Following NBC News site
A Brief Analysis of the Rhetorical Devices in NBC New
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/senate-intel-committee-subpoenas-michael-flynn-russia-probe-n757661
The article above is about Michael Flynn's position in thee Russian sacndal. The diction the author, Phil McCausland, used in the article is formal diction. McCausland didn't put much emotion into the article, he didn't put his personal standings or positions on the situation into the article. This made the diction more formal, he would write sentences like "Burr and Warner have said they considered their committee's subpoena power as an available recourse", which gives the article its professional-like diction. It also gives the article its matter-of-fact tone by being so unemotional. Another rhetorical device McCausland uses is simple syntax. Most of the sentence are declarative, singular subject-verb sentences. He uses this to easily get the information across to the audience and to make the article as short as possible so the reader doesn't lose interest. He is trying to make the audience remember his article. The tone of the article, as mentioned above, is matter-of-fact. This is because the author doesn't use much, if any, emotion in the writing. His sentence are comprise of merely the facts, "This is the first time the Intelligence Committee has used its subpoena power since the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and it's the first time it has subpoenaed documents since the 1970s, a Senate historian told NBC News". Although the article isn't very emotional, it is full of facts that fill the reader with knowledge. The lack of emotion in the writing causes the tone to be matter-of-fact. The purpose of the article is to inform the people of the possibility of the national security adviser being involved with the possible Russian scandal during the election. There are many parts of the article such as "Former Acting Attorney General Sally Yates testified on Monday that she told the Trump administration that Flynn had been compromised and could be potentially "blackmailed by the Russians"", that are informing the reader of the activities in Washington DC. Having the reader understand whats happening in the country's capital is the main goal and if that goal is achieved it can have a big impact on the readers view of the government and the people who are in it. The purpose of this article has great value because it could possibly alter how the people see government officials. The beginning of the article talks about the situation and how the Senate Intelligence Committee subpoenaed Flynn. Through the middle of the article it names the reason Flynn is in the position he's in and what is being done about the accusations. The end of the article talks about other politicians, like 44th President Barack Obama's, attempts at warning President Trump on hiring Flynn as the national security adviser. It talks about the problems that have been caused by the President eventually deciding to hire Flynn anyways. McCausland uses lots of quotes form countless other politicians and how they feel about the subject. He also uses facts, such as "This is the first time the Intelligence Committee has used its subpoena power since the joint inquiry into the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and it's the first time it has subpoenaed documents since the 1970s, a Senate historian told NBC News", to compare this conflict to past conflicts. The argument is strong because all though there is not emotional connection, there are so many different facts and pieces of evidence that back up the authors claims and the things he is talking about.
0 Comments
http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/trump-not-planning-visit-fbi-headquarters-after-comey-firing-spokesperson-n757771
The article above is about the tension between President Trump and the FBI. The diction the authors, Kahlan Rosenblatt and Ken Dilanian, create is formal. They don't seem very attached to the article as much as they are simply trying to get the information across. This is evident by the word choice. Their sentences sound very formal and not personal, "Amid the continuing fallout over his decision to fire FBI Director James Comey, Trump was considering an appearance at the FBI's J Edgar Hoover Building in downtown Washington, DC. The White House publicly floated the idea as recently as Thursday morning". This gives the piece a forthright tone. The article also uses fairly simple syntax. The sentences are declarative and occasionally short like the sentences "By Thursday afternoon the plan had been completely nixed" and "Comey's dismissal on Tuesday came as a shock to the political world". The tone of the article is forthright. The article is very straight forward and direct. There is no real second story, there is only the fact that the FBI is not in agreement with President Trump. The authors even include officials saying this, "...Trump would not be well-received at headquarters". The purpose is to share why the FBI and the President are butting heads. The article achieves this by writing sentences like the following, "the FBI told the White House the optics would not be good. FBI officials made clear that the president would not draw many smiles and cheers, having just unceremoniously sacked a very popular director". The overall goal of the article is to share the tensions between the FBI and the President. The purpose is valuable because by writing about this event, the information will get to the people, and the people can see the drama that's going on in the capital. In the beginning of the article the authors hint to the tension between the two and give background information on what caused the tension. Through the article the authors touch on how both sides feel about the tension and the decision to fire Comey, and how it cause the tension. At the end of the article the authors retouch on where the tension has escalated to. To support the argument they are making, the authors use lots of first hand sources, people who are in the middle of the problem, stating how they feel about the situation. the argument is a strong argument because there are countless first hand sources telling how they feel and their views on the situation. http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investigations/my-dinner-comey-current-former-fbi-officials-dispute-trump-account-n758221
