Now set a timer for 40 minutes and tackle this rhetorical analysis from the 2017 AP Exam. Open this link https://apcentral.collegeboard.org/pdf/ap-english-language-frq-2017.pdf and scroll down to page 11.
In your comments, you must read your classmates essay and score it from 0-9. Give rationale for the score you assigned.
Just as an aside, you might find it advantageous to peak at the other essay prompts from this link. If you want to do well on the exam, you need to practice. You can go directly to the AP Central website and find tons of information. Remember, this is your opportunity to do well. Lots of people crap out just when the race is almost over. Don't crap out on me. It's crunch time. I want you all to do your very best. If you do that, you won't have to live with regret.
In a speech presented to the Women's National Press club, Clare Boothe Luce "criticizes the tendency of the press to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for sensational stories." Similar to a child attempting to abate parental anger before they confess to something they have done wrong, Luce begins her speech with an introduction intended to dissipate tension and give the audience members a chance to prepare themselves for the message to follow.
ReplyDeleteAt the beginning of her speech, Luce emphasizes the point that the audience asked for her criticism by repeating the same point three times throughout the introduction. This is the first hint for the audience to brace themselves for the difficult, yet honest, message to follow. The audience is also more likely to receive the message with grace because Luce, a journalist as well, relates to the struggles of her audience and conveys a lot of understanding in her message. This common attribute shared between audience and speaker serves as an appeal to ethos and captures the respect of the members of the Women's National Press Club.
Additionally, Luce's choice of diction throughout the introduction helps to effectively ease the audience into the difficulty of the subject that is to follow. Luce describes journalists as forgiving, the pursuit of the truth journalists are tasked with as delicate and hazardous, and the American press by saying, "even though there is much wrong with the American press, there is also much that is right with it." Through these words, Luce appeals to the pathos of the audience by instilling in them a sense of pride for what they do. Even an ordinary reader, such as myself, can find respect for the journalistic profession within Luce's words.
Taking on the role of a child preparing their parents for a message that will undoubtedly spark anger, Clare Boothe Luce was able to effectively set the tone of the message to follow her introduction. Luce's diction and her ability to relate completely to the struggles faced by the Women's National Press Club made it so the audience members would more readily listen to and accept her message without anger.
Sophie,I think your piece is well deserving of a 7. You hit all the points I was expecting. I think there is something missing, but I can't quantify it. Alternatively it's 8 A.M. and I just woke up. Can't tell...
DeleteI'm going to have to agree with Bruce on this one and give you a 6 or a 7 Sophie. You hit the main points even in a really rough time constraint, which is extremely hard. The reason why it's a 6 or a 7 is because I personally think that you could have used more direct quotes from the passage, but then again that's a personal preference so take it with a grain of salt. But overall, well done Sophie and keep up the good work.
DeleteSophie, I enjoyed your example of a child attempting to abate parental anger before they confess to something they did wrong. It tied in well with your rhetorical analysis! Well done.
ReplyDeleteI forgot to rate yours. I am giving you a 7 because of your good examples! With more time you could have used more direct quotes from the text and mentioned more about her use of rhetorical styles!
DeleteClare Boothe Luce spoke at a conference for the Women's National Press Club. While there, she was asked to critique the work of the women and organizations present in a broad way. Throughout the passage, she establishes ethos and logos and she keeps pathos to a minimum. This serves to strengthen her argument both in structure as well as in delivery and reception by the audience.
ReplyDeleteShe begins her speech by discussing the irony and fragility of the situation of her critiquing the press when it is their job to do just that. Mrs. Lucy makes it clear that this talk will be one of great effort and control, but by saying that - showing that she does not want to give the talk - she inadvertently has already began critiquing them. This is a wonderful art. She has planted the seed in their mind without them realizing it. This serves to set the stage for the rest of the passage to land where it should in their minds.
The body of the passage is loosely designed as an a question and response format. This is also intended to keep the audience in good spirits and keep any emotional response minimal and isolated. By doing this, she also utilizes a sort of Socratic method, one that is quintessential to problem solving. She has a very minimal risk of losing the audience’s attention or professionalism.
The remainder of the recount is similar to the first. Clare Luce restates her earnesty directly and takes a mentor type of stance in saying “...I ask you to accept some of the good with the bad.” This all wraps the paper up nicely and it seals her credibility - ethos - as a teacher and mentor, not a journalist. The beauty of this piece is that it still rings true today and the words in the paper can be just as effective today as they were 40-some years ago.
Bruce, I would give your essay a score of either a 6 or 7. You picked out the main aspects and expressed them to the reader thoroughly. Also, the metaphorical phrase in which you describe her planting the seeds in their mind was a very nice touch. You did a nice job of including direct quotes and mentioning what types of ethos, logos, and pathos were conveyed throughout. Obviously with the time-constraint of 40 minutes it’s difficult to go into detail, but you did a very nice job of getting to the point with the time given. I really enjoyed reading your piece!
DeleteBruce I'm going to have to give you a 6, but a good 6. Although that statement sounds confusing, it's a compliment. Your analysis was brief but concise at the same time, which is really good. My critique is you definitely need to include more direct quotations from the passage because (I think) it is a requirement for sevens and eights. But overall well done within the time constraint, just make sure you include direct quotations and you can easily bump up that score.
DeleteI'll definitely say that yours is worthy of at least a 7. You managed to tackle all of the points without repetitively focusing on specific parts of the text. You really understood the reasoning of her words were able to write it down in a way that I'd be incapable to do. Your analysis resonated the same topics that I noticed but you actually managed your words in order to write down somewhat vague and confusing ideas. Reading through yours was actually a joy because of how well you presented it with concise terminology.
DeleteBruce, you really showed a high understanding of this piece, which is very impressive considering the time constraint. For that, I would give this argument a 7. Your deep understanding and well-developed and organized writing was really impressive. To improve, you could have considered arguing information from the end of the speech, because it seems that you focused mostly on the beginning of the text.
Deleteyoyoyo
Deletewassup homie
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe American journalist and politician Clare Booth Luce seemingly prepares her audience for criticism in order to promote change and honesty through a mixture of epideictic and deliberative rhetoric.
ReplyDeleteMiss Luce introduces herself as being "happy and flattered to be a guest of honor," but she still has an inner conflict regarding the speech that she was called to give because of its provocative nature. In order to remove a certain degree of provocativeness, Miss Luce states that this criticism is not coming out of nowhere, but rather she was "asked to tell you what is wrong with you" so her insults aren't unprovoked, afterall she was requested to do so. She does so in order to ease some of the bitter and angry emotions that she is about to evoke in her following statements, which she recognizes when she states "the speaker who criticizes the weaknesses and pretensions... of his listeners-even at their invitation- does not generally evoke an enthusiastic response." She then concludes her second paragraph with a reference to Billy Graham and Bishop Sheen in order to create a juxtaposition between herself and the widely renowned religious orators. Then finally in her third paragraph she reminds her audience that "I am a volunteer for this subject tonight. You asked for it!" The style and rhetoric she uses throughout her first three paragraphs isn't to appear as cowardice, but rather stating her purpose and easing her audience into the critiques to follow so that her audience is more willing to listen rather than react irrationally.
