Stewart
1
Jon Stewart
Curtis Le Van
ENC 1102
21 August 2010
Political Speech
Bloomberg, Michael R. Speech. Office of the Mayor. NYC.gov. New York City. 3 Aug. 2010.
Web. 20 Aug. 2010.
[http://home.nyc.gov/html/om/html/2010b/media/pc080310_govisland512k.asx].
Bloomberg gave this speech to show his support for the construction of a mosque near
Ground Zero and to encourage Americans to join him in this support. In giving his speech,
Bloomberg and his staff made many decisions in rhetoric, mostly through making several
appeals of pathos to the viewers of the speech. To start, the speech occurred outside rather than
inside, which suggests Bloomberg’s attempt at transparency. Having the speech in his office
may make the speech seem stuffy and purely political. By having it outdoors, viewable by all
the public, he comes across as being very open and concerned about the citizens of New York.
Bloomberg also speaks with the Statue of Liberty in the background, creating a feeling of
patriotism. Having such a setting is a clear appeal to pathos. In addition, Bloomberg wears a pin
in the shape of the American flag on the lapel of his suit, and this goes along with the patriotism
of the Statue of Liberty. Since many believe that having an Islamic center so close to Ground
Zero is un-American, Bloomberg is fighting this idea by having so much Americana around him.
Also, Bloomberg uses ethos by surrounding himself with Christian religious leaders; viewers can
see that directly behind him stand a priest and a monk. By showing that he has the support of
Christian leaders, Bloomberg maintains that Americans should not let issues of religion get in the
Stewart
2
way of building the new center. Considering all the visuals in this speech (e.g. Statue of Liberty,
flag pin, and religious leaders), Bloomberg appears to alienate the opposing side by challenging
its ideas of patriotism and religion; therefore, this may not have been the best genre for
Bloomberg to make his argument.
Editorial
Friedman, Thomas L. “Broadway and the Mosque.” The New York Times. The New York
Times, 3 Aug. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2010.
Friedman asserts that allowing the mosque near Ground Zero will maintain diversity and
that this diversity will affect New York City positively. He begins his editorial by referring to
President Obama, an apparent appeal to ethos. Obama organized “A Broadway Celebration: In
Performance at the White House,” which was a concert consisting of show tunes performed by a
variety of singers. Friedman enhances the importance of the event by listing some of the
entertainers present—Audra McDonald, Nathan Lane, and Idina Menzel—another appeal to
ethos. Friedman also utilizes pathos when he refers to the diversity of the event: “African
American singers and Hispanic-American Dancers belting out the words of Jewish and Irish
immigrant composers, accompanied by white musicians whose great-great-grandparents came
over the Mayflower for all I know—all performing for America’s first black President whose
middle name is Hussein.” Then using logos, Friedman claims that diversity in the White House
is what makes the Obama administration so great, and therefore it follows that New York should
have similar diversity; however, he goes on to employ ethos to validate his logic. He refers to an
essay in Newsweek, in which an unnamed author claims that the United States needs to have a
high level of creativity to progress and that “[t]o be creative requires divergent thinking
Stewart
3
(generating many unique ideas) and then convergent thinking (combining those ideas into the
best result).” Because of the creativity and heavy bias of the article combined with the lighthearted idea of making connections between Broadway, the White House, and Ground Zero, the
genre of editorial proves very effective for this argument.
Political Cartoon
Luckovich, Mike. Cartoon. WashingtonPost.com. Washington Post, 20 Aug. 2010. Web. 20
Aug. 2010.
In this image, Luckovich argues that since New York City is already such a diverse place,
having a mosque near Ground Zero should not be a problem for anyone. By having the Statue of
Liberty in the background, he uses pathos to create a patriotic feeling for his audience. He
employs the personification of different religions to make an additional appeal of pathos. For
example, in the cartoon, Luckovich shows a Hasidic Jew, a nun, and a Muslim woman all
walking the streets of New York. These symbols strike up various emotions in viewers, and he
uses them to show his logic: since so many religious beliefs exist in New York, having a
mosque near Ground Zero should not cause a problem. Instead of being upset with the mosque,
he argues that people should realize that New York is already diverse in its religious beliefs.
Furthermore, he extends his use of logos to show that if the city does not permit the mosque, it is
unfair because other religions and ethnicities are already prevalent in the city. He does this by
having a Vietnamese restaurant and a bagel shop drawn in the image. To allow these
institutions, but not the mosque, is extremely unfair. The most poignant appeal, again, deals with
pathos. Of all the characters drawn in the cartoon, the Muslim woman is wearing the famed I
“Heart” NY shirt, showing her connection and attachment to the city. Considering that
Stewart
4
Luckovich recreates the diversity of New York in a visual manner, a political cartoon serves as a
good genre for his argument.
News Article
Vitello, Paul. “Islamic Center Exposes Mixed Feelings Locally.” The New York Times. The
New York Times, 19 Aug. 2010. Web. 20 Aug. 2010.
Vintello expresses that dialogue must remain open regarding as to whether or not an
Islamic Center, containing a mosque, should be built two blocks away from ground zero, and in
doing so he uses appeals of pathos, kairos, and ethos. He posits that if the conversation closes,
there will be much hostility toward Muslims in New York. He starts his article with interviews
from Muslim working-class citizens, such as a tailor and a trucking company manager. He tries
to show their everyday lives and their run-ins with resentment. These interviewees are not
experts or city planners regarding the mosque, but they do show how the debate affects their
daily lives, inciting sympathy with the readers. Near the end of the article, Vintello interviews
college students who know very little about the topic, but they do share their personal
experiences with the negative reactions to the building of the mosque, again suggesting pathos.