The above article is about the question of former FBI Director, James Comey's, dinner with President Trump and which of the two stories being told is true. Ken Dilanian and Pete Williams, the authors of the article, create a colloquial diction. The writing is not informal, but it is also not formal. The article reads as if someone was writing down a casual debate. The authors uses phrases like "This account of the dinner contradicts the one President Trump gave to NBC News Nightly anchor Lester Holt on Thursday" and "Trump gave Holt an entirely different account of the dinner..." which give the article it's less formal feeling. They also show that the authors have some emotional attachment to the subject. The reader can tell from the second quote that they feel almost confused and which side of the argument is true. The authors showing both sides of the argument and almost showing their confusion gives the article it's quizzical tone. The authors allude to someone being untruthful by showing the different things that people are saying about the dinner between former Director Comey and President Trump. They do this to allow the reader to know what everyone is saying and give them the full situation so they can develop a point of view of their own on the situation. They are trying to start a conversation about the topic. As mentioned before, the article has a quizzical tone. They will talk about one side of the argument, then right after put the other sides argument that contradicts what the opposing side was saying. The article simply goes back and forth making it entertaining to read. Throughout the article sentence like "None of that is true, Comey's associates insist" which help to give the article its almost amusing tone. The tone also shows the emotion the authors have towards the subject. This wouldn't be the first time the president would say something that would contradict another group or person, so the authors simply find this other contradiction amusing. The purpose of the article was to give American's both sides of the story to chose which they believe. This is the purpose because of how many times there are contradicting statements mentioned in the article and the countless times it is mentioned that one side says the opposite of the other. The overall goal of the article is to educate the American people on the events going on in the nations capital. The purpose has a lot of worth, trying to educate the American people on the happenings of our government. The article starts by talking about the dinner and what happened to the former FBI director, why he was let go. Throughout the article the authors give both sides' arguments and what they were saying about the dinner, and the events that followed after. The article ended by talking about the uneasy relationship between the FBI and the President at this moment of time. The author uses plenty of quotes from many different officials. The argument was strong, there was plenty of evidence for both sides and they gave both sides of the argument even coverage, one side didn't get more information than the other. http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/president-trump-tells-lester-holt-he-s-fighting-hard-legitimacy-n758251
The article above is about President Trump's latest interview with Lester Holt. The diction used by the author, Erik Ortiz, is informational. Ortiz uses may quotes from the interview and then includes some background from the interview. After the quotes he would include sentences like "Holt had also asked whether Trump still has moments where he can't believe he's in the White House". He is not very emotionally attached to the subject or article. The diction shows the authors objective tone because he leaves his own personal judgments aside. Ortiz also uses compound syntax by mixing quotes and quote analysis in the same sentence. For example he wrote ""Do you feel like you're fighting for your legitimacy sometimes?" Holt asked during a 31-minute interview Thursday at the White House, a segment of which aired Friday on TODAY". He does this to give the reader information on the interview. The authors tone in the article is objective. Ortiz doesn't include his opinion on the interview, he simply shares the information about the interview and analyzes it. For example, he writes "Holt had also asked whether Trump still has moments where he can't believe he's in the White House — as evidenced when he said during a Rose Garden event last week: "Hey, I'm president. Can you believe it?"". The purpose of the article was to address the interview and what was talked about by Lester Holt and President Trump. The overall goal is to inform American's of the President's interview. Ortiz writes "Holt asked Trump about the termination letter he sent to Comey in which he wrote, "I greatly appreciate you informing me on three separate occasions that I am not under investigation"". Its value is sharing information with the American public. In the beginning of the article Ortiz talks gives some background information about where the quotes are coming from and a rough idea of what the interview was about. Throughout the article he gave information straight from the interview and quoted from Holt and President Trump. At the end of the article Ortiz wraps up talking about the main ideas of the articles and ending with a quote from Trump, "As far as I'm concerned, I want that thing to be absolutely done properly," he said, adding, "I might even lengthen out the investigation, but I have to do the right thing for the American people. (Comey's) the wrong man for that position". He uses lots of quotes from the interview to support the argument he is making, the argument that there are many questions to Trump's presidency. The argument could be better by adding in some personal analysis. The whole article Ortiz simply analyzes the words being spoken, he doesn't include his feelings towards the words that were being spoken. Personal opinions would've given the argument and extra leg up. http://www.nbcnews.com/feature/nbc-out/texas-bill-could-deny-transgender-wrestler-chance-defend-title-n758101