Miss Luce then begins her fourth paragraph with the rhetorical question "What is good journalism all about" in order to engage her audience. She then delays the answer to this question, that is "the pursuit of an the effort to state the truth, in order to highlight the impact that the news and over sensationalizing it has on the people, as it is their primary source of knowledge during the 1960s. She goes on to state that "the pursuit of the truth, and the articulation of it, is the most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks," but there is a margin for human error in this and that is why Miss Luce states "no audience is more forgiving to the speaker who fails or stumbles in his own pursuit of it." She goes on to state that the true vice of the media is not that they are failing in the pursuit of truth but rather over sensationalizing and creating their own manipulated form of it.
Miss Luce goes on to reveal her purpose of the night will be correcting these wrongdoings. She brings it down to the ground level by stating that the press will have to "accept some of the good with the bad" because the harsh reality of the situation is that there is a lot of good and a lot of bad out in the world, but when it is over sensationalized it can radicalize a group of people because the rhetorical impact the newspaper has. She then encourages her audience to listen when she states "the U.S. daily press today is not inspiringly good; it is just far and away the best press in the world" which makes it seem as if she has the answer to mend this issue.
Throughout the beginning of her speech, Miss Luce articulates her argument in such a way so that it would not follow an adhominem nature, and thus becoming provocative, but rather informing her audience of the impact they have and what is occurring due to these falsehoods, thus establishing the common good of it. By using their modern day comparisons and a simple rhetorical question she engages her audience into higher level thinking in order to reveal the true issue at hand. By doing so, she applies to their morality and how immoral the press' narrative is and the impact of which it will have. Overall, she designs her argument in such a format so that it doesn't provoke, but rather appeal to the morality of the audience, thus encouraging them to listen and make a change to their over sensationalizing narrative.
I'd say this is worth a 7. You are really good at incorporating text references into your narrative. And you tend to write in a way that I don't know how to describe other than as 'by the book.' You always say the words that you mean such as epideictic, deliberative, morality, and rhetoric. I should think this adds to your writing because it is clearly shown what you mean and that you are paying attention in class. But I honestly tend to view it as too much. It seems like you're not being yourself because you're trying to fit into this view of a writer that is a direct effect of the book. That's just my view anyway. But you manage to write your analysis as a sort of story. You fit references into your text in a sort of chronological way which makes your point very easy to follow. This is a very good analysis though, that shows your understanding of the piece. Well done.
DeleteClare Booth Luce was an American journalist and politician during the 1960’s. Clare Booth Luce was given the opportunity to speak at the Women’s National Press Club in the year 1960. Luce gave her speech on the overarching issue of journalists sensationalizing stories only to discard their moral of journalism in the process. Clare Booth Luce establishes the rhetorical appeals of logos and ethos, however, she decreases the use of pathos within her speech. The use of the rhetorical appeals cannot help but aid her argument and speech to the absolute best and shed light upon the truth of her speech.
ReplyDeleteIn the beginning of her speech to the Women’s National Press Club, Luce explains that, “You have asked ME to tell YOU what’s wrong with YOU — the American press.” This shows that she is simply showing the Women’s National Press the truth of the matter and that they asked Luce to do this themselves. Clare Booth Luce, herself, is a journalist as well as a politician, which gives her an authority to understand where all of the other journalists are coming from when they give in to what the readers want. However, Clare Booth Luce neglects to use the word “we” within her speech to draw the line between the audience and herself when it comes to a journalistic approach. It is also important to note that Clare Booth Luce uses irony within her speech too. Being a politician critiquing the press is far from ordinary, especially in today’s world, as well as being a journalist who speaks against fellow journalists.
Next, Clare Booth Luce uses logic by first explaining her confusion of why the Women’s National Press Organization would pick someone to harp about everything THEY are doing wrong in their careers. “The only failure this audience could never excuse in any speaker would be the failure to try to tell the truth, as he sees it, about his subject.”
Clare Booth Luce also shows her sympathy with them, saying, “It is the effort to explain everything from a summit conference to why the moon looks larger coming over the horizon than it does when it has fully risen in the heavens. It is the effort, too, to describe the lives of men — and women —big and small, close at hand or thousands of miles away, familiar in their behavior or unfamiliar in their idiosyncrasies. It is — to use the big word — the pursuit of and the effort to state the truth.” She explains that it is important too to see that many may struggle to find the good, true, and beautiful TRUTH, but yet it is something all of the audience should strive for. Clare Booth Luce does not try to be hostile to the audience, she uses sympathy to reason with them. The use of sympathy allows people to open their eyes instead of “pointing fingers” at each other.
Through Clare Booth Luce’s speech she exemplifies what a true rhetor is especially within her introduction. She expresses the importance of showing the real truth behind the work of everyone, not just the press. She truly does show the good, the true, and the beautiful within her speech to the Women’s National Press Organization. Clare Booth Luce concludes with the statement, “I know, then, that you will bear with me, much as it may go against your professional grain, if I ask you to accept some of the good with the bad — even though it may not make such good copy for your newspapers.”
Grace, I would say your blog is a 7/8. I think you touched on all the main points and a little extra in your analysis. I especially loved how you talked about the irony she used in her speech. You touched on things that I struggled to put into the right words. Overall, fantastic job!
DeleteI would give your blog a strong 7. I think you used direct quotes in all the right ways and pointed out ideas that most people never even that most people never give a thought. This shows a lot of potential and I think you did a great job with this!
DeleteThis is fantastic, Grace. You definitely got a lot written down in the allowed time and you used it well. I like your direct quotes and feel you stated your points well.
DeleteBoothe Luce saw an overarching theme of journalists across the country. In her 1960 speech at the Women’s National Press Club, Luce talked about the tendency of the American press to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for sensationalist stories. Luce uses the introduction into her speech to prepare the audience for her message by means of talking about the audience, explaining what journalism is about, and and current issue of preserving the truth in American journalism.
ReplyDeleteAfter Luce thanks everyone for coming, she starts out by talking about the audience in order to explain why, in fact, they have called her. The club invited her to speak in order to criticize them on their “weaknesses and pretensions” as well as “the follies and sins” of the group. She reminds them that they have invited her to do such. It shows the irony of the situation because they asked her to speak of such matters. This emphasizes to the group that she has not come there because she wants to criticize them out of her own want, but rather they want her to criticize them. They invited her to criticize them. Boothe Luce then goes on to talk about how the audience should be bored and revolted by a speaker who tries to beat around the bush in what the speaker is criticizing. In her speech, she uses the words, “fawn on it, butter it up, exaggerate its virtues, play down its faults, and who would more quickly see through any attempt to do so.” This use of parallelism places emphasis on the common practice among speakers to avoid the total truths of the fault present in the audience due to the face that they wish not to upset the crowd.
