Kulp 1

Kaileigh Kulp
Aaron Boyers
WRIT 101-017
FINAL WORK
12/8/21

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 and unifies the

community. 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 Kingsbury’s background in

the industry. Kingsbury could have done more to thoroughly develop the reader’s understanding

of the depth of complexity associated with changing the term by choosing to use data or research

to expose nuance. However, Kingsbury’s piece is still informative and an effective mode of

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

develop her argument.

Kathleen Kingsbury employed elements such as a footer and biases in order to prove her

credibility on the subject to readers. The end of the piece brandished a footer that detailed

Kingsbury's work within The New York Times’s opinion section and talked about an award that

she won in 2015 for distinguished editorial writing. This footer is effective in informing readers

of Kingsbury's qualifications in both 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
 Kulp 2

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 their readers. Kingsbury’s bias is appropriate as she is

writing from the perspective of her own paper, and the aggressive stance that she takes towards

other newspapers is effective in further establishing her credibility by proving to her readers that

The New York Times is fiercely protective and caring of its audience. Using devices such as a

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

type of appeal used throughout the piece.

This article utilizes a tone of camaraderie and patriotism to successfully evoke a unifying

and community forming 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 was a part of

the group who first started the opinion section of The New York Times so he has credibility

within the scope of this argument). Kingsbury quotes Oakes by saying, “‘Diversity of opinion is

the lifeblood of democracy. … The minute we begin to insist that everyone think the same way

we think, our democratic way of life is in danger’” (Kingsbury). 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 and their readers. 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 its readers and
 Kulp 3

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 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 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 well received 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 footer,

evoked readers emotions and their sense of patriotism by focusing on quotations, as well as used
 Kulp 4

logical appeals to expose the background of the term and prove that research had been done

about how the audience might react. 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 hit closer to home than Kingsbury’s other argumentative appeals. The weakest of

such being her reference to the “research sessions.” This point 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 a footer, anecdotes, studies, and quotes.

 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.