Think before you speak.

Memory is a tool you can use but you can sometimes make mistakes, no matter who you make sure you have the sources to prove your points or make sure you are ready to hold yourself accountable.

THIS PARAGRAPH IS WAY TOO LONG. MAKE SHORTER PARAGRAPHS.

In the article written by Chabris and Simons, they are stating how one’s memory can often fail us. They go and give an example of Neil Degrasse Tyson once quoted ex-president Bush on a matter during 9/11. During this article, they use logos to present their argument, they state all the facts that support their argument. For example, they say how no one could ever find the specific quote that Mr. Tyson was talking about, nowhere was that quote found and Mr. Tyson did react in a very defensive matter, to begin with. I don’t think that was the only point they were trying to prove, I think they were trying to explain that if he can misremember a certain event how can a journalist, people with higher position do the same, for bigger problems. They do state that if Mr. Tyson can own up to his mistakes why can’t bigger media outlets do the same when they clearly give out false memories? This is an argument that seems to hit a bigger issue. This article uses many forms of rhetorical forms, such as logos when they start presenting the evidence that even Mr. Tyson could be incorrect in such a very important matter, he is a very respected individual in the science space and he did make a mistake but he did accept it and stated that he was wrong. He even commented on the article and posted links to his explanation and going further in on what could have happened. He gives a very scientific explanation to a very common matter. The whole tone of his article is very factual yet also very fair in explaining it. He is very direct in his responses and also he is not being rude while stating facts, his overall tone was factual but not rude. I don’t believe that Chabris or Simons were playing with emotions in the article, I do believe that It was more factual in the sense that they looked for the evidence on what Mr. Neyo presented in his speech on multiple. I think they just wanted to hold him accountable for such a strong and bold thing to say about Mr. Bush. The comments on the article include Mr. Neyos linking both facebook post explaining on the matter. The other two were both very different in the way that they spoke; he used logos to show proof that Mr. Bush is not intelligent, he posted quotes on the things that he has spoken in the past, most of them are cringeworthily while some just make you question how he even became president. In the other comment, Mr. Sommer uses the ethical appeal to not help but be more understanding too when people make mistakes and states that if they are willing to admit to their faults and try to correct it we should let them slide and not be so harsh on a human. I believe that the New York Times approach to the comment ranking is very effective, it does give you a different perspective from the author that has written the article.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: