their strongest argument of
Since their portrayal of terrorism runs, as mentioned, essentially contrary to the overwhelming majority of media outlets, the reader’s interest is immediately held. In the same vein, the authors cater to skeptical readers by providing stories and statistics to back their claims – in fact, evidentiary exposition comprises roughly half of the two page article. And finally, in presenting their main claims, the authors use mitigating language to make their arguments both stronger and more appealing. However, their arguments are by no means bland – if another large-scale, well-planned terrorist attack occurred on U.S. soil tomorrow, most of the claims in this article would seem incredibly arrogant and foolish. That danger represents both the greatest weakness and strength of mockery: it strengthens the authors’ claims by staking their reputation and image on them. Daniel Byman and Amanda Fair’s choice to write a piece using a mocking tone makes explicitly clear their belief that such an attack is unlikely, which is perhaps their strongest argument of