The article above is about a bill in Texas that could possibly strip a transgender teen of the chance to defend his wrestling title. The author used formal diction. They don't seem very emotionally attached to the article because they don't put any opinions in the writing. The writing doesn't seem very personally involved because of how formal the writing is. The author writes using sentences like "When transgender wrestler Mack Beggs won a girls' state championship, his victory drew jeers and complaints that his steroid therapy treatment had given him an unfair advantage against girls who risked injury just by getting on the mat with him", which uses larger words that are more professional than an average person would use if they were simply having a conversation with someone. The word choice proves the authors professional tone by being so formal. The author also uses complex syntax. The sentences usually have multiple ideas that are tied together with commas, such as "his bill isn't aimed at disqualifying transgender students, but to give the UIL a tool in combating steroid use". The author does this to make the article more interesting to read and to keep the reader engaged. The author uses a professional tone in the article. The sentences are complex to keep the reader interested, but they aren't personal to the author. They don't put their feelings into the reading. They simply rely on the facts of the situation to reel in the readers attention. The authors purpose of the article is to share the situation with readers so they create an opinion on the matter and let them know the problems that are happening still with the transgender community. The author includes that "Under NCAA rules, athletes transitioning from female to male are allowed to compete on men's teams while taking testosterone, but can't compete on women's teams". They include this to show how transgender children aren't treated as the people they are trying to become, and to evoke emotion in the reader so they will create an opinion on the matter. the overall goal of the article is to create conversation among the people so maybe they will create a change. This is a powerful purpose that could possibly start a nationwide conversation on transgender rights. In the beginning of the article the author gives the reader information on the wrestler, Mack Beggs, and what the controversy is. Through the middle portion of the article, the author talks about the situation and the two sides of the argument to give the reader information so they can form their own opinion. The article ends with the author giving the latest information on the story, saying that the bill was passed by the Senate and is going to the House for consideration. the argument is strong because of the facts and and sides that are represented, however the authors opinion on the matter would've given the article much more strength. It would've given the article a deeper emotion that is missing. http://www.nbcnews.com/science/space/nasa-unveils-2-new-missions-study-truly-strange-asteroids-n703266
The article above is about NASA's decision to create two new missions to study asteroids and their purposes. Mike Wall, the author of this article, writes using scholarly diction. He writes educational sentences that share lots of knowledge, such as "The Lucy project will investigate the Trojan asteroids, which share an orbit with Jupiter, while Psyche will journey to the asteroid belt to study a huge, metallic asteroid named 16 Psyche that resides there". He is clearly knowledgeable on the subject and his diction supports this. His diction influences his erudite tone because throughout the whole article he is sharing facts and making the article rather educational, but at the same time it is easy to read. Throughout the article Wall uses long complex syntax to make the article read and flow in an interesting manner. An example is when he writes "If all goes according to plan, the probe will visit an asteroid in the main asteroid belt — located between Mars and Jupiter — in 2025, and then go on to study six Trojan asteroids between 2027 and 2033, NASA officials said". There is lots of information in this one sentence, which makes it intriguing and fun to read. As stated before, Wall uses an erudite tone. He obviously did lots of research on the topic and became well acquainted with the subject of the missions. He learned objectives, years of travel, and he even learned about the asteroids themselves and why they were of such importance. He says "The Discovery Program, which was founded in 1992, supports relatively low-cost planetary missions; development costs for the current crop are capped at about $450 million apiece". He did the research to leave the reader with enough knowledge on the subject to be able to follow the story, and he did so with an educational-like tone. The purpose of the article was to make readers aware of our country's space program's developments. Wall writes fairly early in the piece "The space agency has selected projects called Lucy and Psyche via its Discovery Program, which funds highly focused space missions to destinations throughout the solar system", giving the reader information on what the developments of NASA are. This gives the reader more insight on what their tax dollars are going towards, which is a big deal because Americans pay lots of money that goes to their taxes. The overall goal is to make Americans more aware of what is going on in space and here on Earth, how we are learning more about this great big thing we have very little information on. Wall starts the article by giving the reader some insight on what NASA has been working on and the new missions they are currently planning. Throughout the middle of the article Wall provides many facts about the mission, the asteroids that will be explored, and some quotes from people who work in the field of space about how important or impactful the mission is. In the end Wall gives the reader information on the developments of the program. He uses quotes from people that work with NASA to back up his writing, "This is what Discovery Program missions are all about — boldly going to places we've never been to enable groundbreaking science," Thomas Zurbuchen, associate administrator for NASA's Science Mission Directorate in Washington, D.C., said". Wall doesn't leave a statement without a fact to follow it up, making the argument strong. http://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-care/gop-health-plan-doesn-t-address-biggest-health-care-problems-n757871
|
My name is Stephanie Crisfield. I am a junior at North Cobb High School and this is my blog that is dedicated to analyzing NBC News. Welcome!
|