Boothe Luce shifts her speech by recognizing that the crowd is that of journalists and begins to talk about what journalism is all about. This helps her establish a basis for ground beliefs in the group so that she may continue her speech off of that set basis. She starts by posing the question, “For what is good journalism all about?” She uses anaphora to explain this question. She continually says that “it is the effort” to do this and that. This recognizes these journalists as only human, and because they are human, they make mistakes. However, this does not mean that they get the right to say whatever they please if it is not the truth. It should all be in pursuit of the truth.
Lastly, Boothe Luce addresses this issue of pursuing truth and how easy it can be to lose what is true when articulating it. However, she reminds her audience that it is easier to forgive someone who is in pursuit of the truth rather than someone who fails to even try to tell the truth.
Luce mainly appeals to ethos in her introduction, as she says there is much wrong with the press, but at the same time, she assures them that there are many good things about the American press as well. This helps them to have an open mind about what she has to say in order to better comprehend the issues at hand.
Emily, I thought your blog was very well done and Inwoild give it a 7. I especially liked the point where you talked about the persuit of the truth and forgiveness. Great job!
DeleteThis was an excellent analysis. I would probably give it about a 7. The use of quotes from the text helped create a strong analysis of Clare’s points.
DeleteEmily, I especially liked reading your blog this weekend. You did a very good job of rooting through the text and diving deep into the actual meaning. Your use of quotes was well done & you were able to wrap everything up nicely at the end. Overall, I give your essay a 7/8! Keep it up!
DeleteEmily, I especially enjoyed reading your piece! I would give your essay a score of either a 7 or an 8! You beautifully pieced everything together with the given time constraint. You mentioned that ethos is the main rhetorical style expressed throughout the speech and also included various direct quotes as well. You throughly understood the speech and took matters into your own hands with, what seems like, no trouble at all! This was a wonderful analysis!
DeleteClare Luce wrote gave this speech in 1960 to a gathering of female journalists, and she still chose to use the pronoun ‘he’ when referring to some third person entity. This is how one can know that she is focused on the subject, and the importance of the matter at hand, rather than her image or how others perceive her words. This does a great deal to start off her address and establish why she is the person that was chosen for this role.
ReplyDeleteIn the very first paragraph, she starts off with a contradiction. She announces her flattery for being there, but immediately after she states that she is less happy and more challenged than the audience could know. This shows her art of rhetoric but also that she is not pandering to her audience. She is going to attack her target no matter who stands in the way. She adds to her person by reminding the audience that she did not outright choose to be there, but she was chosen specifically to be the rock thrower. And she took on that role as best she could.
Speaking more to her words, she used words that are broad in scale and high in class. She spoke of infinite possibilities, but also of infinite perils. She has a balance in her speaking that shows her aptitude for the art. She speaks to the audience, an audience of fellow journalists. She knows that they are a people who can understand her words. And she speaks of what kind of journalist they need, they need one who is honest with her viewers. That is precisely who she claims to be. She shows her contempt for those who do not attempt to tell the truth, which leads into her greater purpose of the whole speech.
She shows her balance of writing again towards the end of this excerpt. She speaks to the downfalls of the American Press but also speaks to what is right within it. This balance is seen everywhere: happy to unhappy, possibilities to perils, and the pursuit of truth to the coming of lies. She shows her style is one to be revered, she shows that she knows what she is talking about. She knows what it means to be a good journalist. She balances an air of comedic relief to an otherwise serious piece, she shows her humanity and asks the audience to forgive her own imbalances.
She uses all of her abilities leading into her speech to establish and show how she got there and why she is going to speak the truth. All while sliding into her main message of the lack of integrity seen in the American press. She has clearly shown her worth and her use of language, she has clearly shown why she should be heard.
Christopher, I thought your blog interesting. However, it seemed like you forgot an introduction. It was odd to be thrown right into your analysis, it seemed rather harsh. Next, you did not have any quotes from her speech which made me feel rather confused throughout your analysis. For me, your words especially in the second paragraph seemed like they did not fit together. I know that 40 minutes for people is not always enough time, however, your blog just had me lost. On the other hand, I did enjoy your sentence when you said, “This balance is seen everywhere: happy to unhappy, possibilities to perils, and the pursuit of truth to the coming of lies.” Overall, I give your blog a 5-6.
DeleteI would give this about a 6. You make a lot of good claims, but in some parts you lost me, it was hard to follow. The structure and idea is there. It just needs a little more to bump it to a 7 or 8.
DeleteChris, I am going to give your essay a 5. Your very beginning was very rough, going straight into analysis, and not giving any background at all. You did do a good job on some of your points, but like the above stated, you had just as many rough spots as good spots. If you cement your ideas better I feel like you can get a higher score.
DeleteClare Boothe Luce was an American journalist and politician who was chosen to deliver a speech in 1960 at the Women’s National Press Club. In her speech she “went on to criticize the tendency of the American press to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for the sensational stories.” She uses her introduction to establish deep roots for ethos, which she carries throughout for the rest of the speech.
ReplyDeleteShe introduces her speech by attempting to ease the tension of her audience by presenting herself as trustworthy and honest. Her delightful —and seemingly weak— approach let her audience believe that she was not there to criticize them, but simply there to do her job. Luce knows that her audience of journalists does not want to hear their profession “buttered up” and expresses that when she says, “There is no audience anywhere who should be more bored—
20 indeed, more revolted — by a speaker who tried to fawn on it, butter it up, exaggerate its virtues, play down its faults, and who would more quickly see through any attempt to do so.” She does not want the audience to distrust her word, instead she wants them to embrace her with understanding. She appeals to them by exerting her struggles that she shares with the group so she seems more relatable and worthy of listening to.
The latter end of Luce’s speech built on the ethos and logos she established in the introduction. She brings pathos to the table when she says, “The only failure this audience could never excuse in any speaker would be the failure to try to tell the truth, as he sees it, about his subject.” She wants her audience to reach their forgiving and passionate nature. She also seems more trustworthy because instead of solely criticizing her audience, she explains all of the aspects that are good about journalism.
Clare Boothe Luce strongly establishes her message and trustworthy nature through her thought-out word choice. She uses her rhetorical devices to demonstrate why she is worth listening to and that they should be understanding about what she has to say.
Carly, I like how you used evidence from the text to back up your ideas. I also enjoyed how you clearly gave examples of the pathos in the speech. Well done!
DeleteI also forgot to grade yours. I would give you a 8 because you used good direct quotes from the speech and had great examples. With more time, you could have elaborated and wrote more about how she developed her speech using rhetorical strategies.
DeleteCarly, I like how you gave specific examples of where she used ethos, pathos, and logos. Your essay was easy to follow and you have great ideas that support your view. I would give this a 6 or 7. -Stephen
DeleteClare Boothe Luce, in 1960, gave a speech on an extremely controversial issue. She discussed the idea that journalists are merely writing to publish a story not to publish the news. She was in to the the Women’s National Press Club in order to deliver this speech to some who were part of this dilemma.
