No reckoning for Bush by Suzanne Goldenberg vs. Bush Must Now Face a Reckoning by Jonathan Freedland - Case Study Example

Critique Assignment Table of Contents Introduction 3 Ethos 4 Pathos 6 Logos 8 Fallacies 9 Conclusion 11 References 12 Bibliography 14 Introduction The article titled ‘No reckoning for Bush?’ published by Suzanne Goldenberg in ‘The Guardian Weekly’ on Thursday 22 January, 2009, brings into light the political battle in the United States. It focuses on how the present government is keen on focusing their duties and planning for the future rather than considering on counting the mistakes of the past made by the Bush government. Another piece of article titled ‘Bush must now face a reckoning’ published by Jonathan Freedland in ‘The Guardian Weekly’ on 2 January, 2009, focuses on the fact that majority of the decisions taken by Bush and his government resulted in severe consequences and reflected an era of inhumane and barbaric atrocities. Both the articles have the same base but are different in their approach and narration. The vast difference of the perceptions of the authors can be understood by reading the articles. Both the authors have a different take on the incidents and have presented the articles in a way they view the incidents. It is hard to justify one particular article over another because both of them are based on the individual justification of the authors backed up by their ideas of stating it (Chen, 2010). Ethos Ethos refers to the dependability or reliability of the writer or the speaker. Ethos is frequently conveyed through quality and style of the message and also by the way an author assimilates the information and put them in form of their views. It bears the utmost importance in any article. The credibility of the writer also plays a greater role in affecting the readers’ mind. The background, past works, experience and many other factors plays a vital role in the building of credibility of an author. Many people do believe that it is not the work of an author but the author itself who make a piece of work interesting. Therefore, greater significance is given to the human element (Rust, 2010). The article ‘No reckoning for Bush?’ has been penned down by Suzanne Goldenberg, one of the most reputed correspondents working with ‘The Guardian’. She has written several award winning articles like Bayeux Prize and her work in the Middle East during the times of US invasion on Iraq was truly amazing. She actively covered the incidents that occurred during the war and therefore her article reflects strong sense of emotion and the belongingness from that place. She has worked from the remotest of place from various regions of the sub continent and also interviewed few of the world’s greatest and controversial politicians. She has even authored a book on the life of Hillary Clinton named ‘Madam President’. On the other hand, Jonathan Freedland is one of the most reputed British journalists and author. He regularly writes articles for ‘The Guardian’ and has a set of loyal readers. Even he is the author of several books under the pseudonym of Sam Bourne. His book ‘Bring Home the Revolution: The case for a British Republic’ is a widely acclaimed book in the non-fiction category and has received prestigious awards like Somerset Maugham Award. He not only writes for ‘The Guardian’ but is still working with several other newspapers such as the Jewish Chronicle, The Daily Mirror and London Evening Standard. His assertive style of writing has been liked by many and eventually they turned into the regular readers of the articles written by Jonathan Freedland. Thus, comparing in general it can be easily analyzed that both the writers do have a strong reputation in their fields and has a set of individual loyalists who follow the works of them. In the article titled ‘No reckoning for Bush?’ Suzanne Goldenberg has used her background as an effective tool for conveying the message to the audience. The message can be clearly identified by the reader but the writer has left it upon the readers to draw the conclusion whether the strategy adopted by the present government should be supported or not. The writer actually takes a diplomatic stake in her article by not focusing on the conclusion but rather on the facts. But from the article it can be easily understood that the writer is not happy with the focus of the present government on the mistakes done by the Bush government in the past. But on the other hand in the article by Jonathan Freedland, he focuses on the negative impacts made during the Republican rule headed by Bush. Therefore both revolving around the same topic has different takes on it and effectively tries to persuade the readers to follow their beliefs (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005). Pathos Pathos can be referred as the effect by which a particular reader feels pity or has emotion regarding a certain character or incident. In most cases it has been seen that the writer uses the emotional aspect to connect with the readers. Many people do believe that the writer can strongly connect with its readers if they are able to bring out the feelings and emotions of the readers. The writers use different emotions to state their belief which finally turns into the beliefs of the readers. It is therefore one of the strongest aspect to connect with the reader and communicate to them effectively (Frost, 2005). Suzanne Goldenberg in the article ‘No reckoning for Bush?’ has unfolded plethora of emotions towards the readers. But the emotions are vague and ambiguous considering the fact that the writer does not establish any stand on the topic discussed rather tries to provide the readers more factual interpretations. The writer actually suppresses her feelings in her writing and brings into light the facts that have happened in the past and in the present. But the writer skillfully draws a line in her writing where she segregates the readers according to their orientation. For example, the major question she takes up with her writing is that whether the policy adopted by the present government of building the future forgetting the past mistakes made by the Bush government is an ethical approach. Here there is a dichotomy of thought between the readers. Some groups do feel that it is required to build the future forgetting the past but other group does believe that justice is required for the mistakes and crimes committed during the Bush Government. Hence the writing actually interrogates the feelings and sentiments of the reader rather then forming one. On the other hand, Jonathan Freedland from the very beginning of the article tries to establish the fact that there were several mistakes done by Bush and his associates during their reign. The writing generally establishes a strong relation with the readers as he establishes the fact that leaping forward does not solve the problem of the past and also create certain feelings in the mind of the readers which makes them feel that the one responsible