http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/trump-reveals-he-asked-comey-whether-he-was-under-investigation-n757821
In an interview with Lester Holt, Donald Trump revealed that he had asked former director of the FBI, James Comey, whether or not he was under investigation. Comey responded by saying no, but it was still seen as an odd question by some. Later Trump went on to say that the FBI had his full support in the investigations into the connection between Trump and Russia. This support was seen as fake by some because Trump only gave his support after finding out that he was not under investigation. This article was written by two authors, Ali Vitali and Corky Siemaszko. The purpose of the article is to inform the public about the inconsistencies in the story. While it maintains a level of neutrality there is still a left lean to the story. They don’t show any evidence from the opposite side except for when there was a way to show that there was an inconsistency or when the Trump administration said two different things about the same event. The article keeps a fairly consistent tone throughout, keeping it scholarly and professional. It isn’t trying to sensationalize the story but rather its subtly pointing out the deviations in the story. The article relies heavily on appealing to ethos, “Several legal experts told NBC News the president's action was improper.” Saying that legal experts gave them that information backs up their claims that Trump acted poorly in that instance. Both authors throughout the article also refer to several senators and congressmen which backs up further what they are trying to do. Using the name recognition of a senator sets up your credibility by showing that you know what you are doing and are somewhat recognizable.
0 Comments
OP-ed analysis #4: Following trumps comey firing republicans flunk their test by steve benen5/12/2017 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/following-trumps-comey-firing-republicans-flunk-their-test#break
Following Trump’s Comey firing, Republicans flunk their test by Steve Benen On May 10th Donald Trump fired the acting FBI director James Comey. While the real reasons for the firing are unclear, it has been speculated that it happened because of the ongoing investigation the Russian government and the Trump administration. The Republican majorities in the Senate and House have been asked to respond to the White House’s actions. And they have responded as many hoped they wouldn’t, by largely backing Trump’s actions even though some see it as a way to silence opposition. Benen comes back to his old ways in this article by coming back as aggressive and confrontational as ever. Once again Benen’s tone is aggressive, just as it was in several of the other articles examined earlier, “A foreign adversary attacked our democracy, the president’s team may have cooperated in the scheme, and GOP lawmakers, asked to put country over party, have effectively declared, ‘No.’” Benen’s sarcastic wit also shows through in this article, “‘Today, we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.’ Oh. We’re apparently supposed to believe investigating the scandal would interfere with an investigation of the scandal.” The use of strong informal diction shines through in this article, “Confronted with a possible constitutional crisis, Republicans, with too few exceptions, have chosen indifference. A foreign adversary attacked our democracy.” He used adversary to describe Russia. This paints a very clear picture of how Benen views the scandal. It isn’t something that should be taken lightly because he treats it as an invasion of sorts. Not one that invaded our soil but “attacked our democracy.” Benen’s purpose is to attack the Republican party for their defense of Trump. He goes after them several times in the article and doesn’t even bother to deliver a counter argument. This shows a level of cockiness, like he doesn’t believe that there is an argument against him. Benen appeals largely to Ethos in this article. He often uses the names of senators to further what he is saying, “Judiciary Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) told Fox News, ‘Suck it up and move on.’...Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who’s done as much as anyone to shield Trump from any kind of accountability in the Russia scandal, said, ‘Today, we’ll no doubt hear calls for a new investigation, which could only serve to impede the current work being done.’” This establishment of credibility works to help his claims because they are people that are involved in the investigation. OP-Ed Analysis #3 Dems host town hall meetings in health care gop districts by steve benen5/11/2017 http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/dems-host-town-hall-meetings-health-care-gop-districts
Democrats have been needing an inroad to attempt to weaken the power of the Republican Majority in the House and Senate, and they may have just found a way to do just that. After the passing of the new Republican Health Care act in the House days ago there has been a strong backlash from constituents and some republicans who voted for the bill have remained silent. Democrats have seized on the opportunity to possibly shift district leanings in two states. The strategy is simple, call the Republicans out on why they voted for the bill, hold an impromptu town hall meeting and wait for the Republicans to not show up. This was the story covered by Steve Benen on the 9th of May. In what was a far more reserved article then usual Benen keeps to his political leanings while also showing off the benefits of this new strategy from the Democratic party. Benen’s liberal opinions come out once again in this article, “The Republican representative in the neighboring district, Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.), backed his party’s regressive plan, took his office’s phones off the hook”(Lines 5-9). His use of regressive points out his thoughts on the bill. He isn’t trying to keep it hidden. Benen believes that the bill is harmful and backwards and he isn’t afraid to show it. This type of concrete diction continues on, “Rachel [Maddow] described it last night as a “new form of protest,” which it clearly is. I also think it’s quite clever.”(26-29) This ‘clever’ is used to clearly show what his opinions of the strategy are. The idea of holding town hall meetings to slowly turn Republican or Moderate constituents into Democratic constituents isn’t just smart to Benen, it’s ‘clever’. This denotes a feeling of ingenuity and pioneering about something that Rachel Maddow described as a “new form of protest”. Throughout the article, Benen’s tone on the action stays consistent. It’s a much more academic tone, while still trying to sound somewhat conversational it maintains a much less excited tone then in past articles. This is visible when he is discussing the reasons for the town-hall meetings, “The Republican representative in the neighboring district, Rep. John Faso (R-N.Y.), backed his party’s regressive plan, took his office’s phones off the hook, and decided not to host a local event to explain to his constituents why he’d voted for legislation that would do so much deliberate harm.”(5-12). Normally Benen would have been all over an action like this. Instead he maintains professionalism and doesn’t use it as a chance to attack the Republican party, other than the use of regressive. |
AuthorArchives
May 2017
Categories |