On this first day in office, Donald Trump signed the
"Mexico City Policy". This policy is also known as the "Global
Gag Rule" to insinuate taking away a woman's voice and freedom. The policy
simply states that the United States will ban Federal money from going to
international groups that either perform or provide any information about
abortions. This policy is obviously going to be two sided, because everybody
has a different stance on abortion.
The first article I read came from a democratic, or left
leaning site, Slate. The site gave strict facts about the policy, and made it a
point to call it the global gag rule, rather than the Mexican city policy. The
author, Michelle Goldberg, starts out by saying it is the global gag rule on
steroids. She states in her article that Trump did this very quietly, as his
first order. The white house would not take any phone calls or announce it
until later in the day, which was unusual. Her biggest argument that in the
past, the policy meant that "foreign NGO's must disavow with any
involvement with abortion in order to receive US funding." She then goes
on to say that trump's version was a huge expansion for the worst, he expanded
the policy to all global health funding. Goldberg then trails off in her
article speaking about how research for aids will be affected. She then ends it
using a quote from Ann Starrs, the president of the Guttmacher Institute. She
makes it known that she and her staff fear the white men behind the desk,
making decisions for them. Starrs tells Goldmann that she was not surprised
that it was reinstated, but she was "truly shocked". The author states that this order is not only
bad for women, but bad for men as well.
The second article I read was more republican, or right
sided. The article came from Breitbart.com and was written by Dr. Susan Berry.
Starting off this article may seem more appealing to many people because it
uses ethos, because she is a doctor, it does not state if she is a medical
doctor or a university doctorate, but the Dr. suffix before her name is
somewhat clarifying. In this article, Berry opens up by stating 5 facts about
the policy. It should be taken into consideration that she never calls it the
global gag rule herself. The facts that she states are facts that are most
commonly confused, like birth control not being affected by this policy. She goes on to quote many different people
throughout the article, which are all in support of Trump. There are positive
quotes throughout the article stating that this is "A sign that America
will be great again". This article also praises his expansion on the
policy, rather than belittling it. Berry calls his expansion a modernized
version of the policy. Towards the end of the article, she states a quote from
Susan B. Anthony president Marjorie Dannenfelser. In his quote, Dannenfelser
states that: "Thanks to President Trump, the Secretary of State is
directed to ensure Americans are no longer complicit in violating the dignity
of women and children overseas. No longer will abortion be a top U.S. export.”
Obviously after reading these two articles, they both have
very different stances on Trump’s policy. You can tell by their rhetoric. The
first article (left sided) uses pathos to appeal to the audience’s emotion. She
uses Trump as the “Common Enemy” because those who would like that article,
would not be Trump supporters. The second article is more factual, but in
obvious support of Trump. This is speaking to an audience that already has his
support.
Sources:
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2017/01/23/five-facts-president-trump-reinstating-mexico-city-policy-abortion/
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2017/01/trump_s_global_gag_rule_is_even_worse_than_it_seemed.html
The parameters of this assignment called for you to identify a particular event from which competing narratives emerged. Do you mean to focus on the specific signing of this executive order - the "Mexico City Policy"? or do you mean the large-scale, ongoing culture war over abortion?
ReplyDeleteYou do a pretty nice job discussing the basic talking points as presented in the two articles you cite. Understand that those two outlets: Breitbart and Slate, are examples of extreme partisan slanting. It is very likely that any individual who appreciates and reads one will also avoid and dismiss the other. Folks who read Breitbart simply don't read Slate - and vice versa. Does this clear distinction in their respective audiences have any bearing as to the content contained in each article?
Because of this reality, it is a bit of a stretch to consider either of these to be an effort to persuade a moderate audience. You are exactly correct when you point out the elements in each article that are clearly designed to appeal to a biased audience.