ReplyDeleteClare starts her introduction off by saying that the topic she will be covering can be hard to do. She also points out that she was invited to tell the club what is wrong with them. By doing this, she has covered herself in preparation for what she will address later in the speech. Clare supports her own claims by talking about her own journalism story and the struggles that come with it. This puts Clare as part of the group. She is not some amazing journalists that does everything right, because everyone makes mistakes.
In a speech on a sensitive topic, word choice is extremely important, because anything could be taken the wrong way. People were already on edge when she came in and told them that they were doing their job wrong. Clare made some excellent discussion n word choice. One of these could be how she continually referred to an audience of journalists and that the club had asked her to come. This reminds the audience that the Women’s National Press Club have seen an issue among their journalists and wants to fix it.
An effective introduction is an important part of any speech. In Clare’s speech she sets the ground work a the topic of false journalism. She approaches the manner respectfully. She knows that last thing anyone wants to hear is that they are doing their job wrong. The balance between the positives and negatives of the 1960 state of journalism helps start this speech on a peaceful manner
Jacob, I would give your blog a 6. You touched on the ideas that you should have, but I think some direct quotes from the source would have strengthened it a little. Also, I wish you would have talked about which rhetorical devices she appealed to. Overall, I think you did a nice job.
DeleteI think your blog was very good this weekend, but agreeing with Carly, it could’ve been a tad easier to follow and a touch stronger with some directly quoted pieces. So, with that being said I give your blog a 6/7.
DeleteJake I agree with these ladies and would giv you a 6. You should try to incorporate more quotes and talk about the specific rhetorical strategies. Good work otherwise!
Delete1960 American journalist and politician, Clare Boothe Luce, presented a speech at the Women’s National Press Club in order to condemn the press for the careless actions that they take in order to meet the public demand for dramatic stories. She uses a powerful introduction in order to prepare the audience for her upcoming message. Luce's usage of diction throughout the introduction helps to comfort the audience while addressing a difficult subject. By repeating the same idea thoroughly three times throughout the introduction, she prepares her audience for the upcoming truths that she is about to address. Luce relates to the conflicts of her audience members and expresses feelings of understanding in her tone. This common feeling felt by both the audience and speaker portrays ethos. She prepares her audience for her upcoming truthful, yet harsh, statement by saying, “I ask you only to remember that I am not a volunteer for this subject, You asked for it!” She describes journalists overall as forgiving, delicate and hazardous, and gives clear examples in order to prove her point. Most importantly, she appeals to pathos by making the audience feel guilty for what they do by saying, "even though there is much wrong with the American press, there is also much that is right with it." She uses appropriate diction, effective examples, and sets herself in the same position as her audience in order to create a sense of comfort. She clearly explains what makes a good, effective, journalist as well, which pertains to ethos. She comforts the audience by telling them that even if they do not believe what they hear, there is always some good with the bad, which strengthens her rhetorical strategies. By ending her conclusion with, “For the plain fact is that the U. S. daily press today is not inspiringly good; it is just far and away the best press in the world,” she effectively concluded her introduction to a powerful and educational speech.
ReplyDeleteEmily, I think you did an excellent job on your blog this week. However, if your analysis was divided into paragraphs your analysis would be more simple to read. I know that there was a time constraint, however, if your analysis went more into detail it would be different and stand out from the others. I would give you a 6 only because their was not much that seemed to be individualist. You did a good job.
DeleteI am rating your essay a 6. You said she used appropriate diction and effective examples, but I wish you would have went into further detail on that.
DeleteIn 1960, Clare Booth Luce delivered a speech to the Women’s Nation Press Club. In her speech, the introduction was used to prepare the audience for the criticisms she was about to discuss. Furthermore, she wanted to “criticize the tendency of the American press to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for the sensational stories.”
ReplyDeleteBooth Luce is able to establish her ethos early in the speech, as she explains the reasoning behind why she was chose to be the speaker. She begins by saying she is glad to be there, but overall goes against her original statement more or less by saying she was more challenged to be at club than happy because the club had asked her specifically to tell what was wrong with the journalists. She especially establishes ethos because she is the type of speaker that “criticizes the weaknesses and pretensions, or exposes the follies and sins, or his listeners—even at their invitation—does not generally evoke an enthusiastic—no less a friendly—response.” She speaks oh behalf of them wanting her to criticize them, and it is not her own want.
Later, she then follows by speaking of the reaction and how the audience should act during and after she has given her speech. “There is no audience anywhere who should be more bored— 20 indeed, more revolted— by a speaker who tried to dawn on it, butter it up, exaggerate its virtues, play down its faults, and who would more quickly see through any attempt to do so,” she says as she is trying to get the audience to keep to her word and trust what she is saying is tried and true. In this was, she establishes her logos and pathos in some ways, by once again speaking of personal experience and issues.
Wrapping up her introduction, she brings up the point of failure on the line of having to fail sometimes to succeed. She speaks in a majorly respectfully and helpful tone and is very reasonable to the audience. Luce Booth was able to get a point across and reach out to the audience in a way that many others would be unable to do.
Ellie, I really like how you perceived this! It was very easy to read and you touched on all of the three appeals. You had a good amount of evidence from the text that supported your writing greatly. If I was to nitpick, I would just say that your introduction is kind of boring, but it gets the idea across and that's what matters. Plus, it can be hard to make a rhetorical analysis interesting. If I was to give any advice, it would be to enhance your vocabulary a bit more and maybe make this a smudge longer, but then again, we only have 40 minutes so that can be hard. Overall, I give this a 7/8. I liked it!
DeleteThroughout the introduction of her speech to an audience of journalists, Clare Boothe Luce, a journalist herself and a politician, kept the writers on their toes through the use of several effective rhetorical strategies. Using her skills as a journalist, Luce developed a memorable speech that inspires even those who were not her intended audience.
ReplyDeleteLuce began her speech as any person with manners would do by stating her enjoyment in being selected as a guest of honor for the event. Suddenly, after the warm greeting, Luce creates a separation from herself and her audience by using the words “me” and “you.” This separation is significant because it shows the audience that many of her arguments would not be not be based on bias towards the American press. Luce also made known the strategies she knew would not have an impact on her listeners. In one instance, she stated, “for the banquet speaker who criticizes the weaknesses and pretensions, or exposes the follies and sins, of his listeners — even at their invitation — does not generally evoke an enthusiastic — no less a friendly — response.” By being honest with her audience and not being bias with her arguments, Luce developed credibility for herself that could be used to her benefit later on in her speech.