To show that now is the time to keep dialogue open, Vintello mentions the rise in anti-Muslim
graffiti near the proposed location of the new mosque. Furthermore, Vintello employs kairos
again by pointing out that since “the festivities marking the end of Ramadan this year will occur
close to Sept. 11,” the public should know what is really going on so “residents [do] not
misinterpret the party atmosphere” near Ground Zero. As for ethos, Vintello includes quotes
from Imam Shamsi Ali, the director of the Jamaica Muslim Center in Queens regarding antiIslamic sentiments. Shamsi Ali notes that the Islamophobia in New York City resembles that of
California, Tennesseee, and Staten Island. In order to prevent the stalemate debate that happened
Stewart
5
in these places, Shamsi Ali lends his expertise in stating that both sides of the debate must
remain willing to talk to one another. Since he hopes to keep dialogue open, Vintello must be
opinion-free, so he chose the right genre, news article, in expressing the need for open
discussion.
Rhetorical Appeals and Relevance:
Reflection on a News Story and Op-Ed Column
Both Paul Vitello and Thomas Friedman write on the topic of the construction of an
Islamic Center, containing a mosque, near Ground Zero in New York City. While Vitello shows
no obvious bias in his news article, Friedman does reveal his partiality within his op-ed column.
Nonetheless, both writers employ various rhetorical appeals to sway and engage their readers in
order to make the most of their arguments. After much critical reflection as to which piece has a
greater effect in convincing me, I have determined that Vitello’s piece proves more successful in
its use of rhetorical appeals than Friedman’s.
Vitello argues that dialog must remain open and that misconceptions regarding the
mosque must be fixed. To begin, Vitello starts of his piece with a convincing and sympathizing
story of two everyday Muslim men being affected by the misconceptions that many Americans
have regarding why Muslims desire to build a center near ground zero. These interviewees share
how some New Yorkers feel that this is an Islamic plot against America, but these men maintain
that it is just a coincidence that the center is so close to ground zero. Having these men share
their stories in the beginning is an appeal to the emotions, pathos, and it works well in getting the
reader’s attention.
Stewart
6
However, Vitello does not continue the piece with pure pathos but continues to make
stronger appeals through kairos and ethos. Vitello explains that communication must remain
open as to why the center is being built, so that these misconceptions can cease and Muslims can
enjoy their community center in peace. With using kairos, Vitello warns that if ignorance is not
banished immediately, many New Yorkers can misunderstand the festivities of Ramadan, which
happens to be near September 11th this year. This use of karios shows the importance of
Vitello’s argument; there may be consequences if his advice is not taken immediately. Vitello
also strengthens this appeal further by calling upon an expert, using ethos. Vitello quotes Imam
Shamsi Ali, the director of the Jamaica Muslim Center in Queens, to express that if this debate is
not cleared up, Manhattan can experience Islamophobia like other places, such as California,
Tennessee, and Staten Island. Muslim centers in these three places all experience persecution
based off their religion, and Shamsi Ali does not want this to happen to the center near Ground
Zero. By calling on an expert, Vitello shows the validity of his argument.
Friedman writes a very engaging editorial suggesting that the mosque should be built to
maintain diversity in New York City, and that this diversity will have a helpful influence by
encouraging creativity in the city. To make his argument, Friedman uses both ethos and logos
within his writing. While very entertaining to readers, his use of rhetorical appeals does not have
a direct connection to the topic of building a mosque near ground zero, unlike Vitello who has
everything tie back to the community center. Friedman starts his article by mentioning President
Obama, a clear use of ethos. However, I do not easily see how Obama has a direct link to what
is going on in New York City. Although he is the President, he has no direct influence or
jurisdiction over what is going on. Friedman introduces his concept of diversity by referring to
many big names on Broadway, similar to his use of ethos with Obama. While the entertainers
Stewart
7
are directly tied to New York City—and they show a nice example of the beauty of diversity—
these entertainers have little to do with the controversy of the mosque and offer no relevant facts
or information to the debate at hand.
However, Friedman attempts to show how Obama and the Broadway entertainers are
important to this debate by using logos; he explains that diversity has a profound impact on the
creative genius in a city, and if New York stifles diversity by not allowing the mosque to be
built, New York will hurt its creativity. He explains his logic by deferring to an expert from
Newsweek, in another obvious use of ethos. This expert explains that creativity exists when
different ideas join together to make one cohesive idea. While this part of his argument makes
sense, Friedman does little to explain exactly how a mosque will create such creativity; he just
leaves it at that. This is very similar to his appeals of ethos made with Obama and Broadway.
While these appeals attract and keep the reader’s attention, it does very little to create a solid
argument.
On the whole, I came to my conclusion by determining which appeals used by Vitello
and Friedman dealt the most with the issue at hand: building a mosque near ground zero. While
Friedman’s use of rhetoric was more entertaining, it had little connection to the situation in New
York City, and it seemed more abstract. Vitello’s article may not have been as engaging, but it
was still attention grabbing with the appeal to pathos in the beginning. Furthermore, Vitello only
uses examples and appeals that deal directly with the community center near Ground Zero, and
this makes his argument much more substantial.
End note from instructor:
Jon,
Stewart
You do an excellent job reflecting on the various rhetorical appeals used within these
genre-specific arguments. To strengthen your analyses, always be specific in explaining how a
genre strengthens or weakens an argument. You should consider this for your first entry on a
political speech. As for your essay, you suggest in the title that relevance was the determining
factor in your decision, but you do not mention this in your thesis. Strive for proper diction,
variety in word choice, and better-fitting transitional language. As with your analyses, you
demonstrate good critical thinking in the essay portion.
8