There's a new debate in the world of warfare. This time it is about silent warfare. The drones that have been created for "targeted killing" and will open the door to a completely new side of warfare. These machines are programmed to target a certain person that has been deemed an enemy of the state. They are given this title because of secret evidence that the CIA and government compile, this is how the ACLU, or American Civil Liberties Union, describes these machines.
The ACLU blog offers factual evidence in the form of lawsuits regarding this debate. The blogger uses the logos appeal to pull in the reader with these court case synopsis's. The list of potential "enemies of the state" are referred to as "kill lists" on the blog. When describing how one is added to this list, the author focuses on the secretive aspect of the process. The diction used draws the reader's attention to this and then causes them to doubt the decisions made by the government.
Using the court cases is also an example of using the pathos appeal. Upon learning that one of those killed by a drone was a 16 year old American citizen the readers are certainly going to question their stance on this debate; this is certainly what the blogger is hoping for. The tone of the blog is one that is trying to convince its readers of the faults in this new military strategy.
A similar blog is that from the Huffington Post. The header "Murder Machines" runs across the page in large, bold, red print. This is the bloggers first attempt to get the readers' attention. The tone is already given with these two words. It is obvious that the blogger intends to inform the readers of the negative impacts of these drones. The blogger addresses the killings done by American soldiers that is very rarely looked into. By using statistics, such as the amount of weaponry the U.S. owns, and how much we have spent on it, the blog gains credibility and the information adds to the debate of the drone decision.
The blog then uses a story of a U.S. Staff Sergeant killed in action. When reading about a fellow American being killed in war one would feel the need to retaliate, correct? Army officials argue that if a drone was overhead there would have been a spared life. So the blog then uses the appeal of pathos, but in a more conflicting manner. Do we use drones to protect lives? Are they really "murder machines"?
This is an extremely heated debate that is intertwined with politics, military strategy, and American welfare and safety. My reason for looking into such a controversial topic was because I was expecting to find blogs that used many strategies to convey their message, and that is what I found. I also learned quite a bit of information that I did not know before.
So would these strategies have worked on you if you were reading these blogs? If a blog is so deep in politics does it even need several strategies? Or does the amount of emotions involved in these debates suffice?
I feel as though the strategy that would best persuade me in a topic such as this is logos. I need to see facts and information in order to form an opinion on something political such as this. I could easily be persuaded one way or another based on pathos, but it would be hard for me to trust myself and the opinion I would form if I am persuaded through my emotions. If I want to make an opinion and be able to defend it I would much rather be able to defend it based off of facts because those are undeniable.
ReplyDeleteThese strategies of diction and tone in order to appeal to the reader's humanity is an effective device when representing one side of the argument. However, whenever I read blogs or articles with such strong claims, I remember it is important to read both sides of the story. There is always another perspective. War is a difficult topic to grasp and drones are one of the many controversies in the issue of what is right and what is necessary. There is a fine line that is difficult to define.
ReplyDelete