Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Forgive Them, Father"

In this blog, I will be analyzing "Forgive Them, Father" written by Jeff Turrentine from OnEarth, based on the appeals to credibility or character, emotion, and logic.

ejaugsburg "Environmental Protection" accessed via Pixabay
Uploaded 2014 CC0 Public Domain

Appeals to Credibility/Character

• Turrentine uses references to credible sources, relevant word choice and some jargon, a sarcastic yet informed formal tone, gives a brief look at his own public stance on the issue, and appeals to values and beliefs from both sides of the issue.
• OnEarth states in their mission statement that accuracy of information and basis in scientific fact are of the utmost importance, right next to encouraging a unique opinion from the author.  This is absolutely represented in Turrentine's article, in which he hyperlinks to outside information, and includes quotes, facts, and names of involved parties.  
• Facing such a negative stigma from climate change deniers, requires solid credible information and a strong relatable voice.  By incorporating credible sources and establishing their authority within the text, Turrentine automatically seems like a more educated relelvant author.
• Ex. "Emory political scientists Steven Webster and Alan Abramowitz"
• The article, in my opinion is a very well-written piece.  Of course I will admit to a personal bias of being very attached to this particular topic, but the way Turrentine presents the information is still very effective.  Turrentine creates a character of himself for the audience that is passionate enough about the information to be knowledgeable, but not biased to the point of being unpalatable.
• Turrentine works at OnEarth, a very environmentally active news source, as is also a self-claimed climate activist.  His bias is very obviously towards supporting the Pope speaking on climate change.  However, his purpose on the article is addressing the changes that such a stance will cause on the religious and non-religious community.  From his perspective he address how combining such a touchy topic with coming from the voice of a religious figurehead will cause some obvious chaos.  Thus, he partly removes his own opinion about climate change from the issue and offers up a possible future scenario and why it might happen.  Therefor, I did not find his credibility on the issue marred due to how he organized and wrote the article.

Appeals to Emotion

• Turrentine uses repetition, a mixture of informality and formality, humor, and tone of voice.
• Turrentine keeps his formality with accurate scientific information but pushes towards being more informal with sarcasm and humor.  This allows for a wider breadth of people to read the article and understand the topic at greater depth.  This keeps the reader engaged with interesting relevant information and humorous language which already reads as more credible than the flip-side, entirely opinionated ranting.
• He keeps his tone light and professional to keep a personable relationship with the audience.  It is much more difficult for the audience to passively leave angry comments when they were required to calmly read and think about the information first.  They are also less likely to find fault in a author who uses relatable language and appeals directly to their values.
• The piece becomes infinitely more entertaining when humor is used.  After reading dozens of incredibly dry or overly angry articles about climate change, personally it was very refreshing to find such a balanced article.  One of my favorite portions of the article was the great introduction to his article about the Heartland Institute,
•  "Their stated goal for the visit - in their own words, including exclamatory punctuation - has been "to inform Pope Francis of the truth about climate change.  There is no global-warming crisis!" The timing of their trip, like that desperate-seeming exclamation point, is telling" (Turrentine p. 1-2).
• In terms of effectiveness towards the audience, I think because of the subjective nature of humor and it's context of a very controversial topic, it could either annoy or loosen up the audience.  If the audience clicks on the article angry and with hopes of angry commenting, the humor might be detrimental.  For those of the still confused or openly liberal audience, this humor might be a refreshing change from the general media.
• I found the humor to enhance the logic of the text.  As in the Heartland example, I would have passed by that quotation without a second glance.  The humorous note on the exclamation point being "desperate" pointedly characterized the deniers in a tumultuous situation.  They had realized the public culture on climate change was about to get a lot more murky.

Appeals to Logic

• Turrentine used some statistics, expert opinions, and effective organization.
• Most of the logic portion of this article comes from his use of comments from relevant sources like Cardinal Peter, Steven Webster, Alan Abramowitz, Erza Klein, the Public Religion Institute, and the Heartland Institute.
• The author wants to make sure he accurately represents the ideologies and opinions from his referenced parties.  It adds both a layer to his argument and his credibility.  The comments and information are also a form of perspective for the audience on the individuals involved in the situation.
• The result is a more quotable and accurate paper that can be published on a scientific level news source such as OnEarth.
• While incorporating as much logic as possible seems like it could only benefit a piece, when being presented to the general public, appeals to emotion and credibility are also incredibly important.  The audience needs to stay engaged in order to want to understand the logic being presented.  Turrentine did a good job of mixing information with a lot of analysis and witty commentary.

REFLECTION:

After reading Swati's and Sam's, I found my own blog a little too blocky.  I liked how they really broke up the bullets and the questions and made it easier for the audience.  Still, I would like to keep my blog in it's rambling form, as I used this blog to discover exactly how much of a bias I had.  I spent a long time revising this and trying to eliminate my own bias in my analysis, which was very difficult.  When looking back at this for my final draft, I will make sure to remember how my bias effected my writing and what methods I used to try to eliminate it.