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. It appears to be that Trump’s public war of the media has started to be turned against him. After Trump declared open war against the media at his impromptu press conference last month, it seemed as though the media was not going to take it, as seen in Steve Benen’s recent article, “Team Trump’s Russian communications come into sharper focus.”
After Michael Flynn’s security scandal there have been two more outing more of Trump’s staff as having not only communicated with Russian officials, but lied about it. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, J.D. Gordon, and Carter Page have all been implicated in this story. Benen takes the tone of someone standing back, laughing, as an enemy of his blows himself up; several times he during this article he talks as if he sarcastically telling Trump or his allies to try and dispute him, “Before Trump’s allies start denouncing these revelations as “fake news,” it’s worth noting that the Times’ report is based on information voluntarily disclosed.”(Benen 64-65). This line acts as a battlecry; a way for Benen to say, come at me because you did this to yourself. It shows once again this lack of respect for Trump that Benen has. He conveys this idea even more with his choice of words, “The fact that White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer argued earlier this week that the Russia scandal had run its course… is increasingly hilarious.”(71-72). His choice of the word “increasingly”, adds to this feeling that he already found it funny before, but now he couldn’t contain himself anymore, and that he felt as though Spicer and the Trump administration were digging a hole for themselves that he took large amounts of amusement from. Not only that but rather than just being happy about the news he was in a state of hilarity. Link to the article: http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/team-trumps-russian-communications-come-sharper-focus Op-ed Analysis #1: What most voters and Trump's white house aides have in common by Steve benen.1/27/2017 What most voters and Trump’s White House aides have in common, an article by Steve Benen, shows a lack of respect that Trump’s White House aides have with him. Benen starts by saying that Trump’s advisors say that he acts like a “petulant child”(Benen 2). His diction here evokes thoughts of an impatient crying child that does what he wants when he wants to. He is clearly biased with his word choice as he goes on to say, “they suggest Trump’s own team is a little too eager to dish to the press about their unprepared boss.” Words like “unprepared” in that statement, make you feel as though Benen already thought that Trump was unprepared to be president and that this information was simply reaffirming his beliefs (Benen 12-13).
The anti-Trump bias appears again with Benen's imagery, "Highlighted the Presidents limitless sense of grievance"(8). This gives you the picture that Trump is looking to be offended, or that he has one of the strongest self-esteem issues of any of the former Presidents. He also uses imagery to show that this type of behavior has happened before with Trump aides, "dished about the chaotic cage match at Trump HQ"(23). This sentence quite clearly brings about images of finely dressed people fighting in a UFC style environment. He does this to show that conflict exists between Trump and the people there to help him. Benen's political leanings also emerge in his tone as he develops the article. Throughout it he talks in a tone that sounds matter of factually that Trump would act like this, "At a certain level, this doesn’t come as too big of a surprise"(22). Benen sounds as though he was expecting this to be the deal with Trump's regime. The italicization of too in that sentence also builds on the frankness, because it emphasizes that it wasn't a surprise. The purpose of this article was to place a sense of disbelief, but also a sense of anger into the readers. Benen wants the readers to be shocked that the person that is supposed to lead them is unable to hold his attention on anything that is important for a length of time. Because of this disbelief the reader will become incited at the notion that someone with a job that is as important as the presidency, prefers to watch tv than care about the needs of themselves or their families. |
AuthorArchives
May 2017
Categories |