The Failures and Blunders of The Dept of Veterans Affairs

Ivan Ruben Mora

University of Texas at El Paso
Rhetoric and Composition 1302


















The Failures and Blunders of The Department of Veterans Affairs


Earlier this year, The Department of Veterans Affairs came under heavy fire, scrutiny,
and criticism. This all came from allegations of longer than usual wait times for veterans, at VA
medical facilities. So long, were these wait times, that as a result some veterans may have died
because they were unable to receive proper medical care, and attention.
The first genre VA Review finds Significant and Chronic failures , an online article
by Jim Kuhnhnenn from the Associated Press. The second genre Scathing report slams
veterans' care but says no definite link to deaths is a video news clip by CNNs Drew Griffin.
Both are news articles, one being print (Associated Press) the other, in video format (CNN).
While the VA is under investigation, the tone, and rhetoric speaks roughly the same in
both article and video, that being, the dept is to blame in some way or another. Both the video
clip by CNN, and the article from the Associated Press. A certain lack of acknowledgment is
present in both.
The audience, here boils down to mostly anyone who prefers to gather their news from
the web, specifically one website or another, in this instance, CNN, or the Associated Press. The
discourse community includes, but is definitely not limited to first and foremost any veteran
receiving care from a VA facility, any military personnel, the family of any military personnel,
and so forth. However, the discourse community as mentioned above could easily be greater
and should certainly not be limited.
From the time the whistle blowers did their part, until the articles were written and
posted, the department was still under investigation, both were intended to inform their
respective readers, and viewers of the latests findings.
Up until the time of the article and videos posting, the audience is perhaps already
informed in some respect. Even on the most basic level, the audience has gathered that the VA
is in trouble of some sort, especially this specific audience/demographic of CNN, and Associated
Press which is likely to frequent each website on a fairly regular basis. Now, they will desire
more information, what have the reports and investigations found thus far?
Each genre is relatively concise and clear in conveying its information to the audience.
CNNs video runs no longer than five minutes. The article by the Associated Press should take
no longer than 5 minutes to read, with four main points at the end of the article highlighting
the findings of the investigation.
In both instances the delivery, rhetoric and speech is highly formal. This is suitable for
the audience. Both CNN and Associated Press are professional news corporations, any other
delivery would be considered inappropriate and unorthodox, especially with the topic at hand, as
it must be delivered with a sense of gravitas.
When it comes to credibility, both genres stand steadfast respectively, each being either
filmed or written by a well known news giants. However, not all of this credibility relies solely
on this prestige. CNNs video report has well known Anderson Cooper, and Senior
Correspondent Drew Griffin reporting. Griffin conducts a one on one interview with family
members of deceased veterans (who died allegedly due to poor management) and gets a firsthand
glimpse of the issues with the VA. The Associated Press gathers information from the deputy
White House chief of staff Robert Nabors. Nabors conducted what is essentially an
appraisal/review of the VA to see what was ailing throughout. The evidence supporting the
video and news article are both very fitting and useful.
The rhetoric in both genres is highly similar, in that they take a slightly negative tone
towards the VA. The Associated Press uses wording such as scathing, and blistering in their
article. Both genres do differ however, CNNs video is able to take one step further in that the
reporters are able to place emphasis on words, stress numbers, fatalities and convey the overall
message with that much more gravitas than anything conventional print ever could.
Likewise with gravitas, comes the power of emotion. CNNs video features family
members of deceased veterans. Senior correspondent Griffin not only conveys numbers, facts
and findings of the investigation, but interviews family members of deceased vets. For many in
the audience the overall video may prove to invoke feelings of anger, frustration, sadness and
others. This cant be said necessarily for the written article from The Associated Press, which
provides information to its audience but cant convey that raw emotion like the video does.
Organization is of course different, as each genre is complete different in is delivery. The
video interview/ news article from CNN touches upon key points, numbers and facts from the
most recent report up until that point in time. The majority of the video is Anderson Cooper, and
Drew Griffin exchanging information as per traditional news broadcast. For the first time viewer
they have no idea the layout or the information that will be conveyed to them. This is different
in a print print article, such as the Associated Presss. The reader is able skim, or read
thoroughly to their leisure. A more thorough analysis is provided in the body of the article,
towards the bottom portion, highlights of the report from deputy White House Chief of Staff
Robet Nabors are listed if the reader chooses to skim.
There are definitely limitations to what can be conveyed. The main purpose of both
video and article is concise and fair amount of information, so that the reader/audience can move
onto the next article without much trouble. Too much information, and other finer, more minute
details become lost.
One things that seems rather low key for both genres is visuals. The video is slightly
banal in its presentation, lacking much of anything as far as visuals. It primarily relies on its
reporters for the bulk of the video for the bulk of the presentation. However, it does provide bold
lettering on the bottom of the screen to caption the topics at hand, or emphasize any information
that was given. Likewise the article from the Associated Press is not terribly aesthetically
pleasing. The biggest eye catcher is its title which is in blood red bold letters to grip the readers
attention.
When it boils down to the best genre of the two, print wins. The highly black and
white nature makes it very straight forward for the reader. All information can be conveyed with
slightly less bias in its tone, despite what the authors intentions might be. With video,
information can accurate, and concise, but their remains room for emotion, which can muddle
the story, or message. This can be desired or not, depending on the author and their intention.
Allow print to be the black and white, most no nonsense choice.


Fantz, A., Griffin, D., Black, N., & Bronstein, S. (2014, August 27). Scathing report slams
veterans' care but says no definite link to deaths. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from
http://www.cnn.com/2014/08/26/us/va-inspector-general-report/
Kuhnhenn, J. (2014, June 27). VA REVIEW FINDS 'SIGNIFICANT AND CHRONIC'
FAILURES. Retrieved September 8, 2014, from http://bigstory.ap.org/article/obama-hear-
update-veterans-affairs-problems