Blog Editorial Critique

A CounterPunch article published on October 14th, 2019 entitled, “The Economics and Politics of Financial Transactions Taxes and Wealth Taxes” by Dean Baker gives some insight into the debate between enacting a financial transactions tax or a wealth tax.  The author’s intended audience is clearly liberals/democrats that are up-to-date on the upcoming presidential election in 2020.  The author uses a very generic title that does not appeal to any particular side of this debate between a financial transaction tax (FTT) or a wealth tax more or less than the other.  However, this title is still intriguing to the reader as this editorial is published in a liberal (left-wing) blog, drawing a well-educated audience that would like to further their knowledge on the upcoming presidential debate.  While this technique is less grabbing than other title-framing styles can be, the author ultimately uses its audiences’ political knowledge to select a hook, drawing the reader in with a topic that they would like to learn more about.  The source itself gives the author credibility, aligning with the same ideals as the target audience.

    Baker makes the argument that “while there are good reasons for wanting to tax the very rich, an FTT is almost certainly a better economic policy and would have much better political prospects.”  By using a concession and rebuttal to introduce their claim, the author shows that there are benefits to both arguments, but ultimately that an FTT is better for certain reasons.  Through the use of words like “us” and “we,” the author shows that he shares the same liberal values as the audience and is part of their community, giving him a sense of ethos that carries on through his claim.  In addition, the rhetor frequently uses hypotheticals throughout the article, making a complex topic much more understandable to the common reader, being certain that everyone understands the negatives and positives of both scenarios in order to convince them that an FTT is the way to go.

    While the author definitely inserts his values and assumptions in the article, he also uses a large amount of evidence to back up each of his claims.  Shortly after introducing his main claim, he uses logic and reminds the audience of the purpose of taxes: to “free up resources in the economy to allow the government to spend on other priorities.”  Using hypotheticals to back up his claim, the author eventually circles back to the fact that the wealth tax can be avoided by the small wealthy population in the United States through the use of skilled accountants and financial planning.  However, an FTT will only affect the financial sector, with the rhetor convincing the audience that the financial sector will be fine after a major reduction in trade, relating to the audience that “we know this, because we lived through periods with a much smaller financial sector.”  The author continually uses a variation of ethos, pathos, and logos throughout the article, convincing the reader of his claim by connecting himself to the audience and their views, using inflammatory words against Trump to unite the audience as liberals, and inserting factual information to convince the reader.

    While the conclusion is very brief, it is also very convincing, coming full-circle by restating the author’s main claim.  In addition, it shows a call to action statement, with Baker noting that “the enormous rise in inequality over the last four decades demands a serious response.”  The last sentence truly resonates with the reader, envisioning the FTT as the right decision and that will positively affect our government in the long-term.  Even though we as citizens may believe that the wealthy deserve to be taxed since they have the most individual income in our society, but articles such as these show us that this instinctive decision may have some fatal flaws.  We must continue to educate ourselves on matters involving our national government in order to truly achieve success.

Editorial Critique

An Austin American Statesman article published on October 1st, 2019 entitled “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake” by David Brooks gives some insight into the recent announcement of Trump’s impeachment trial.  The author’s intended audience is clearly going to be those that are against Trump and support his impeachment.  The title is “Brooks: Yes, Trump is Guilty, but Impeachment is a Mistake,” which shows the audience that Brooks concedes that Trump is guilty, but refutes that impeachment might not be worth it.  This beginning technique ultimately draws in an audience that wants to know why they should be against impeachment, since the author shares their perspective that Trump is guilty.  In addition, the Austin American Statesman is a local newspaper, which could intrigue many Austinites due to its unique way of looking at this impeachment hearing.  In addition, it gives the author credibility as he is not another writer in Washington D.C., but rather someone who lives in Austin and understands the Texan take on things.

    Brooks makes the claim that Trump did commit a crime by calling the Ukranian president, which is worthy of impeachment, but impeachment should still not have been enacted.  This gives the reader a clear sense of what the author is trying to convey throughout this article through rhetorical appeals and evidence.  He makes his values clear to the reader, revealing that this impeachment process against Trump is “completely elitist” because it is right during election season, showing the reader that he values fair trials that are in the best interest of the nation.  In addition, he makes a variety of assumptions that reveal what could happen if the impeachment process does go through.  These assumptions are well-placed, seeming more like convincing logic for why the reader should support his claim, but ultimately is an assumption regarding the possible future.

    While he does insert many of his values and assumptions into this article, he also backs them up with clear evidence and reason, ultimately doing an adroit job of convincing the reader.  After stating his main claim, he reminds the audience that “impeachment is a political process, not a legal one,” and that there is no obligation to go through an impeachment trial.  He even goes on to insert a personal example, putting himself in the reader’s shoes by describing himself going to Waco, Nantucket, and Kansas City, only ever having one fellow journalist mention the ongoing impeachment proceedings.  Throughout the article, the author uses ethos, pathos, and logos to convince the reader of his claim by proving himself to be a credible source through personal connection, having an emotional connection to the readers by sharing his values and beliefs regarding this impeachment trial, and using factual information to convince the reader.

    The conclusion is not as strong as the rest of the article, being very brief.  However, he does end with “An election can save the country.  An inside-the-Beltway political brawl will not.”  The author uses this to appeal to both the emotional and logical sense of his audience, realizing that they want to have a great presidential election this year and want this to elevate the country rather than be a political brawl due to this impeachment hearing.  This article brings up the political implication of the Democrats gaining power if President Trump is removed from office, which could lead to a political brawl.  While we may think that we know everything about this impeachment hearing, we must continue to read articles such as this one that give us a different perspective on the matter at hand.