Rhetorical Analysis Paper Draft #2 –

Kaileigh Kulp

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

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 reader’s understanding of the depth of complexity associated with how each

term is perceived differently by perhaps choosing to use different data or research to show

nuance; however, the piece by Kingsbury is an overall informative, and effective mode of

communication between writers and readers as Kingsbury employs several elements of rhetoric. Commented [KK1]: Really long sentence

Kathleen Kingsbury employed several tactics in order to prove her credibility on the Commented [KK2]: Don’t need this

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 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 immediately. 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 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 papers who might feel that it is

important to uphold certain traditions even if media is changing. Using devices such as the

header and the inciteful language help establish Kingsbury’s credibility; however, this is not the

only type of appeal used through the piece.

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 Commented [KK3]: Try different wording for more clarity

perspectives is a fundamental part of democracy. This is 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 so he has credibility within the scope of this argument.) This quotation serves

both as a rhetorical appeal to emotion but also an appeal to comradery with the “opinion section”

of The New York Times. As a rhetorical device, this is an effective argument as it appeals to

many 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 is centered around the idea

that media is changing so media outlets should also change. 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 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 that Kingsbury uses through the piece are the most Commented [KK4]: Clarify a bit

effective elements of rhetoric as they reach readers more directly.

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. Kingsbury’s appeals to logic in the article are not as numerous

as her other appeals and could have been better developed overall as her reference to the

“research sessions” seemed a bit out of place or not thoroughly developed. Commented [KK5]: As compared to what?

As with many pieces if writing it is possible to pick apart details 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, evoked 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. 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. As a whole this article was effective in both informing readers

why a change in the terminology is necessary by using several appeals in the forms of headers,

anecdotes, studies, and quotes Commented [KK6]: May benefit from a different more
summary based reiteration of the thesis