Kulp 1

Kaileigh Kulp
Aaron Boyers
WRIT 101-017
9/20/21

Rhetorical Analysis - “Why The New York Times Is Retiring the Term ‘Op-Ed’” Commented [KK1]: Aaron – No need for all this to be
bold

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

Kingsbury explains the reason why The New York Times is retiring its current use of the term as Commented [KK2]: Aaron – In italics

it no longer best suits the reader. Kingsbury appeals to readers by introducing the history of the

term, then transitions into appealing to the reader’s sense of patriotism. The article also outlines

The New York Time’s concern for the quality of content they produce rather than concern of

sticking to traditions by using quotations and anecdotes. Kingsbury could have done more to

thoroughly develop the reader’s understanding of the depth of complexity associated with

changing the term by perhaps choosing to use data or research as well to expose nuance. The

piece by Kingsbury is still however an overall informative, and effective mode of

communication to New York Times readers as Kingsbury employs several elements of rhetoric

to develop her argument.

Kathleen Kingsbury employed several elements such as headers, and biases in order to Commented [KK3]: Aaron – It’s not very clear what this
means here
prove her credibility on the subject to readers. The end of the piece brandished a header that

detailed Kingsbury's work within The New York 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

New York Times. This element, however, would be found more effective if it were present at the

beginning of the article instead of the end as it would introduce the author and establish this
 Kulp 2

credibility immediately. While Kingsbury is qualified to speak on the subject, she does not

remain unbiased throughout the piece. There are several instances where she mentions the

choices of other newspapers to not switch their terminology by referring to them as using

“archaic jargon” and implying that it has a negative effect on 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 newspapers who might feel that it is important to uphold certain

traditions even if the media is changing. Using devices such as a header and inciteful language Commented [KK4]: Aaron – Nice analysis

Does this take away from the credibility that you mention in
helps establish Kingsbury’s credibility; however, this is not the only type of appeal used
the first half of this paragraph?

throughout the piece.

This article utilizes a patriotic appeal as well as a tone of unity to successfully evoke an

emotional response in readers. The first of such tactics is an appeal to patriotism. Kingsbury Commented [KK5]: Aaron – Good, but what emotional
response?
discusses how sharing opinions from all perspectives is a fundamental part of democracy. This is

discussed with a direct quotation 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 so he has credibility within the

scope of this argument.) This quotation serves both as a rhetorical appeal to emotion but also an Commented [KK6]: Aaron – This appears to appeal more
closely to ethos – by demonstrating community
appeal to comradery or unity within the “opinion section” of The New York Times. As a

rhetorical device, this is an effective argument as it appeals to many different types of readers

and adds to Kingsbury’s overall point. Kingsbury also speaks on The Time’s behalf and

discusses that the motive behind changing the terminology. The article mentions that The New

York 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 has the effect of creating a more unified

audience who would overall be more likely to agree with a change if they felt it was what would
 Kulp 3

be best. The appeals to emotion that Kingsbury uses through the piece appear numerous times Commented [KK7]: Aaron – This is nice analysis from
both ethical/ emotional perspective
and are the most effective elements of rhetoric as they reach readers directly.

Another successful appeal used throughout this piece was an appeal to logic by using

historical backgrounds, and research. 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 change. She

mentioned that that results of such sessions were amazing and in favor of the shift. This device is

less effective though as it doesn’t dive into much detail or numerical data that would support the

argument better, but is still a logical appeal as it shows readers research that had been done on

the subject. Kingsbury’s appeals to logic in the article are not as numerous as her other appeals Commented [KK8]: Aaron – Good analysis

and could have been better developed overall, especially as her reference to the “research

sessions” seemed out of place and not as thoroughly developed as some of her other appeals.

As with many pieces of writing it is possible to pick apart details until it feels as though

every word has been thoroughly examined under a microscope; however, the reality is that not

each 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 with a header,

evoked readers emotions and their sense of patriotism by focusing on quotations or anecdotes, as

well as used logical appeals to expose the background of the term and proof that research had

been done about how the audience might feel. The most enticing and effective argument was that

of an emotional appeal involving reader’s patriotism. A larger section of the article is spent
 Kulp 4

exploring this topic and it to hits closer to home than 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. This article was

overall effective in informing readers why a change in the terminology is necessary by using

several emotional, logical, and ethical appeals in the forms of headers, anecdotes, studies, and

quotes. Commented [KK9]: Aaron – I really like this reiteration of

key points and accompanying analysis. Nice conclusions
 Kulp 5

Work Cited

Kingsbury, Kathleen. “Why the New York times is retiring the Term 'Op-Ed'.” The New York

Times, (2021, April 26), https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/26/opinion/nyt-opinion-oped-

redesign.html. Retrieved September 24, 2021.