Rhetorical Analysis
This is my response to Brian Doucet and Philp`s “In Detroit ‘ruin porn’ ignores the voices of those who still call the city home and recommendation for publication in the Shorthorn. In my opinion I believe the authors piece will be unpersuasive to the readers and not to be published in the Shorthorn. The readers will find the piece interesting for wanting to know why people still call Detroit their home even after all the ruin porn. Within this piece Doucet and Philp gives some reasons on why the people will only find this interesting and not be persuaded.
Doucet and Philip central claim throughout the article is that they disapprove of ruin porn. Both authors give supporting ideas on how they disapprove of ruin porn and disapprove on how it’s being used against the city of Detroit. The ruin porn used against Detroit is degrading the city of it history and humanity that is still in the city. The city is still called home to many even after everything that it has gone through such at the capitalism as said toward the end of the article. The authors speak on how they disapprove by speaking of how ruin porn is based purely on aesthetics and it almost always devoid of people. …show more content…
The article speaks on how ruin porn only focuses on the bad side of the town and ignores the good side. By the authors speaking about this the readers won’t want to read the article because this isn’t happening in Texas it’s happening in a different state so why would they care about this. The readers won’t do anything about this problem for it not happening in Texas but in the city of Detroit.
Another reason supporting the central claim of the authors is when there is political fragmentation. The ruin porn is being used as a profit and stripping the city of its history and cultural. The authors don’t agree with this method of using the ruin porn to make a quick buck. With this it is destroying the city even more and making it harder for people to want to live there.
Pathos is used almost everywhere in this article it speaks of how the city is getting destroyed of its history and humanity by simply destroying the image of Detroit. The authors speak of how 60,000 properties are being evicted and of those 40,000 of those properties are being occupied. Also of how 10% of the population of Detroit are at risk of losing their homes this year. The authors are trying to make you feel bad for the city but in the attempt to do so they don’t give enough detail to make the reader do something about the problem with the ruin porn in Detroit. In their appeal to ethos I found their credential were agreeable and they came off as well intentioned. With Doucet being a lecturer and Philip being an author and journalist they give enough information in the article to make the readers trust on everything being said in this piece. I believe the reader base for the Shorthorn will believe for what is being said because the readers are well educated, most are much older and there is a more diverse community these aspects are important because they expect the authors to be more knowledgeable about the subject and can write an informative article about the subject at hand. The Authors came out great intentioned for saying how ruin porn is not ok but if pictures are being taken of the city there should be some information on what Detroit has been through. The Authors never truly addressed a counter argument in the article for when they did it would be a negative depiction. When he brings up how the ruins are being removed from their social contents and that ruin is just mimicking and not truly informing. The Shorthorn reader base will accept the pretrial of the counter argument because they are liberal and prone to social reform. At the end I believe this Article should not be published in the Shorthorn as it will not interest the reader base. What is happening with the ruin porn in Detroit is not happening here in Texas where the readers live so there is no need for them to worry about
This is my response to Brian Doucet and Philp`s “In Detroit ‘ruin porn’ ignores the voices of those who still call the city home and recommendation for publication in the Shorthorn. In my opinion I believe the authors piece will be unpersuasive to the readers and not to be published in the Shorthorn. The readers will find the piece interesting for wanting to know why people still call Detroit their home even after all the ruin porn. Within this piece Doucet and Philp gives some reasons on why the people will only find this interesting and not be persuaded.
Doucet and Philip central claim throughout the article is that they disapprove of ruin porn. Both authors give supporting ideas on how they disapprove of ruin porn and disapprove on how it’s being used against the city of Detroit. The ruin porn used against Detroit is degrading the city of it history and humanity that is still in the city. The city is still called home to many even after everything that it has gone through such at the capitalism as said toward the end of the article. The authors speak on how they disapprove by speaking of how ruin porn is based purely on aesthetics and it almost always devoid of people. …show more content…
The article speaks on how ruin porn only focuses on the bad side of the town and ignores the good side. By the authors speaking about this the readers won’t want to read the article because this isn’t happening in Texas it’s happening in a different state so why would they care about this. The readers won’t do anything about this problem for it not happening in Texas but in the city of Detroit.
Another reason supporting the central claim of the authors is when there is political fragmentation. The ruin porn is being used as a profit and stripping the city of its history and cultural. The authors don’t agree with this method of using the ruin porn to make a quick buck. With this it is destroying the city even more and making it harder for people to want to live there.
Pathos is used almost everywhere in this article it speaks of how the city is getting destroyed of its history and humanity by simply destroying the image of Detroit. The authors speak of how 60,000 properties are being evicted and of those 40,000 of those properties are being occupied. Also of how 10% of the population of Detroit are at risk of losing their homes this year. The authors are trying to make you feel bad for the city but in the attempt to do so they don’t give enough detail to make the reader do something about the problem with the ruin porn in Detroit. In their appeal to ethos I found their credential were agreeable and they came off as well intentioned. With Doucet being a lecturer and Philip being an author and journalist they give enough information in the article to make the readers trust on everything being said in this piece. I believe the reader base for the Shorthorn will believe for what is being said because the readers are well educated, most are much older and there is a more diverse community these aspects are important because they expect the authors to be more knowledgeable about the subject and can write an informative article about the subject at hand. The Authors came out great intentioned for saying how ruin porn is not ok but if pictures are being taken of the city there should be some information on what Detroit has been through. The Authors never truly addressed a counter argument in the article for when they did it would be a negative depiction. When he brings up how the ruins are being removed from their social contents and that ruin is just mimicking and not truly informing. The Shorthorn reader base will accept the pretrial of the counter argument because they are liberal and prone to social reform. At the end I believe this Article should not be published in the Shorthorn as it will not interest the reader base. What is happening with the ruin porn in Detroit is not happening here in Texas where the readers live so there is no need for them to worry about