Since my last essay President Donald Trump has realized that his initial executive order banning immigrants from Iraq, Syria, Somalia, Yemen, Iran, Libya, Sudan countries was rushed. This idea was confirmed when a federal judge blocked the order from being enacted hours prior to the order taking effect. Trump received many lawsuits and because the order was rushed there were too many loopholes for the executive order to survive. Since then President Trump has been trying to implement a revised version of the order that would contain less loop holes and hopefully make the order a long term one. According to the New York Daily News the revision is simply “Putting lipstick on a pig” and as I read in the two articles on the status of Trump’s revised immigrant ban I noticed that one of the articles had a clear bias and the other one had less of a bias. The first article, “Immigrant Advocates Hail Ruling Blocking President Trump’s Travel Ban”, came from the Wall Street Journal who tends to have slightly more conservative views but in this article they remained fairly neutral by simply stating both sides of the story. The second Article, “Immigrant advocates compare Trump’s new travel ban to putting lipstick on a pig”, was from New York Daily News which I noticed is a liberally leaning source. These articles helped me clarify the total status of the ban and what each side thinks about the ban.
Sometimes articles are written in a way that attempts to persuade the reader into agreeing with their belief or opinion. Having said that, persuasion and influence should not be confused for each other. Certain methods of persuasion attempt to sway the targets opinions into something they previously did not hold. This can lead to thoughtless actions from the target and loss of individual critical thinking if the target is persuaded by emotion or simply through authority. The article from the Wall Street Journal was fairly neutral and it gave both sides of the story fairly well. I don’t think they had an underlying direction they wanted to take the reader but they use facts and direct quotes from both sides of the issue to represent each side’s opinion of the matter. That is why I believe the author is using a Logos mode of persuasion because he leaves logic as the method that will persuade the reader into taking up a certain opinion. When I was using the fact checker to check the details of the story I found that the key information presented was true. This helps make my claim that the author is using logos as the persuasion tactic all the more credible. The tone of the article was mundane and straight to the point so it provided less entertainment but presented the information clearly. Sadly articles like these will get less attention then over dramatic ones because many readers now a days are looking for information and entertainment at the same time.
In the second article, “Immigrant advocates compare Trump’s new travel ban to putting lipstick on a pig”, we can tell right from the title that the article would speak more about the resistance to the order then anything else. This article uses pathos as its main mode of persuasion along with a subtle element of logos due to some of the facts included that back the emotionally driven opinions. It uses more emotion because the article is only quoting opinionated people opposed to the order. The article fails to address both sides of the story and fails to go into detail about the changes made to the order. The main fact that was mentioned was about how Iraq was left off the revised order and I found that fact to be true when using my fact checker. It is interesting that the author made this fact seem insignificant by only briefly mentioning it and immediately returning to quoting people who were very opposed to the ban. The articles tone was one of discontent and of anger towards the executive order. Although it is interesting to look at the intentions of the articles it is also important to point out logical fallacies of the actual story.
The point of Donald Trump’s executive order banning all immigrants from 7 countries was to stop possible terrorist from entering the country. This action calls into question whether Donald Trump has fully considered information from intelligence agencies to make the best decisions possible. In his executive order the areas banned are all prominently Muslim populated countries. It is possible that Donald Trump is committing the hasty generalization fallacy by only focusing on terror groups from a certain area or culture. This quote from Donald Trump “According to data provided by the Department of Justice, the vast majority of individuals convicted of terrorism and terrorism-related offenses since 9/11 came here from outside of our country.” has been found to be mostly false when I was fact checking. If the president can’t even relay accurate information it makes me question his motives for the order. It would also be interesting to talk to some of the soldiers deployed in these areas who interact with these people on an everyday basis. Of the two articles the wall street journal does a better job at staying neutral. The New York daily on the other hand digs deeper into its own opinion which helps the reader question the legitimacy of the order but in doing so loses its neutral stance. Donald Trump is new to politics so he is learning quickly how difficult implementing controversial legislation is. These first few months will be ones in which he will learn many things about the position and he will become more effective as time goes on.