Essay 3 Prompt 

Objective:

• Distinguish factual from judgmental statements and informed opinion from prejudice. 
• Identify deliberate abuses and manipulations of rhetoric.  
• Compose complex essays which utilize evidence drawn from written sources and employ one or, more likely, combine multiple of the following methods of critical analysis such as interpretation, analysis, evaluation, argumentation, synthesis, persuasion, causal analysis, proposal of solutions, refutation, definition, comparison/contrast, and summary.  
• Appraise and select valid and effective evidence and incorporate such evidence effectively into sentences and essays while documenting sources according to correct MLA format.  
• Utilize the writing process including pre­writing, writing, revision, and proofreading to produce complex, high ­quality work.  
• Utilize critical reading strategies so as to successfully pull meaning from complex texts and texts structured in non­academic formats.  

Length:

5-6 pages, not including Works Cited page

Due Dates:

• Rough Draft: Week 7
• Final Draft: Week 8

Background:

Giving you the cold, hard facts. The No Spin Zone. Fair and Balanced. Objective Truth vs. Subjective Opinion. Fox News is a bunch of Republican propaganda masquerading as “Fair and Balanced.” The New York Times is a liberal rag that unfairly slants the news. Unfortunately, in modern society, there is a tendency to vilify rhetoric, positioning it as what the “other side” does while advocating for the inherent truthfulness, ethicality, and/or moral superiority of a particular opinion or position.

Surrounding any controversial issue is a wealth of rhetoric on every side of the debate. Although it might be fair to say that the rhetoric of a particular group is more effective, ethical, valid, etc. than that of another, it is undeniable that rhetoric frames these controversial issues from all perspectives. Thus, for this project, you will do a rhetorical analysis of a particular controversial issue pertaining to you chosen theme/topic. However, the purpose of this assignment is not to advocate for one position/side over another.

Instead, you will explore how rhetoric frames multiple perspectives on the issue. Although you are free to critique the rhetoric employed by various advocates for certain positions, once again, your analysis should not advocate for one particular position nor should it solely critique the rhetoric of one group while lionizing the rhetoric of another.

Prompt:

Your first step will be to choose a particular controversy within your theme/topic that you believe is ripe for such an analysis. The key will be to find a topic that you are already quite knowledgeable about and that you believe demonstrates rhetorical concepts that you are. comfortable in explicating. Once you have chosen your approach, you will need to have it approved by me; while I am open to controversy, I do reserve the right to veto any topic that I believe may cause significant issues. That being said, I will do my best not to censor you in anyway.

After you have chosen an approach, you will need to select artifacts from the various perspectives on the issue to demonstrate your points. It is not enough to claim how each side uses liaisons to their advantage—you need to show your readers this through analysis of artifacts (e.g. speeches, essays, articles, interviews, visual imagery, film clips, podcasts, etc.). Make sure you can back up your claims with actual evidence! You will probably only want one to two artifacts (probably one a piece) for each perspective; furthermore, it usually works best if both artifacts are of the same medium and/or genre (e.g. speech compared to speech, essay compared to essay, podcast compared to podcast, etc.).

Next, you will need to decide which rhetorical theories and concepts you will discuss. You may choose to address the manner in which the various sides of the debate employ ethos, pathos, and logos; you could examine how different sides create liaisons and what assumptions of the audience(s) drive these liaisons; you could demonstrate how various rhetors make certain aspects of the issue more salient (or present) for the audience(s); you may choose to focus on where the presumption lies in the debate and how the side opposite the presumption attempts to shift the burden of proof; you could address epistemological differences in the types of evidence each side presents.