12/3/21, 5:24 PM Empty

Rhetorical Analysis - “Why The New York Times Is Retiring the Term ‘Op-Ed’”
 
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 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. However, The piece by Kingsbury's piece is still
however an overall informative and an effective mode of communication to New York Times readers
as Kingsbury employs several elements of rhetoric to develop her argument.  crossed out a few
phrases here for some concision, but you can feel free to ignore them, nothing wrong as-was :) 

Kathleen Kingsbury employed several elements such as headers, <- could omit this comma and
biases in order to prove her credibility on the subject to readers. The end of the piece brandished <-
nice word choice, I dig it 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 in 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 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. [maybe include how her bias increased
credibility] While Kingsbury’s bias is appropriate, as she is writing from the perspective of her own
paper, at times 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 helps establish Kingsbury’s credibility; however, this is not the
only type of appeal used throughout the piece.  <--possible contradiction. 

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 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/and 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 as an 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
https://wcoocm2.com:9088/p/montana.sc61a7aae8a33e0?key=MTl8c2M2MWE3YWFlOGEzM2UwITEyMDM=&av=YES&tok=NO&userName=Kaileigh 1/2
12/3/21, 5:24 PM Empty

changing the terminology. The article mentions that The New York Times truly cares about its
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 be best. The appeals to emotion that
Kingsbury uses through the piece appear numerous times 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, <-could omit this comma 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/gives 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 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/prove 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 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.

https://wcoocm2.com:9088/p/montana.sc61a7aae8a33e0?key=MTl8c2M2MWE3YWFlOGEzM2UwITEyMDM=&av=YES&tok=NO&userName=Kaileigh 2/2