Rhetorical Analysis Paper Draft -

Kaileigh Kulp
The article, “Why The New York Times Is Retiring the Term ‘Op-Ed’” by Kathleen Kingsbury

explains the reasons why The Times is retiring its current use of the term as it no longer suits the

reader. Kingsbury appeals to readers by first introducing the history of the term, and then

appealing to the reader’s sense of patriotism. The article also outlines The Time’s concern for the

quality of content they produce rather than concern of sticking to traditions of news for readers

with quotations and anecdotes. The piece is overall informative; however, at times unconvincing.

More could have been done to thoroughly develop reader’s understanding of the depth of

complexity associated with how each term is perceived differently.

Talk about Ethos prejudices and qualifications - - - Kathleen Kingsbury, the author of the article

employed several tactics in order to prove her credibility on the subject to readers. The end of the

piece brandished a header that detailed Kingsbury's work within The Times’s opinion section

and even talked about an award that she won in 2015 for distinguished editorial writing. This

header is effective in informing readers of Kingsbury's qualifications both in writing and on

speaking on behalf of The Times. This element however might be found more effective if it were

present at the beginning of the article instead of the end as it would introduce the author more

effectively. While Kingsbury is qualified to speak on the subject she is not unbiased throughout

the piece. There are a few instances where she mentions the choices of other newspapers to not

switch their terminology and she refers to them as using “archaic jargon” and implies that it

doesn’t best serve readers. While Kingsbury’s bias is appropriate as she is writing from the

perspective of her own paper, it can at times feel overly aggressive towards other papers who

might feel that it is important to uphold certain traditions even if things are changing. Using

devices such as the header and the inciteful language helps establish Kingsbury’s credibility and
introduces an element of ethos to the article; however, this is not the only type of appeal used

through the piece.

Talk about PAthos patriotisim comparing papers - - - - This article employs several tactics to

evoke an emotional response in readers. The first of such tactics is an appeal to patriotism.

Kingsbury discusses how sharing opinions from all sides to be heard and considered is a

fundamental part of democracy. This appeal is also discussed with a quote from John B. Oakes

(who both supports this patriotic appeal as well as is a part of the group who first started the

opinion section.) This quotation serves both as a rhetorical appeal to emotion but also an appeal

to comradery with the “opinion section” of The Times. As a rhetorical device, this is an effective

argument as it appeals to many reader and adds to Kingsbury’s overall point. Kingsbury also

speaks on The Time’s behalf and discusses that the motive behind changing the terminology is

centered around the idea that media is changing so media outlets should also change. The article

also mentions that The Times truly cares about it’s readers and wants to serve them as best they

can. This appeals to readers by showing them that they are valued and would potentially have the

effect of creating a more unified audience who would be more likely to agree with a term change

if they felt it was what would be best for them overall. The appeals to emotion (ethos) that

Kingsbury uses through the piece are the most effective elements of rhetoric.

Talk anout Logos history/changing times research sessions - - - - Another appeal used

throughout this piece was an appeal to logic. Kingsbury appealed to logic in two main ways.

Firstly she included a short history behind the term “Op-Ed” including the first time it was

printed in a paper. This background gave readers the chance to understand where the terms were

from and why they might have been used in the context of the time but also why they might have

become outdated as media has changed, especially with the internet. Secondly, Kingsbury

mentioned that “research sessions” were conducted to feel out how readers would react to the
term change. She mentioned that that results of such sessions were amazing and in favor of the

shift. This device is a bit less effective as it doesn’t dive into much detail that would help support

the argument a bit better, but is still an appeal to readers who might be caught off guard at the

decision.

Talk about what was/ wasn’t succuesful Overall tone weakest strongest

Concluding - - - - As with many pieces if writing it is possible to pick apart ever detail until it

feels as though every word has been thoroughly examined under a microscope; however, the

truth is that not every rhetorical appeal that an author employs will be successful. Kingsbury

appealed to readers in several ways by establishing her overall credibility to speak on the subject,

readers emotions and their sense of patriotism, as well as used logical appeals to expose the

history of the terms and proof that research has been done about how the audience might feel

about a shift. The most enticing and effective argument was that of an emotional appeal

involving reader’s patriotism. A larger section of the article is spent exploring this topic and it

seems to hit closer to home than some of Kingsbury’s other argumentative appeals. The weakest

of such being her reference to the “research sessions.” This point specifically felt thrown into the

article and not well connected to the rest of the flow in the piece. Overall this article was

effective in both informing readers why a change in the terminology is necessary, but also in

backing the reasons why The Times is making the change.