In the wake of NPR firing Juan Williams, Michael Moore wrote him an open letter, acknowledging that his comments about Muslims, terrorism and political correctness weren’t grounds for dismissal. He stopped far short of giving him a pass however, briefly jabbing him on his motivation to contribute to Fox. He then looked beyond NPR’s judgment, examining half-truths and distortions in statements Williams made about Faisal Shahzad and the motivations of terrorists. He concluded with a challenge for Williams to use his new deal with Fox to invite Moore on for “in-depth discussions about the terrorists' real motivations.” Moore made a compelling argument both in defense of Williams’ call to speak plainly about terrorism, but also to take that opportunity to tell the truth.
Michael Moore used ethos in demonstrating his moral character by insisting that Juan Williams use his newly-attained position with Fox to finally allow the truth to be heard about why terrorists do what they do. The American people value the truth over fabrications and posturing on such issues and the article clearly called Williams’ bluff. This prompts readers to pay closer attention to his rhetoric as he starts contributing to Fox exclusively.
Regardless of the political affiliation of the readers, the article uses pathos to tap into frustration over the whole firing/censorship debacle. Conservatives would be drawn in with Moore calling NPR out on their decision, and Liberals would laud the call for a discussion about what really drives people to extremism. Moore’s sense of urgency became evident in his phrasing, suggesting that Juan hasn’t gone “far enough”, and that he should join him on a “mission” to inform people of the truth.
He also employed logos to make his case, citing quotes of Shahzad from various sources which contrast with William’s account. The inconsistencies are stark, showing misinterpretation of Shahzad’s motives at best and divisive propaganda at worst. This is the most effective argument for the honest political discussion about the issue that Moore is referring to.
In both his defense and criticism of Williams, Michael Moore gave a provocative, effective call to action to inform citizens of what’s really behind the terrorist threat. The article attempted to take the problem of the media’s overreaction and lack of discourse and turn it into a positive dialogue; One that will inform citizens instead of play to their fears and further confuse them with contradictions.
No comments:
Post a Comment