Tone and Diction in the National Conversation

The Editorial Board of USA Today, in "Will Trump's lows ever hit rock bottom?" (2017), assert that President Trump is not fit for the Office of President due to his deeply immoral and ethical behavior. They use fiery and provocative diction to highlight one recent case that demonstrates his immorality, use a scathing and forceful tone to assert that the president is uniquely unfit for the job, and list many other examples that display Trump's disregard for ethics and morality using a blunt and critical tone. The Editorial Board's purpose is to take a stand against the President, by convincing the public that his behavior is absolutely unacceptable and inexcusable for the leader of our country, and to thereby trigger protest instead of apathy. They speak to the common American who relates to their frustration with the President's behavior, and wants their own views to be confirmed with facts from their newspapers.

In my opinion, when criticizing actions of a powerful individual, fiery and forceful diction as well as a scathing and forceful tone can be necessary. If one is not forceful enough in their criticism of our leaders, their voice will simply not be loud enough in the national conversation, and will not be as effective. When I read an article with diction and a tone as fiery as that of the USA Today's piece on Trump, I am more impacted as a reader. I take the claim more seriously, as I don't simply see it as a light criticism, but rather as outrage, which is exactly what the writers want me to feel. That being said, there is a line that should not be crossed when it comes to the national conversation. I don't believe we should use inappropriate and disgusting language in the national conversation, such as cursing and the like, which weaken the civility and maturity of our conversation. There is a difference between saying that "His (the President) sickening behavior is corrosive," and using the f-word to describe his behavior.  Assuming that language that undermines one's decency is not used, being fiery in one's criticism is not something that bothers me. On the contrary, it empowers me to feel more strongly about the issue. Moreover, I think that being blunt and forceful is crucial in inspiring change. When I truly feel strongly and passionately about an issue that is not being taken seriously enough, I want journalists and those that take part in the national conversation to speak with passion and even fury when this is a necessary response. If I feel that our democracy is being undermined, for example, then I should absolutely speak my mind with fiery language and a forceful tone to stand up to that and empower others to follow my lead.

Comments

  1. Yaffa GoldkinDecember 19, 2017 at 7:05 AM

    Precis- You only have three sentences in your precis instead of four. You are missing the last sentence, which highlights the audience of the article. Other than missing that key information, your rhetorical precis is very well written and you do a good job of explaining how the article uses diction and tone.
    Response- I think you have a very good purpose to your response to the article, but you worry too much about how the article is written. Instead of focusing on specific words that the article may have, focus more on the bigger picture what they are trying to say and respond to that. I know that the language bothered you, but you can just say that outright instead of adding this sentence: "There is a difference between saying that 'His (the President) sickening behavior is corrosive,' and using the f-word to describe his behavior." You have a very good purpose that I agree with but I think you should focus more on the main idea instead of the nitty-picky details if you want to get your own point across.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Trump Apocalypse?

Michelle Goldberg, in  “Anniversary of the Apocalypse” (2017) asserts that the age of Trump’s presidency is an apocalypse, in which the President can do outrageous things and we don’t even care anymore because we have become so accustomed to it. She describes the warning of what Trump’s presidency would look like, uses pathos and logos to show how unpresidential and unseemly she thinks Trump has been, and shows how this has become the new normal with a cynical and depressing tone. Her purpose is to convince liberals who promised to resist Trump that they can’t continue to allow Trump’s inappropriate behavior to become the norm. She relates to adults who, like her, are disturbed by Trump’s actions, but are simply tired of being outraged and have accepted his ways as normal.   While I agree that there should be outrage over any action of our President that is unseemly, unpresidential, or illegal, I disagree in characterizing Trump’s presidency as an “apocalypse,” similar to...
Read more

Maternal Mortality

Precis: Nicholos Kristof, in his article in the New York Times, If Americans Love Moms, Why Do We Let Them Die, argues that the United States must do more to prevent maternal deaths, given the surprisingly high maternal death rate in the U.S., particularly in Texas. He brings factual evidence to emphasize the severity of the issue of maternal deaths in the US, shares a sad story of a maternal death in Texas, and then explains the cause of the issue and how deaths can be prevented in the future. Kristof intends to awaken the American public to an issue they may not have been fully aware of, and to inspire them to vote for politicians who will help make maternal deaths more preventable. Considering that the matter being discussed relates to pregnancy and childbirth, the intended audience is adults, particularity those with children, who could relate to the issue and feel the most compassion for women who died during pregnancy. Response: I absolutely agree with Kristof's argument....
Read more