Throughout the introduction, Luce continually reminded her audience that she was invited “to throw rocks at [them],” or in other words, she was there to critique and criticize the people of the press. This repetition reminded the journalists that she was there to reveal their faults, but it also created an opportunity for her to evoke surprise when stating her approval. Also in her speech, Luce expanded on the importance of truth in journalism. She went on to say, “the pursuit of the truth, and the articulation of it, is the most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks.” The emphasis on both the positive and negative descriptions of truth reveals not only the problem in the American press but also the solution for it. Luce’s witty tricks to evoke emotion in her audience and state the reasons behind the press’s problems makes her speech compelling.
Clare Boothe Luce’s opening of her speech was not only effective in introducing her main points but in generating trust and initiating a sense of drive from her audience of journalists. Her use of rhetorical strategies enabled her to make a problem known and more importantly, create a sense of earnestness in the group of people who can fix it.
-Regis
Regis I am going to give your essay a 8. You did a wonderful going a little bit further and picking out somethings others did not talk about. You did a nice job quoting the text.
DeleteI am going to give you an 8 as well. You engaged with the text, and said what you needed to may very eloquently. Great job Regis.
DeleteIn a speech given by an American journalist and politician Clare Boothe Luce to journalists at the Women’s National Press Club in 1960, the audience was addressed in a different way. Luce opened her speech and immediately talked about who she was, “the guest of honor”. Establishing her ethos. She further strengthens her introduction by letting the audience in on how she feels and some of her own views. While doing this she is preparing the audience to hear her opinions that they probably would like to be left unsaid.
ReplyDeleteLuce makes sure to state that she is a journalist just like many members of the audience. She lets them know her struggles of giving this speech and tries to prepare them for what she is really about to say with statements like “you asked for it” and analogy about the moon. She developed the rest of the introduction by trying to keep them understanding with some rhetorical questions so that the audience might stay engaged and more willing of what she is going to say. In doing she then again states that she is here to share the truth of the matter. Making sure she knows she is giving the audience “what they asked for”.
I believe Clare Lace created an introduction like this one because she knows if she would have came out with the harsh stuff the audience of journalists would take her words and be very offended. She makes countless claims of making sure they know that she believes that there is much good with the American press. The life of a journalist is all about trying to sell and I do believe without this introduction she would failed at selling her message. Getting the audience to feel where she is coming from and know that she is with and for them.
Ben, I would give your rhetorical analysis a 5. It was easy to read and understand, and I agree with your views. However, I wish you would have elaborated on logos and pathos a little more because I feel like you just focused on ethos, but that is just my opinion. This is also a bit short, and you ended the analysis with a sentence fragment but that was probably a mistake. However, I liked how you mentioned her use of rhetorical questions. One last thing, try to enhance your vocab! We want you to score good on the real exam!
DeleteBen, I think this is a great blog. You stated the points you wanted to cover, and didn't write to much unnecessary garbage to lengthen your blog. I would score this a 7.
Delete-Stephen
DeleteWhat you have here is well-written, but seems like it’s lacking some elaboration and evidence in some places. To improve this, maybe you need to practice time management to help with working inside of the 40 minute period. For that, I would give this a 5 for now, but it has potential if given some elaboration!
DeleteLuce speech is one that is not completely positive, yet not negative as well. In her intro, Luce prepares her audience for the truth, and nothing but the truth. She says she is honored and flattered, but then go the opposite way by saying she is "more challenged you would know"(4-5). Luce also acknowledges that these people have asked for her opinion, and to "throw rocks at you"(6). She also understands that the speech will be controversial and even not well received, as she will be pointing out the sins of the American Press. In doing this, she is allowing the audience to prepare for what is too come, bringing their emotions into a place where she can get her message across. She gets the audiences attention with the use the simile of the "rock thrower". Yet she also states that it will not be all negative, as she says that giving the audience hell is best left for preachers and bishops. She makes sure in these first paragraphs that they now what is coming, and not to be shocked and appalled by her words. She is clear and concise in her words, and it is very easy to understand what will happen next.
ReplyDeleteShe pulls on their emotions and their pride by saying as journalists, they are intelligent people and will not settle for falsities and sugar coating, and they would "see through any attempt to do so"(23). From these lines, she makes it almost seems that she is like a parent telling their kid that they know better than to do something, and that it is almost like a light scolding, with a sense of working on their pride.
She sees that it is very hard to make the truth available, without being biased and saying it correctly. She also shows that journalists will be very forgiving if people mess up, but will be harsh to those hiding the truth. Yet in today's world, it seems everyone is attacking media and the "fake news". If this is the case, wouldn't that means that these "fakes news" ideas shouldn't be published? This could also be the consumers of news being very paranoid, and there is no such thing except for those trying to find the truth, and failing at it. There is a thin line between these the failure of find the truth, and covering up the truth. It is a very hard thing to discern between the two.
She states that it for if there is much wrong with the American Press, there is also much that is right with it"(51-53). She then makes sure they are not too discouraged, and to "accept some of the good with the bad"(56). She does a good job in preparing his audience. She makes sure they are in check, their emotions, logic, and their positions in the press.
I would give this a 6/7 Tony. You did well by including quotations from Luce’a speech, but you did not elaborate enough on them. If you Luke have explained the quotes a little more thoroughly, this would be a definite 7. In all, well done just explain things a bit more.
DeleteCompassion. If there was a one word description used to define Clare Boothe Luce, that is it. Luce has an underlying tone of compassion that shines through her words when speaking at the Women’s National Press Conference to a large group of journalists, and this factor is what made her speech so effective.
ReplyDeleteThe main focus in her introduction is ethos, but rather than establishing her authority, she states that she is just a guest and was no volunteer to give this speech; she shows the audience that she is not one of authority, but the one who is listening to it. She assures the group of journalists that they are the ones who put her in this position and is just following their request by stating, “You have asked me to tell you what’s wrong with you— the American press.” In correlation to her theme of compassion, she started off by saying how happy and flattered she is to be in such position, but notes that what she is about to say is more challenging than one may think. Clare Boothe Luce certainly does not want to offend anyone or carry a target of superiority on her back and this was made clear in lines 1-10.
“The delicate art of giving an audience hell is always one best left to the Billy Grahams and the Bishop Sheens.” This quote mentioned by Luce is just one of the many ways she stays true to her character while introducing logic to her speech. Clare mentions Billy Grahams and Bishop Sheens who were two popular men that were widely known for stating their opinions while being broadcasted on the television and radio. By noting this, Luce shares that her intention is not to “give the audience hell,” but rather just say what needs to be said in the most pleasing manner. In line 26, Clare Boothe Luce asks the question, “For what is good journalism all about?” She then follows up with an explanation about the pursuit of truth and how this is the main goal of journalism. Luce uses logic to her advantage in order to keep the audience engaged while steering clear of any offensive content.
It is clear that Clare Boothe Luce is always tip-toeing around what is wrong with the press, but when she actually states a negative aspect there is always a positive one coupled alongside it. For example, Ms. Luce professed, ‘(…) there is much wrong with the American press, there is also much that is right with it.” Perhaps she does this in order to not hurt the feeling of her audience due to the of fear offending people. She expresses her emotions, especially compassion, all throughout the passage because that is what she values most: the emotions and feelings of others. Luce also refers to the American press as the best press in the world, which is ironic because she is supposed to be delivering a speech on all that is wrong with it.
