Opinions

Given that its Sunday, most of my day has revolved amount me stocking up on groceries and watching football and gearing up for classes tomorrow and being tired. That being said, my thoughts might be a bit more scattered and the point a little less clear but the great part about a blog is that it doesn't matter.

In one way, I'm happy that most of the articles are politically based because I'm interested in politics and I'm not as informed this year as I should be or want to be. In another way, this election is such a cluster f that its hard to know what sources to trust.

Similar to what Tali Sharot and Cass R. Sunstein stated in "Why Facts Don't Unify Us", the media has created an absurd amount of polarization this election. Both candidates are being demonized to an extreme without much coverage regarding actual policies or why each candidate would be a good fit for office. This is why I enjoyed reading the aforementioned article, as well as "Trump's history of corruption" by Paul Waldman. Both covered topics that go against the norm and bring up ideas not generally discussed by the mainstream media. Sharot and Sunstein create both ethos and logos by including several statistics and studies in their article. This way the audience knows that the assertions aren't solely opinion based and actually hold some water. I thought that it was a bit lacking in pathos, however, as there didn't seem to be much emotional drive. It was a pretty steady, factual piece that brought up some great points but honestly didn't feel that personal. Waldman, on the other hand, went with a much different approach. He appealed to the readers' emotions by detailing Donald Trump's blatant history of corruption and why we should be enraged that Hillary is receiving anywhere near the amount of flack as him. Flip the coin and you'll see that his article did not include many statistics to back up his claims, making it difficult for me to see him as a credible author with carefully researched examples. This isn't to say he made everything up, just that I thought the piece needed a little more reinforcement.

The last article I read in the way of op-eds was "Criminal rape cases should not be on a ticking clock" by Gloria Allred. What interested me most about this article was that it seems like a large majority of people would completely agree with the argument that Allred is making. Why would you ever put a time limit on how long somebody has to press rape charges? It seems to me that 95% of people who aren't rapist defendants would agree with this assertion. However, it also seems like most people (myself included) would be completely oblivious to this problem in the first place. Even though my core beliefs weren't swayed in any way, this op-ed introduced me to a new way of thinking about our legal system and what changes need to be made.

As for JSTOR, I read "How Does the Language of Headlines Work?", "Viral Black Death", and "Where American Public Schools Came From". These articles went more in-depth and utilized more research and examples to get their points across. Being a fan of history (I know, common theme in this class), I thoroughly enjoyed reading about the roots of our public school system. The article was very brief, but not to a fault. The writing was concise and painted a clear picture in my mind regarding the evolution at hand. Although only one source was used, the piece was pretty much a history lesson and only needed one to get its point across, in my opinion. The other two were longer, more example-filled commentaries, one relating to an extremely poignant current event and the other a look into the world of headlines. I believe both of these articles did an especially good job utilizing all three of the Big 3: ethos, logos, and pathos. They both used colorful language to stress the importance of each topic, while maintaining credibility through the use of research and examples. Like "Criminal rape cases should not be a ticking clock", I gained insightful knowledge surrounding important topics, without the pieces being overly opinionated.

Overall, while both genres were equally enjoyable for me to read, there were some clear differences. The op-eds were much shorter and more opinionated, while utilizing a more casual approach. The JSTOR Daily articles had a more academic feel to them and relied less heavily on opinions. I think both are important, effective ways of communicating thoughts and ideas relevant to today. The op-eds are great discussion starters and ways for people to gain a perspective contrary to their own, while JSTOR offers a more scholarly way of gathering facts that might support or disprove an argument at hand. I must say, I enjoyed this week's reading far more than last week's and hope to further spark my curiosity by diving deeper into these genres.