CNN:http://money.cnn.com/2015/02/22/media/cbs-staffers-oreilly-argentina/index.html
History sometimes lies to us even including those exposed in front of thousands of people’s eyes. Public figures are not always trustworthy even though they have published books describing their detailed experience on some event. These days, Bill O’Reilly was disputable because of his “war zone” story in the late twentieth century. O’ Reilly was once a CBS correspondent in the 1982 war between British and Argentina. But now the CBS staffers pointed out O’Reilly had told the exaggerated and even false stories to the public. The Fox News and CNN News all reported about this dispute, but from two different angles. The CNN News sets out from CBS staffer’s viewpoint, disputing O’Reilly’s story by citing reports and interviews to illustrate his outrageous stories, whereas the FOX focuses on O’Reilly’s denouncement towards Mother Jones story, defending for himself on his war reporting. However, all these two news use the rhetorical situations, specifically “logos” and “pathos” to convey their own interpretations of both viewpoints, by using delicate words and citing interviews of other trustworthy people and related people.
Regarding the use of words in CNN News, the choice of the subject and object in the title as well as many words indicating offensive tones in the news reveal author’s inclination towards CBS staffer’s challenge on O’Reilly’s depiction of “ war zone.” Starting from the title, the author uses the verb “dispute” to show subject’s emotion towards the object. In addition, author chooses “CBS staffers” as the subject and “Bill O’Reilly’s ‘war zone’ story” as the object to point out CBS staffers’ initiative. Rather than using “history” and “experience,” the title uses “ story,” which indicates that O’ Reilly’s statement is not necessarily the truth regarding the “war zone” and the “combating situation.” Then the author uses pronouns like “all” and “nobody” at the beginning of the first paragraph to describe the large range of the people who challenge and doubt about the authenticity of O’Reilly’s description. In the following paragraphs, the author cites many interviews towards O’Reilly’s performance in that war, but they all respond like “ don’t recall”” decline to comment” “never spoken about.”
Basically the author of CNN News applies the pathos in this article by citing many interviewers’ attitudes so that the audience can have the same feelings, which uses pathos. In the interviews mentioned in this news, though nobody considers O’Reilly’s story fake for sure, people still don’t see that war outrageous, which is contradict from O’Reilly’s own view. The only part in the news that defends O’Reilly’s war zone experience is his own words in his own show. The author cites O’Reilly’s description about how “bleeding” the war is and how difficult for him to make the decision in that dilemma. And he also mentions that O’Reilly also praises himself by keeping doing his own job when being chased by the army in the dangerous situation. Moreover, the news mentions that he accuses the magazine that posted this news of trying to smear his reputation. In the following paragraph, here come some interviews: Eric Engberg, a CBS correspondent who was also in Bueno Aires at the time, said the area depicted in O’Reilly’s words is not a war zone or even close but just a expense account zone. The words “ not even… but” shows how cushiest the war was. The correspondent from the ABC News holds the same idea. Then in Fabius’s interview, “no injury report” was used to support author’s point of view. This forms a contrast between O’Reilly’s own words ‘ many were killed” in his book. The author picks many words from interview that expresses the war’s cushiness, which obviously contrasts O’Reilly’s own depiction.
However, the Fox News takes O’Reilly’s viewpoint, focusing on his denouncement towards Mother Jones story. The author’s viewpoint can be easily told from the only verb appearing in the title” denounce.” In the first paragraph, author uses words like “accusing” “liar” and “ making false claims” to show how eagerly O’Reilly wants to beat back CBS staffers and Mother Jones story’s author. In the second paragraph, the author cites the quote by O’Reilly in which “everybody” ”anything” and “everything” appear in the same sentence, which especially strengthens O’Reilly’s tone of denouncing. In the middle of the article, there are three paragraphs of description in Mother Jones’ story, which listed O’Reilly’s own words about his job at war. Though the author admits that there are discrepancies between the fact and O’Reilly’s words— except “there were fatalities,” he focuses on “ Corn’s piece largely backs up O’Reilly’s account of the dangerous situation.” The author cites Corn’s comment as a back up of O’Reilly’s opinion, which can be seen as author’s endorsement of O’Reilly’s story. Instead of disputing furiously, the author also cited Corn’s words “out there just calling names” “minor point” and ” was over.” These disinterests fade O’Reilly’s trustworthiness and lightened his “crime.” At the end of this news, the author also gives a comparatively large part to a report from New York Times, in which there are also “fires” “breaking windows” “riot police” and “battles,” so as to prove O’Reilly’s innocence.
Though both of the authors take doubt on O’Reilly’s trustworthiness– whether he was telling a true story about “war zone” or not, they have different focuses– one mostly disputes O’Reilly’s false story, and one denounces others’ dispute on O’Reilly. Their use of words and evidence can also reveal their different views of point. By using the positive voice and the verb “dispute” in the title, CNN’s news establishes an aggressive tone in CBS staffers’ stance, which is on the opposite of O’Reilly. The Fox News also uses the positive voice, but its subject changes to O’Reilly, from which we can tell author’s different viewpoints. Then another point that both author mention is the Mother Jones’s story. In CNN’s news, Mother Jones piece acts as the evidence that proves there are discrepancies in O’Reilly’s claims, which is the source of the contradictions. But different from in CNN News, the Fox mentions its weakness on attacking O’Reilly— “ the Mother Jones piece appears to turn on semantics, not some specific stories that O’Reilly told.” Though both news cite Mother Jones as their supporting evidence, they analyse from different angles to support their own viewpoints.
Except for their use of subtle words with connotations, both of the news also uses rhetorical situations as support for their argument. Since O’Reilly now has been the biggest star on Fox News, his repeatedly references to the “war zone” story, more or less, influence some audiences. The people who read about his denouncement are more likely to accept his version of stories. Ethos plays a great part in the Fox News especially when the author, in the same news, cites some arguments that support O’Reilly’s stories and lighten O’Reilly’s “crime” on his storytelling. Pathos is a part that all news should take advantage of, because this is nearly the only way to communicate emotions with the readers through paperwork. All the extreme words like ”everybody” and aggressive verbs like “contradict” convey authors’ attitudes toward the news itself so that those attitudes affect the audience—they tend to believe in CBS staffers’ words, disputing O’Reilly subconsciously. The application of pathos in Fox’s News is more direct because the author uses many O’Reilly’s own words so that the emotion spreads directly. Both articles, though applied similar rhetoric, provide the readers with different viewpoints through different choices of words and evidence.