Although Clare Boothe Luce is not one to say what is directly on her mind, her speech was effective in many other ways. Just because she did not dictate her opinions like that of a president, she applied her speech to that of what best fit her most evident characteristic— compassion.
This analysis definitely deserves an 8! I could trace your thesis through your entire argument and was never left confused. Not only did you include quotations from her introduction, but you provided the lines in which they were said; which was really smart of you. Good work Maddie.
DeleteI will very much agree with Gabe and give you a well deserved 8. Fantastic introduction as well.
DeleteAmerican journalist and politician Clare Boothe Luce unwillingly delivered a speech to the Women’s National Press Club in 1960 criticizing “the tendency of the American press to sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for sensationalist stories.” Before delivering her thesis, Luce forewarned her audience of what was to come in a well-developed introduction. Her introduction gave the audience of journalists a glimpse of what was to be discussed and her opinion on the situation.
ReplyDeleteClare Boothe Luce was hesitant to deliver her speech because she was to tell the journalists what was wrong with their approach to news. In her words, “You have asked me to tell you
what’s wrong with you — the American press. The subject not only is of great national significance but also has, one should say, infinite possibilities—and infinite perils to the rock thrower.” This statement shows the audience her reluctance to tell them of their wrongdoings because the journalists will be offended by her remarks. Nonetheless, Luce goes on to tell the audience that she is going to scold them and that they have no right to be upset with her because the journalists selected her to deliver the speech.
Luce acknowledges the understanding of the audience by saying, “No audience knows better than an audience of journalists that the pursuit of the truth, and the articulation of it, is the most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks.” This statement reassures the audience that even though the speech is harsh and degrading, the journalists will walk away from the presentation with the knowledge of the truth about their occupation. Moreover, Luce says that the pursuit of truth is a difficult one; which is why she is warning the audience that her observations may not all be correct ones, but they are honest ones.
Clare Boothe Luce uses her introduction as a way to forewarn the audience that her remarks will be harsh, but construction. Unwillingly, she is delivering the speech because she wants to better the intentions of journalists and their ways of manipulation. This introduction concisely informs the journalists that they need to be attentive but not offended when their mistakes and wrongdoings are pointed out.
Gabe, I’d give you a 6/7 for this piece. I think your points were well though and the article flowed well. Keep working and you’ll do great. The quotes you used were very fitting as well. Good work!
Delete-Regis
Gabe, I originally would’ve scored this a 6, but I think the last paragraph you had to conclude with propelled it to a 7/8. You ended it strong.
DeleteThe speech given by Clare Boothe Luce, a 1960s American journalist and politician, to the Women’s National Press Club was contentious and also criticizing of her addressed audience—the journalists. She distinctly noted that the American Press developed a tendency to sacrifice journalistic principles for the sensationalist stories that the public wanted instead. Although, she then gives the audience an overview of the criticism to come. She expresses the fact that they originally invited her there to share her message, the strong account for their emotions, admiration of their careers and standards, and a clearly stated plea for their open mindedness throughout.
ReplyDeleteLuce begins her speech with a paradox about being happy and challenged; originally saying that she is flattered and honored to be there, then adjusts what she previously mentioned saying she is rather “less happy than you may think.” Luce gives her audience signals that her message is not going to be all happy and giddy. Rather she reassures them that she plans on giving the criticism right to them since they did ask for her opinion on the issues of the American Press. She clearly states her intentions before slapping the audience in the face with her argument.
In the second paragraph of the speech, Luce uses her own disapproval to show that she is stuck in a difficult situation. She makes note of her own stand point which “exposes the follies and sins of listeners.” Luce compares herself to a “banquet speaker” who shares the same difficult task. To make things more interesting, she adds humor by saying that she is not the first person of choice for the “delicate art of giving an audience hell” but rather perhaps public figures such as Billy Grahams and Bishop Sheens would be the suitable people for the job. Her carefree approach makes the audience likely to accept her ideas, or at least consider what she has to say about the issue.
Throughout the speech, the constant reminder of criticism and the harsh words to come have somewhat lost meaning, since she makes flattering remarks about their careers and their standards of writing and still has not mentioned her critical notes to them. She warns the audience that she is not going to hold back because they are “an audience of journalists” and they would all “see through any attempt to do so.” Her admiration for their witty-spirits automatically satisfies them and makes them more inclined to listen and be accepting of her argument.
In the final words of her speech, Luce distinguishes the true definition of journalism: “the pursuit of an effort to state the truth.” She does not out right accuse the journalists of not always “stating the truth” but it pertains to her overall argument. Instead, she simply generalizes a shared opinion on journalism. By waiting to expand on her argument, Luce joins with the audience to agree that truthfulness and honesty should be their primary concerns. Clare Boothe Luce is extremely precise and careful with her words throughout the entire speech. She appeals to their feelings by being mindful, which is a sign of pathos, and through a request for open-mindedness, which could pertain to the ethos and the acceptance of her credibility by the audience.
I believe your rhetorical analysis on this article was well thought out and well developed. I liked the point you made about how much she complimented them, making the criticism not as harsh. I give your analysis a 6/7.
DeleteClare Boothe Luce used a plethora of rhetorical strategies in her speech to keep the audience engaged. As a politician and journalist herself, one of the sentences that Luce used to open her speech with started with "You are an audience of journalists. There is no audience anywhere who should be more bored..." She shows that she sees herself from their point of view and gives them more reasons to keep their focus on her.
ReplyDeleteTo begin her speech, Luce made it very clear that she was not going to sugar-coat anything or "butter it up" as a normal journalist would do. She says that she has not volunteered to give this speech, but repeats multiple times in different forms, the words “You asked me for it.” Luce also makes it known that she will not be open to anger or any offense coming from her audience because she was asked to speak about the problems in the world of journalism, so that is what she was going to do.
Luce states at the end of her opening segment “ the U. S. daily press today is not inspiringly good; it is just far and away the best press in the world.” In this part of her speech, Luce disregards the flaws of the press and awards them with an honorable mention because they go to great lengths to tell the nation what they need to know. This helps prepare the audience because it helps them remember, despite their faults and flaws, they have had innumerable successes and reasons to be proud of themselves.
This is Stephen
DeleteSteve, I give this essay a five. Your overall essay was a little short compared to everyone else's, and I feel like you could've had more point for your points. You also didn't mention any of the lines, or a least cite them. You were also a little vague throughout the entire essay.
DeleteI think you could have used more evidence from the speech to improve this blog, as Gergy said, it was a little vague. You said she used a “plethora” of rhetorical startegies in this, but really didn’t include which ones. 3/4
DeleteIt’s comforting to know that the same problems that we are facing today, have been faced my previous generations. In 1960, Clare Booth Luce, made a powerful speech on the need for good, unbiased, unsensational, hard hitting journalism, a a fight that continues to this day. Luce, used her rhetorical powers of talking frankly, clearly defining what journalism is, and not aliening her audience, and to craft a speech that ably convinced the journalists present to rethink their profession.
