12/2/18
In the near past leading up to our current day events, there is much controversy and debate around the issue of gun control and how to address the problem. This topic constantly circulates around the media and the difference of approaches between the left or right, or two sources is very visible and shows how each piece is meant to affect you or pull you in.
The first piece I analyzed was of the Washington Post which is a source that edges more to the left. The first thing I noticed was a non-aggressive attack to the opposition. "Those who oppose reforms say nothing can be done. That's demonstrably wrong." A thing that I found is that more harsh words were used. "Demonstrably wrong, notoriously underfunded, massacre, slaughter, more dangerous."This blatant harshness and avoidance of doublespeak is to show the reader how serious this issue is. In addition that this is something that has a great effect and must be addressed, and that the solution presented is the answer. Another aspect that was used was words that inspire change or in a way can assure a beneficial impact. "We need, might help, suggest, take time to have an effect, might be more effective, it’s worth trying, reduce interstate trafficking." These words are used to make the audience believe that this can solve the problem. Some of the words are used to give some belief that this is the best solution and that it will make a difference without actually stating that. I do think that more optimistic terms were used such as "we can" to encourage hope or a step towards movement. Another category that I took note of was one involving human lives. For example, "gun victims, homicide, 650 fewer people shot a year, isn't worth it, suicide deaths," and more. The argument of human lives and those words are definitely used to tap into the reader's more emotional side and the value of human lives. Overall, this piece used a lot of evidence and included words that "assure change", and also the importance of lives and the role of research to convince the audience that the solution is best to address guns.
The other source I looked into was the solution presented by The Federalist. Right off the bat I noticed a more attacking approach towards the left. "Unlike proposals from the Left that would not have prevented recent shootings, each of these reforms would actually make a meaningful difference." I believe this is used as an attempt to immediately show the reader that the information in the piece is more meaningful than the information that has been shown before. The author also uses more harsh words, but in a different way. Some examples were, "bureaucratic error, incompetence, subversion, Democrats filibustered this bill, convicted aliens" These words are used in a way to also show the extent and importance of the issue, but to also put extreme blame and emphasis on what the problem is and the right way to address it. The language is used to make others have a negative view on the current situation and project their own type of resentment towards the issue. Another example of this is using hypothetical situations of words like "a domestic abuser who lied on an application", to make the reader feel a sort of fear or emotional connection to the issue. There is a less hopeful tone and phrases like "instead of attempting" or "fails" make us look more to what is wrong with the system rather than focusing on what we can do to fix it. Yes there are solution offered, but the words used are more negative and have a scarier connotation to the words in attempt to fear the issue first. The author uses more words with a negative connotation I think to make the audience develop a type of resentment towards the system which in turn would support the solution offered up.
Overall, after analyzing these two pieces I definitely saw a difference in the different word usage and tone. Which approach was more effective I believe depends on the audience, but both had very strong words that have a certain negative or positive connotation, and some words lead the readers to make their own meaning or view form off of what was said. I think both sources use words that give the idea of a guaranteed fix to the issue, however this is not true because both solutions are hypothetical which neither really address. I would say that more so the Washington Post acknowledges that not everything is known, that more research is needed, and that these are "could" or "what if" scenarios. The Federalist had a more assertive take on the issue, trying to show how they are right and the other views are wrong. How everything right now is scary and wrong. That it is of "incompetence" that this situation occurs. There is a greater negative focus. Both arguments used very persuasive words and showed the importance of the issue, although these were two very different approaches being taken from the different sides.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2018/opinions/gun-control-that-works/?utm_term=.d5fbc1798bcc
http://thefederalist.com/2017/11/17/5-reforms-gun-laws-actually-make-difference/
Comments
Post a Comment