Benjamin Franklin once said, “Those who sacrifice freedom for security deserve neither.” This quote is shown across the top of the article entitled “The PATRIOT Act” by Kristin Beischel, Jessica Metz, and Christine Rathbone. The Ethica Publishing Company published this article; therefore tying itself to the authors and, to a point, then shares an ethos with them. This article attempts to let loose the hard facts about the USA PATRIOT Act, but fails in achieving the scholarly recognition that a topic like this requires, due to structural, syntax, and spelling errors. The idea that umbrellas the entire work is thus: “The PATRIOT Act violates the personal privacy of all American citizens.” (Beischel, 1). Whether or not this work fulfills its purpose is questionable, due to the lack of appeals to ethos that the authors create.
To begin with, I want to present the bad news first. Primarily, there are several spelling errors contained within the piece that are a severe detriment, not only to the authors, but to the publishing agency itself. Misspelling the word “sacrifice” in the opening quote was the first thing that I noticed, and I feel that most readers would read this boldfaced quote first, and then realize the incorrect spelling. One of the biggest things that authors strive to achieve is an appeal to ethos, otherwise known as credibility. This simple spelling error is like a pin, puncturing the validity of the article; from then on, we see a steady deflation of what little credibility is left.
Moreover, the structure of the piece isn’t very cohesive or flowing, as it should be. In my opinion, I think this is due to the fact that there are three authors. I am not against the idea; I actually would promote multiple authors, because three minds working as a unit would be able to produce effective and unbiased work more effectively than that of a single person. However, these authors seem to have written works separately, and then combined them in to a cumulative work; instead of flowing from one author’s idea to the next, they appear to be fit like a puzzle. What I mean by this is that the ideas make a nice larger picture, but if you look closely you can still see the opaque outlines of each piece. For example, “It disregards many federal communication privacy laws and gives the government an unprecedented amount of surveillance power. The Act gives federal officials greater authority to track and intercept communications…”(Beischel, 1). As you can see, the ideas are similar, but the sentence structure of each is slightly different, causing an invisible break in the flow of the work. Because the structuring is different, when reading one can tell that the ideas were expressed from different authors, instead of collaborating together to best express an authors idea or ideas in the method that flows with the work.
Furthermore, there are several syntax errors, in addition to everything aforementioned. The reason I separate syntax from structure is because, when reading the article, one notices that some sentences should be adjusted and moved around to other areas of the work, in order to perform as persuasively as they can. In a larger picture, I feel that the section entitled “Argument Against The PATRIOT Act” should be combined with the introduction, and some of the introductory paragraph should be placed under the “Background Information About The Act” section. This would aid in the flow of the paper, as well as keeping ideas isolated to writing that supports them, to reduce the effect of “bouncing around” when reading.
In final consideration, there are very valid ideas and what would be effective means of persuasion locked up in this article, but due to the elementary errors that riddle the work like bullet holes, all attempts at persuasion are lost. I feel that the intended audience would be other educated persons involved in this political issue, or the politicians that have the position to change this law. With that being said, these syntax errors would be noticed instantaneously, and would, rather immediately, dampen the authors’ ethos. Without proper revision and editing in a work like this, the loss of interest by readers, and the general audience of the work, is inevitable. I say this not to be disheartening, but to point out that when I was reading the article, I did experience a loss of interest and intrigue when I had to stumble over these easily corrected mishaps.
Moreover, the ideas presented in this article do appeal to pathos, or emotional appeal; however, they do not appeal as strongly as they should with such an emotion-driven topic such as this. Specifically, the authors fail to recount any actual stories that persons abused under the Patriot Act have suffered. Including an example such as thus, they would be able to touch readers more directly and seriously. In my own writing, I would strive to have a much stronger appeal to pathos by including examples like I have just mentioned. The facts presented are valid and effective, but they are too statistical and mathematical in the authors’ expression of them. In my opinion, the format of these facts should be laced with actual accounts of these violations happening to real people, which, in turn, would be easier to connect and sympathize with as a reader.
On a final note, I wish to add that although the article is messy in nature, the ideas are what make it an effective article for me to reference when creating my final work. With my final work, I hope to be, first and foremost, error free. Moreover, I intend to appeal with more strength to pathos, because emotion is what will be the driving force behind the change that we, as in all of the people in opposition of the Patriot Act, yearn for.
Works Cited
Beischel, Kristin, Jessica Metz, and Christine Rathbone. "The PATRIOT Act." Ethica Publishing Company. Web. 22 Apr. 2012. <http://www.ethicapublishing.
No comments:
Post a Comment