ReplyDeleteLuce does not mince her works when she is making her speech. She frankly states of what she has set out to do in her speech form the very beginning. “I stand here at this rostrum invited to throw rocks at you.” She isn’t messing around her. She clearly states her purpose, to point out what is wrong with the journalism profession in his day and age. Her frankness shocks her audience and makes them listen.
Luce also clearly defines what good, proper journalism is. According to Luce, all journalism boils down to us “ is — to use the big word — the pursuit of and the effort to state the truth.” That makes the journalists in the audience think about their own careers, and how their writing has not lived up to this esteemed definition. By clearly defining what good journalism is, the what bad journalism is becomes more clear.
Even though, Luce said she was there to “throw rocks at you” she clearly does not directly nag or bash the audience. In fact she challenges them to be better, by holding them at high esteem. “No audience knows better than an audience of
journalists that the pursuit of the truth, and the articulation of it, is the most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks.” Here she is praising them, and holding them to a high standard. She doesn’t not bash them, she reminds them that they need to be better.
The integrity of journalism is as serious a problem today, than it was in 1960. Clare Booth Luce used frankness, a clear definition, and holding her audience to a high standard in order to fight sensationalized journalism. May we do the same today
Julie, this analysis flows incredibly well. The quoted material supports what you are saying well. Your diction in this is also high level. I rate this an 8 for these reasons. Nice work!
Delete-Regis
I would definitely give this a 7, due to the fact that you stated and explained her rhetorical strategies throughout the blog. I said 7 because I think of it is touched up or expanded a bit it can easily be a 8/9!
DeleteIn an impactful speech to journalists at the Women’s National Press Club, Clare Booth Luce effectively critiques the audience on their obsession to creating sensationalist stories. To make this speech effective, Luce gave a brilliant introduction to prepare the audience for the rest of the speech that may have otherwise been hard to swallow.
ReplyDeleteTo begin, Luce immediately notes her flattery and honor to be speak at such an “exciting and challenging occasion.” By revealing these feelings, the audience develops a respectful first impression of her speech. Luce moves on to disclose the reality of the situation and how challenging it is to be in her position. Through this, she manages to get the audience on her side and essentially forgiving her for any harsh words before she even says them. In just a few sentences, Luce prepares the audience for the remainder of the speech.
Additionally, speaker Clare Booth Luce credits the audience of journalists by complimenting their career stating that it is “the best press in the world.” This relays a sense of pride throughout the audience, setting the stage for what is to come. Luce does not neglect to recognize the difficulty of their position as well. By crediting the audience for their impressive careers, Luce finally begins the body of her speech.
By delivering such a strategic introduction, Clare Booth Luce effectively critiqued the audience of journalists at the Women’s National Press Club. By dipping into ethos, logos, and pathos (the three elements of persuasion coined by Aristotle), Luce delivered an impressive speech.
Bailey, I think you organized your analysis well. However, I also believe that you could have included some more evidence throughout your blog to prove your points in a more effective way. Also, your response is to the point and straightforward, which I don’t believe is a bad thing but you could have elaborated a little more throughout the blog. With all of this in consideration I’d rate your response a 5/6. Overall, a very good analysis.
DeleteIn 1960, American journalist and politician Clare Boothe Luce was asked to critique journalists at the Women’s National Press Club. A sense of humility is often evident during any moment that deals with the evaluation of someone or something, this is especially true if the analysis suggests some negative feedback. After Luce graciously thanks her audience for the honoring request, she references the humbling feeling that overcomes her during the opening to her speech. Luce says “For the banquet speaker who criticizes the weaknesses and pretensions, or exposes the follies and sins, of his listeners — even at their invitation — does not generally evoke an enthusiastic — no less a friendly — response.” By verbally recognizing her expectations to her audience, Luce is able to create an intimate bond with the journalists. Luce proceeds by next calling forth the fact that because of the maturity level of her audience, she will have her listeners from a tedious and passionless speech of forgery-filled praise and instead give to her audience the gift of pure honesty and sincere feedback. Continuing, Luce defines what characteristics uphold an authentic journalist, she explains that journalism “On a working, finite level it is the effort to achieve illuminating candor in print and to strip away cant.” However, Luce quickly follows this statement by reminding the journalists that journalism should not be primarily focused on the incessant topics such as politics and foreign gossip but also on smaller matters that tend to mystify the public. After this critique, Luce follows her previous statement with one that reconnects herself to her audience; “No audience knows better than an audience of journalists that the pursuit of the truth, and the articulation of it, is the most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks.” Lice understands that it is the journalists job to relay truth onto readers, she also understands that this “truth” is more complex and intricate than what the readers perceive it to be. Therefore, in order to give an efficacious critique of the American press, the audience must take into consideration Luce’s complex description of the “truth” regarding the efforts of the journalists of the American press.
ReplyDeleteI think this is a very well organized blog. I liked how you added quotes from the speech to back up your points. I think you could have touched more on the logos and ethos she uses in the speech though. However I thought it was a good blog. 5/6
DeleteClare Boothe Luce is an American journalist in the 1960’s who was brought in to criticize journalists for writing about what was right, not important, she had to tell them they were doing their job improperly.In the speech she drives her speech mainly through emotion. As the speech starts she approaches it in a honest manner. In her speech she says “ I stand here at this rostrum invited to throw rocks at you,” she did not sugarcoat what she was brought in to do.
ReplyDeleteAs a journalist Clare shared her trials and tribulations that come along with being a journalist, which helps the audience relate to her. She goes on to say what a job of a journalist should be by saying “ it is the effort, too, to describe the lives of men — and women —big and small, close at hand or thousands of miles away, familiar in their behavior or unfamiliar in
their idiosyncrasies.” This drives more emotion, making them feel guilty and allows them to understand what they should be doing. Luce understands its hard to portray the truth without making it one sided, but as a journalist you must accept it and understand not everyone will like what you publish. She was hesitant to give the speech, and criticize all the other journalists because she understands that everyone makes mistakes, including herself. However she claims she has no choice by saying “ You Asked for it.” Through all the ridicule that goes on in the speech she makes sure to let them know that they are still the best U.S daily press. She wants them to know that she was not there to discourage them from the work they do, but yet to keep them in check from getting too off base. She wanted them to “accept some of the good with the bad“ which isn’t a bad thing. Through this speech she was able to critique but yet praise the journalists for the work they due, which is what made this such an impressive speech.
Dan, I believe you had strong ideas about the article, yet not enough thought was put into it. I think if you elaborated on each part more this would have been much stronger. However, I like your ideas. I give this a 3/4.
