Vedaant Vyas
Writing 120
Professor Lovas
Mini Rhetorical Analysis Rough Draft
The Undefeated, a website that discusses sports and culture, wrote an article about the
term “owners” in the NBA, and the negative connotations associated with the term. This article
was written due to recent events involving NBA owners.
Martenzie Johnson, argues that the term “owner” in the NBA makes the league
executives think they have the mentality that they are free to do whatever they want, and
whenever they want, just because they are called “owners”. Johnson uses rhetoric very
effectively to argue his point, and he does this by describing and analyzing events that support
his claim, as well as aligning with Lloyd F. Bitzer’s views on rhetoric.
According to Bitzer, we can see why Johnson’s article is indeed effective in
strengthening his central argument, which is that NBA owners have the mentality that they can
do whatever they want towards their predominantly African-American players, due to them
holding the title of “owner”. Bitzer makes it clear that he believes specific situations create
rhetoric discourse, and in Johnson’s article, this is the case. The term “owner” has been used ever
since the NBA’s inception in 1947. It was not always a huge issue, however. It is recent events
that have happened that caused this article to be written, meaning that Bitzer Is correct. Johnson
describes an incident in 2005, in which Los Angeles Clippers owner Donald Sterling would
bring women into the locker room after games to show to the team’s players, who were
predominantly African American. Sterling would often mention to the women, “Look at those
beautiful black bodies.”(Johnson). In this case, the situation was Sterling’s locker room antics,
and the discourse is what Johnson proclaims to his audience, who in this case are the owners of
the NBA, as well as the other readers of his article, as well as NBA fans in general. Not only
does this support Bitzer’s claims, but it supports Johnson’s claim that owners think that they are
free to do what they want just because of their title.
The main reason that this article was written however, was for an incident in 2019
involving Toronto Raptors guard Kyle Lowry, who is African-American, and the Golden State
Warriors minority owner, Mark Stevens. Stevens shoved Lowry as he was chasing a loose ball
headed towards the stands. To further support Johnson’s argument, it is worth noting that there
were many fans that came into contact with Lowry when he was going after the ball, and Stevens
was not one of those fans who were in close proximity to Lowry. However, with him holding the
title of “owner”, he felt that it was okay to shove Lowry, despite the fact that he was not even on
the team that Stevens partially owned, which was the Golden State Warriors. The reason that this
strengthens Johnson’s argument is that it proves that NBA owners have a different mentality,
hence the fact that Stevens was the one out of all the fans that shoved Lowry. Bitzer explains that
it is really the details of the situation that creates rhetoric, and in this case, small details like this
are important.
Johnson’s article is also very effective since throughout his article, he is very clear and
concise in what he is describing. He describes events exactly as they happened, and he is not
afraid to mince words, even though they may catch people off-guard. The main strength of
Johnson’s article is that his examples completely support his argument. Going back to Bitzer’s
views, we can safely conclude that if these situations had not happened, Johnson’s argument
would have been very ineffective, since his audience would not see why the term “owner” would
be negative. However, due to what happened, Johnson’s argument is strengthened, and his
audience does not have any doubts.
In conclusion, Martenzie Johnson uses rhetoric very effectively while demonstrating to
his audience why the term “owner” provides the wrong mentality for NBA owners, especially
when it comes to how they treat African-American men.