The recent decades have presented us with enormous political and social conflict, and seeing that there are a multitude of arguments surrounding the issue of gun violence, it is abundantly clear that gun violence is a catalyst for some of these arguments. On 5 October 2017, Jen Christensen wrote an article for CNN addressing the issues of mass shootings in the United States. However, Christensen knows that her credentials (producer/editor, CNN and CNN Health, Medical and Wellness Unit) do not satisfy all readers. Christensen writes an article that effectively dramatizes gun violence in the United States, which excites the progressive group of CNN media consumers by playing heavily to its confirmation bias, evoking a ethical and pathetic appeal and emotions, evoking a pathetic appeal.
To ensure that her article goes viral, Christensen gives the United States a superlative. Normally, receiving a superlative is a good thing. However, when she gives the superlative, “most mass shootings,” the majority of Americans will take a second look. Christensen knows that by creating a powerful thesis, she will draw a larger audience, therefore projecting her article to virality. By being indirectly forced to take a second, and/or deeper look at the article, readers think more about the topic of the article, which causes the article (or topic) to become more popular. Christensen knows that the most important part of her articles is what she puts at the beginning (the only thing most people read), so essentially if she creates a strong hook, she has accomplished her purpose.
Christensen knows her audience well and is smart enough to play to its confirmation bias. She knows that when she states a fact, she does not have to back it up with the strongest source. She knows that she can state a fact, back it with weak evidence and she excites her audience, which causes the virality of the article to increase. For example, in paragraph 3, Christensen uses statistics regarding the proportion of attacks happening in the United States. She does not state who conducted the research for these statistics nor when the study was completed. Christensen does not do this simply because she does not have to. When someone (any random person) who shares the same opinion with Christensen begins her article, it is very likely that the person will only look at several pictures at the beginning, read the first couple of paragraphs, then click on the next thing that fires dopamine in the brain. The likelihood that Christensen is called out by anyone for this is minimal. The likelihood is minimal because not enough people care about her specific article to say anything.
Upon opening the web page, readers are greeted with a slideshow of several wonderful pictures of traumatic shooting scenes. The photos feature people in absolute agony as they mourn the loss of their loved ones. With the photos being place at the topic of the article, Christensen knows that she has developed a strong pathetic appeal. For most, just the thought of losing a loved one is nearly unbearable, so he placement of those photos is the perfect way to evoke a pathetic appeal in a person who feels strongly about gun violence or anyone who can empathize the loss of a loved one. Christensen starts her article by stating that the amount of gun violence in the United States is exceptional in comparison to other nations around the world. She backs up this claim with “a study published recently” which links the reader to an NICB (National Insurance Crime Bureau) database in which there is not evidence of a study or an analysis of research done.
When making a claim like “There are more mass shootings in the United States than any other country in the world,” Christensen knows that she must support it with valid, published evidence. Christensen cites the findings of Adam Lankford (professor at the University of Alabama), which present results contrary to the expected. Christensen writes that there are on average 6.78 deaths per US shooting compared to 8.8 deaths per shooting in the other 171 nations of the world. Lankford also finds that the total amount of gun violence and homicides has decreased significantly. The conclusion of the study is seemingly contradictory to Christensen’s initial claim, but it is not. While the rate of ‘regular’ gun violence has gone down, the rate of mass shootings has gone up. By doing this, Christensen strengthens her ethical appeal because she showed that she can take information that does not support her audience’s confirmation bias in order to to her point, and use it to make her argument stronger.
Christensen does a fantastic job of writing to the eyes of her readers. In other words, Christensen knows how to use rhetoric to provoke the strongest response from its viewership. The topic of gun violence and mass shootings solicit an emotional response from people. Christensen is aware of this and knows that she will get the best response from her readers by using pathetic appeals. Emotions create thought, which spark conversation, which spread in the highly digitized world and become viral.
Comments
Post a Comment