DeleteClare Boothe Luce is a journalist that clearly takes much pride in what she does. She begins by throwing her audience off guard. She says that this is always an exciting and challenging occasion, but then says she is less happy than they make think, and more challenged than they may know. I believe this is an interesting way to start because it truly grabs the audiences attention in a passive manner.
ReplyDeleteNow Luce puts the listeners in her shoes. Inviting them to realize what she is about to go through due to the great amount of criticism she is about to give out. She started by stating that she was invited to throw rocks at them [the audience]. She follows up by comparing herself to arbitrary “banquet speaker”, sharing the same difficult tasks that they do. This is a way she provides ethos to her speech. She herself too, is going through these hard times with the audience of journalists.
Another important rhetoric characteristic is to allow your audience to accept, and trust what you have to say. Clare Booth Luce does that exactly. She throws in some humor by saying she does not have “the delicate art of giving an audience hell” like Billy Graham or Bishop Sheens do. I believe this is important because even if the audience does not want to accept her, they will at least hear her out. Another way Luce does this is by complimenting their careers as journalist. She proves her credibility again by saying that she would not sugar coat this because they are an audience of journalist and would be able to see through that attempt. This compliment was another way to please her audience and making them more willing to listen.
Finally to point out the journalists flaws as a whole she addresses it in a different manner than expected. She defines journalism as ”The pursuit of and the effort to state the truth.” In this way, Luce does not fully condemn them but then points out a public opinion saying that one of the “most delicate, hazardous, exacting, and inexact of tasks“. This was a great way to point out the fault of the journalists and if they agreed, the point was proven.
Clare Boothe Luce succeeded in her speech to an audience of journalists. She started by grabbing the audiences attention in the opening statements, followed by showing care for those whom were there, then allowing them all to place their trust in her and the speech, and respectfully pointing out the faults of the club as a whole.
I liked that you mentioned how she grabbed the audience and that it wasn’t an obvious or typical way to do so. I thought it was interesting that you mentioned she invited the audience into what it’s like to be her. This was very cool to read. You had really strong points and mentioned things I hadn’t thought of before. I would rate this about a 7. Good job, Lauryn.
Delete“You asked for it!” Clare Booth Luce exclaimed in the transitioning part of her speech at the Women’s Press Club in 1960. She said this after the fact that she mentioned how she did not want to do this, however she knew she had to. The problem being assessed was the fact that there were many flaws in journalists and journalism in that day in age, as is the same today. The “vibe” in her speech seems to have a connection to a present day TED Talk. As in the the way she uses her rhetorical strategies in a more upbeat and to-the-point manner. She is able to immediately grab the attention of the audience (which is important due to the specific audience she is speaking in front of) by addressing her points in a simple way. It really stood out how she mentioned the rock throwing. She said how she was there to throw rocks at them. This more than likely grabbed the attention of the audience right off the bat. “Why would she mention that she was here to throw rocks at us?” The audience probably thought. Obviously this wasn’t supposed to be taken literally but it still got the attention of everyone. What she probably meant was that she was brought up on stage to discuss a topic that wasn’t going to be easy, and that could bash on some people unintentionally. There was probably some fear in doing this, but this fear actually fueled the fire in Luce’s speech. She would continue on by not only stating why journalism was a problematic process, but she also provided ways to improve the process. She gives a simple answer- to give the truth! Thats all that’s needed, and she emphasizes that.
ReplyDeleteAnother strategy she perfects in her speech is the fact that she handles the subject, that normally requires a little bit of bashing, without bashing the audience or really even the journalism industry all that much if it all. Instead, she is relying on facts, the necessities of the truth, and the typical moral compass.
In conclusion, Luce covered everything in a rather convincing, yet proper, manner. This was a key introduction to her speech that would need to conclude with a strong point. If the introduction proves anything, it’s that Luce is confident in her words no matter how much she truly wants to speak them. Her rhetorical strategies scattered throughout provide her with the advantage to take control of the audience.
I would give your post a 6. I think you made some very strong points and you backed up your ideas as well. I especially liked how you started this with mentioning “you asked for it” I thought that was creative. Overall, good job.
DeleteIn 1960 American Journalist and politician Clare Booth Luce gave a speech to journalists at the Women’s National Press Club. Her speech was very critical but as she said, “I stand here at this rostrum invited to throw rocks at you.” It was what the American Press asked for. They asked to be criticized and in a way put on display for everyone to see their faults. She makes sure that they do not blame for her for what is said by stating multiple times that she was asked to give the speech, she was not doing it out of hate or another bad emotion one might think of. They invited Clare to hypothetically throw rocks at them and that is exactly what she did. She did this by making logical points and redefining exactly what it means to be a journalist. She goes on to define what good journalism is. She stated just what it means to be a good journalist which allowed her to show the people at the Women’s National Press Club what they were, or rather were not doing, without directly calling them out. Towards the end of he opening she begins to work with the audience on how problems can be corrected rather than delving further into what is going wrong. She states that the press needs to “accept the good with the bad.” This allows the audience to realize they need to change without placing all of the blame on themselves. Clare Booth Luce also mentions the audience and states that “...no audience is more forgiving to the speaker who fails or stumbles in his own pursuit of it.” Again, this removes some of the “finger pointing” that easily could have happened within this speech. It also, in a sense, reassures the audience that their stumbles will not end them and they can recover due to a forgiving audience, they just want the story no matter the direction they have to take to get there. Clare Booth Luce’s speech was very effective in the sense that she was able to not only throw rocks but cover enough of her bases to ensure they were not thrown back at her.
ReplyDeleteThis is Emily Wolfe:
DeleteI am giving your essay a 6. I think that if you added the rhetorical appeals and strategies present in the speech, it could really help your analysis. I liked the quotations and explanations you used on why she said some of the things she did.
In 1960, American politician and journalist Clare Boothe Luce addresses the Women’s National Press club to criticize their journalistic tendencies. Luce emphasizes on the usage of “sacrifice journalistic integrity in favor of the perceived public demand for sensationalist stories,” in her message to the press. Her rhetorical strategies prepare the audience for the hard truths of the matter and also give her the credibility to state what she has observed.
ReplyDeleteFirst and foremost, Luce begins by explaining to the audience how she got into the position of criticizing the press. She states that the American press asked her to “throw rocks” at them meaning, they asked for her honest opinion of the matter. This establishes the relationship that will form between her and the audience which although may seem a bit harsh, it is exactly what they intended and wanted for the matter. She later goes on to compliment the crowd by saying, “if there is much that is wrong with the American press, there is also much that is right with it.” This allows the audience to see that her criticism is meant purely to be constructive and teach the press how to better themselves. The ethos of credibility of Luce is also assumed in this essay since she is a politician and a journalist herself. She understands the world of the press and this makes her opinion trust worth and valuable to her listeners. She stands firm on her ethos throughout the this beginning passage which aids her in convincing the audience that she is fit to criticize them. Luce’s speech relies mainly on the appeal ethos and the fact that she is attempting to give the most constructive feedback she can offer without being extreme.