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.