So far I’m still a little skeptical about Inquiry 3 and if we’re suppose to address 6 different current events, or try to find 6 articles based on 1 event. So far, I’ve found an interesting article about a fraternity that is axing the pledging process after recent deaths due to things such as overdoses, alcohol poisoning and hypothermia. It was not pointed out where these deaths occurred but I do know that Miami has a chapter of the Sigma Alpha Epsilon fraternity located on Talawanda Street. I can relate to McClure’s article in that I also am one of those students who uses Google and Wikipedia a lot. I was always told throughout my middle school and high school time that these sources were not credible but as time has gone by, I have found that Wikipedia usually always has correct information and the people who are dedicated to making Wikipedia and reliable source do a pretty good job of keeping incorrect information away from their pages. I believe it provides good information on a lot of things that can be useful to get an idea as to what you’re researching but I can understand professors and teachers not wanting it to be cited as a source. Since being at Miami I have taken advantage of the University Libraries page and their web search tools that take you to credible, academic sources and that has really helped out in a lot of research I’ve done here.
“America’s ‘deadliest fraternity’ drops pledging” published in the Oxford Press. I believe the intended audience for this article is for a lot of college students and those who are interested in joining a fraternity. Sigma Alpha Epsilon is a fraternity represented all over the country including here at Miami. There is also a video transcript which provided by Newsy.com. I believe this article was effective in covering the news that Sigma Alpha Epsilon will now eliminate pledging in an attempt to cleanse their name of the recent pledging deaths. The title alone is eye catching as Sigma Alpha Epsilon is being referred to as the deadliest frat in America. The rhetoric here is very bold and definitely catches the eyes of readers who know of a Sigma chapter on their college campuses. I think pathos is being used heavily as this article reflects on how Sigma’s pledging process has resulted in multiple deaths and torture-like initiations that led to overdoses, alcohol poisoning and hypothermia. This source is persuasive for me as a reader and somewhat relevant because this fraternity is located on our campus and even though these deaths were not here this axing of the pledging system affects the fraternity here.
After reading Booth, I found his section on Win Rhetoric to be the most interesting for me. This section really outlines public speaking and politics and human nature in general. Everyone wants to win, but by what means are people willing to use to win? I feel like presidential candidates practice WR-b to gain popularity but then will later lose that but after they’ve already been elected and hold the power for the time being. When there is only two sides to fight for, it seems to be too easy to gain respect and praise from one group by speaking to those people and to their opinions and wants.
The Huffington Post may use a few of these categories because they are presenting news to people, but usually to their audience which consists of a younger group of people who are more liberal in their views. I feel like they try to imply WR-a, which is the honest win rhetoric. When they publish articles it is in their interest to present it in such a way that may appear unbiased but they are leaning more towards the side that they believe to be right and just. There is a news article about the Keystone XL pipeline and that a new study found that the environmental risks are greater than the state department suggested. This article is showing that the state department did not assess the project’s impact environmentally as far as it should have, at least in the findings just made in the recent study. I think this article was published to show that the environment will be hurt if the government goes through with its construction. It’s almost a way to take oil off the pedestal by showing the environmental risks involved with pursuing even more oil when we know the carbon emissions are harmful to us and the environment. The readers of the Huntington Post would most likely agree with this because it is a liberal idea.