behind such inhumane atrocities have no repentance for their deeds. Therefore the writer uses the emotional aspect to great skill in invoking his feelings to that of his readers (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005). It is to be noted that pathos primarily reflects emotions of empathy in a given writing. But it is to be noted that in both the articles there are no extensive feelings of empathy felt. Both of the articles are negative in their approaches. In the first article written by Suzanne Goldenberg the major emphasis is laid on the incapability of the present government. Therefore an emotion reflected for those who believe the ones behind the crimes should be prosecuted. On the other hand Freedman adopts a direct approach stating emotions of anger and grief. The article of Freedland is more evocative than that of Goldenberg and establishes a greater connectivity with the readers (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005). Logos It is very important for the authors to back their articles with substantial logic; otherwise the readers find it hard to connect with the articles. Therefore the part of logos is very important to properly communicate with the readers. It becomes extremely important for the writers to be logical in their approach in cases of true incidents. In cases of fiction the logos take a back seat but in case of the real incidents, the truth must be revealed. The readers only form a particular perception if there is substantial evidence or the facts backed up with substantial logic (Fisher, 2004). Here both the articles are based on facts and therefore it becomes very important for the author to base their comments on sound reasoning and logic. One of the most crucial facts that lay down the foundation of a strong base is that the topic is a very sensitive one, which requires the writers to be unbiased in their writing. The writers should in an effective way try to tell the people what he/she intends to but that should be based upon the deductions of other people’s speech or work. In both cases it can be seen that strong reference of various people is related to the topic. For example, in the article titled ‘No reckoning for Bush?’ Goldenberg cited quotes of Eric Holder, Barrack Obama which further establishes the factuality of the article. The work of the writer is just to frame the deductions of such quotes and perceive it in a way they want to make people believe. Again in the other article it can be viewed that the writer has immensely reflected upon the statements of Dick Cheney. And by doing so the writer has tried to instill his perception to the readers of his articles (Rapp, 2010). Again, in the article written by Suzanne Goldenberg, the facts have a very significant relation with the human rights. This further strengthens or adds value to the work. Even the approach keeps the readers thinking about the topic. The logic advocated is simple and that makes the article effective. Similarly in the article penned down by Jonathan Freedland, the major focus is humanitarian. But the logic behind the article is shaky as most of the deductions made are not based upon facts but on the perception of the writer. But on the contrary, the article provides a strong message of what the writer really wants to focus which is missing in the other article (Cockcroft & Cockcroft, 2005). Fallacies Fallacies are often the integral part of any article. Fallacies make a part of the logos where the writer fails to establish a strong relation of logic within the article. In the article written by Goldenberg, the logic has been very strong relating to the fact that each and every statement is explained with the logic behind it. It clearly explains the factor that has probed Barrack Obama and his government to be concentrating on the future and providing less significance to the past. But the unclear message behind the article is the only fallacy that has hindered the effectiveness of the article. On the other hand, it is clear from the writing of Freedland that he strongly opposed the atrocities made in the Bush regime and therefore his writing is based more upon personal prejudices than on the facts. Though there are several logics inserted in the article but there is even number of assumptions made by the writer which has not been backed up by any logical reasoning. Thus, the fallacies are inherent with any article if the prejudice affects the article (The University of British Columbia, 2009.). Conclusion The writers are able to reflect their perception through these articles. Both the articles do fairly well in conveying the message of the writer to the readers. Understanding of the message and the effectiveness with which the readers adopt the message is the prime focus for any communication. Both the articles establish a certain relationship with the readers by focusing on the ethos, pathos and logos. It has been seen that though both the topics revolved around the same set of incidents but the treatment has been unique in both the instances. One developed a straight relationship with the readers while the other left the readers in the flight of quandary. But still both the articles are esteemed and have strong recognition among the cultured readers. This further establishes the faith that there are no perfect writing styles to make an article effective but greatly depends on how writers can convey their message and pass their perception to the readers (Levine, n.d.). References Chen, M., 2010. Strategies of Rhetoric Writing. Writing & Publishing. [Online] Available at: http://www.suite101.com/content/strategies-of-rhetoric-writing-a264028 [Accessed October 19, 2010]. Cockcroft, R. & Cockcroft, S., 2005. Persuading People: An Introduction to Rhetoric. Palgrave Macmillan. Fisher, A., 2004. The Logic of Real Arguments. Cambridge University Press. Frost, M., 2005. Introduction to Classical Legal Rhetoric: A Lost Heritage. Ashgate Publishing. Levine, R., No Date. Use of Rhetoric in Expository Writing. Thoughts on Writing. [Online] Available at: http://www.helium.com/items/1476934-rhetoric-in-expository-writing [Accessed October 19, 2010]. Rapp, C., 2010. Aristotles Rhetoric. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. [Online] Available at: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/aristotle-rhetoric/ [Accessed October 19, 2010]. Rust, H., 2010. Making Rhetoric Visible: Re-visioning a Capstone Civic Writing Seminar. Home. [Online] Available at: http://www.presenttensejournal.org/vol1/making-rhetoric-visible-re-visioning-a-capstone-civic-writing-seminar/ [Accessed October 19, 2010]. The University of British Columbia, 2009. Writing a Rhetorical Analysis. UBC Writing Centre. [Online] Available at: http://www.writingcentre.ubc.ca/workshop/tools/rhet1.htm [Accessed October 19, 2010]. Bibliography Edward, P. & Et. Al., 1999. Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. Oxford University Press. Olson, G. & Taylor, T., 1997. Publishing in Rhetoric and Composition. SUNY Press. Read More