It is interesting how each of these articles tries to extend its thesis to other areas - with the liberal criticism extending to "women's voice and freedom" and the conservative support suggesting that now the US will no longer "export abortion." These are emotional arguments that are difficult to reconcile with the reality of foreign aid. Even the way this policy is named (it is a media invention that this is called the "Global Gag Rule") is highly partisan.
Our class is meant to be an opportunity for you to develop your capacity to recognize and assess persuasive technique. Be mindful of simply comparing the way each side discusses abortion - clearly, we know there is a significant divide in how the public views that practice. Your analysis needs to do more than point out the existence of those differences. Consider how each side likely would imply that they stand for the dignity of women - the liberal side by proclaiming that women should have the right to self-determination, and the conservative side by proclaiming that, just like mothers, our nation's policies should be crafted to respect and protect human life. Because this debate has been raging for decades, the narratives have become familiar - and it is often when a new arena emerges (like foreign aid) that the debate becomes reinvigorated, but with the same old language and symbols.
Good stuff here! Do a little more to define the specific area you will focus on. Please let me know how I can help!
When I first started researching this topic I had the intent to write about the signing of the policy and the two parties different reactions, which showed to be very far apart. I grew up in a catholic school for 13 years and I was always taught to see abortion as something very wrong and “sinful”. I never really thought of myself to be religious and I always considered myself to be pro-choice, since it is the woman’s choice.
ReplyDeleteWhen speaking about Berry and Goldberg they are two extremely different authors. The first author being Goldberg, who is extremely democratic. She writes for a website called “Slate”, in her article she calls it the “Global Gag Rule” which differs from its official name as the “Mexican City Policy”. By using this she adds a sort of morbidity about the policy and how unbelievable it is that Trump has agreed to sign it. The second article was more republican and written by Dr. Susan Berry from Breitbart.com. She has some sort of standard that makes her more credible, since she is a medical doctor compared to a woman who is just ranting emotionally. I agree that both women are trying to get at an audience they already have. The do not use good forms of persuasion, but they use forms of communication to add fire under their followers, in order to get them to agree more or to say “Yeah! she is right”. They should be ignoring the “Sympathetics”, but they are trying to edge them on even more, if they were to use good persuasion tactics, they would be able to contact the moderates, who do not have a feeling for which side they stand on. The authors in each article write what each audience wants to hear, they know their audience and they know what they want to read. They are not interested in reading something that contradicts their own views. The content in each article is tailored or worded so that it appeals to the audience, they can leave out certain things that can persuade an audience to agree or disagree with their already firmly set views.
The media invented the term “The Global Gag Rule” because it “gags” women from their freedom that they have with their bodies. The democratic article is heavily emotional and overexaggerated. The republican article states fact but also obsesses over Trump and how wonderful he is. I would have to agree with the Democratic side on this issue. I do not like the article that is written, but I am pro-choice and I believe a woman has the choice to do whatever she would like with her body. I consider myself to be republican on just about every other issue though. As I read the democratic article, I felt annoyed at the constant slandering on Trump and I just wanted to stop reading it. But, when I read the republican article, I felt like it was written better and the author sounded like she was making a point and not just complaining.
You do a very good job of seeing the form of each narrative - and even acknowledging the ways these tactics can influence a reader. You suggest that you "would have to agree with the Dem side" while also recognizing that the left-leaning article was shorter on evidence but disturbingly full of vitriol and criticism of the president. These articles, as we've said, come from more extreme sources that would not really concern themselves with objectivity or appeals to moderates. Do sources from more moderate sites simply repeat these basic arguments? Would you suggest that both advocates and opponents of abortion rights will sometimes make leaps of inference to connect an event to their preferred issue? Would you suggest that both would also take some pains to associate opponents with other movements in history - in order to contextualize the issues for the benefit of the reading audience? This sort of historical framing is a big part of any public narrative.
ReplyDeleteYou are doing very well to recognize the differences in how each side seems to base their arguments. What other specific differences can you observe in these two narratives? How extreme, or mainstream, do they try to get? Good stuff here! Let me know how I can help.