Climate change is controversial. No one can deny that. If you asked my dad what he thought of it, he would explain vehemently that scientists made it all up to sell a Prius or two. But Michael Lemonick presents a very different, non-biased way of handling climate change in his article "Honesty Is Always the Best Policy."
Lemonick is advocating for a different type of scientific writing- one that pushes away from sensationalism and speaks honestly and openly to readers. Concentrated at the beginning of his article is the most essential part of his entire writing. Jack Selzer in "Rhetorical Analysis: Understanding How Texts Persuade Readers" calls it "ethos." He explains that this is "the trustworthiness and credibility of the rhetor" (284). This is an essential element any writer needs to have in order to have their point taken seriously. Lemonick uses ethos beautifully in the way that presents himself as a very honest man, one who actually practices what he preaches.
At the beginning he comes straight out with the fact that amidst of a crowd of journalists who want to change the world, he simply does it because it provides him with a way to make a living. This blatant honesty is rarely seen, and hardly expected by a reader. By making comments like that, or admiting to the sensationalism of past articles, the reader grows to trust him. Without this bond between author and audience, the article loses its validity.
He keeps true to his trustworthy character throughout the article. When he confesses that he was "tempted" to sensationalize his story, not only does is show flaw and provide him with a more human-esque quality, but it also clearly separates him for the other (guilty) writers who commit this fault. The constant examples of his honest persona build rapport with the audience, which makes his position all the more believable. With that kind of writing, he might even convince my dad that all scientists are not the liars he believes them to be.
Firstly-I must compliment your introduction. It was fascinating for potential readers, and extremely intriguing. I enjoyed how you included your father as an 'expert' within the world of science. More importantly- I thought the way your incorporated the comparison between your father's biased opinion vs. Lemonick's non-biased opinion was a creative way to inform your audience of Lemonick's attitude toward climate change. I also analyzed Lemonick's article and was intrigued by your intreputations of the reading. For instance-he was "tempted" to sensationalize his story, not only does is show flaw and provide him with a more human-esque quality, but it also clearly separates him for the other (guilty) writers who commit this fault"- This summary of Lemonick character is an excellent way to define his traits as a writer and as an individual. I learned from summary of Lemonick's article by your intreputation of all the characteristics he portrayed within his article.
ReplyDelete