Any feedback would be greatly appreciated for my analysis... I placed the article on top with my analysis part after the article. Just wondering though- How much is enough for Language Analysis?? Like how many words/paragraphs should I be aiming for? Also my SAC is in about 6 weeks so should I focus on perfecting my essays or starting to do timed essays??
http://nypost.com/2015/01/18/blaming-the-victim-charlie-hebdo-free-speech/Blaming the Victim- Charlie Hebdo Free Speech
In light of the recent controversy surrounding the mass killings at the French newspaper headquarters ‘Charlie Hebdo’ after offensive satirical cartoons were published by the paper, popular opinion has been split on whether boundaries and restraint should be exercised to avoid similar scenarios from occurring. In her article “Blaming the Victim- Charlie Hebdo Free Speech”, editor of the Manhattan Institute’s City Journal, Nicole Gelinas, argues in both an emotive and reasoned tone that freedom of speech cannot be mutually exclusive if restrictions are placed, and that similar to other scenarios, victims should not be blamed for the actions of perpetrators calling to action readers to actively uphold and defend the ability of free speech, presenting it as essential to our democracy.
One of the arguments Gelinas continuously reinforces throughout the article is the analogy of the “victim-blaming” mentality in relation to the Charlie Hebdo scenario. This can also seen by the title of the piece titled “Blaming the Victim”. Gelinas begins the article by using a rhetorical question. This engages the reader with the question making them take on a more personal approach and mindset when reading the rest of her article. Using the example of rape victim situations and comparing it to the case, by asking readers if rape victims “have it coming” this positions the reader to disagree and thus agree with the implications of this, which is that similarly to rape victims, the newspaper was not responsible for the mass killings that occurred. The use of this scenario further invokes a sense of justice by the readers as it also acts as a reminder of popular misconceptions and attitudes towards rape victims. By “wearing a short skirt and high heels [walking] down a street late at night” it is seen by some people that a rape victim had contributed to her own unfortunate circumstance. This comparison is also emphasized by the image of the woman whose mouth is covered by tape with the French words “liberte” of freedom. The tape covering the mouth of a woman in defense of her freedom can invoke similar memories of feminist campaigns but in this image it links back to the lack of voice to the lack of freedom of expression as seen through the pencils on the side of the womans face. The majority of the audience who regularly follow Gelinas articles would agree that rape victims are not to be blamed and thus the comparison of these two scenarios further invokes feelings of rage about these injustices, thus agreeing that the newspaper should not be blamed, contrary to popular arguments about how the newspaper had invoked the response by the Muslim community that it did.
For readers who may not be as convinced about the rape victim blaming comparison, Gelinas also utilizes a series of analogies through other popular news stories applying these to the Charlie Hebdo case. Utilizing stories such as the attacking of a man in a Brooklyn synagogue, the Boston bombings and the killings of the New york police officers in October, the reader is reminded of scenarios in which the actions of criminals should similarly not be justifiable to reinforce her point that situations are out of control of victims. By stating them as rhetorical questions on whether America “fail[ed]” the perpetrators resulting in their actions, it also appeals to the patriotic and democratic values of the readers who would be affronted at the connotations of what this implies, thus being placed into a position to agree with the answer the rhetorical question suggests, which is that victims should not be blamed for the actions of their perpetrators.
Through utilizing emotive language throughout the article, and very current news events close to the hearts of the readers, Gelinas triggers strong emotional responses in the reader, manipulating their heightened emotions into agreeing with the viewpoints that she presents. The passionate and emotive tone Gelina employs in her approach throughout article to influence the readers in this way is reinforced by the use of the downcast image, which heavy saturation adds to the somber tone of the piece. Her gut-wrenching descriptions of the “horrifically bloody deaths” as well as the examples of other similar news reports places readers into a position of empathy influencing them to be supportive for the points made in the rest of her article. By placing them into this position, readers are made to feel as if they are being cruel and heartless, condoning actions taken by criminals if they disagree with the points she makes in the article.
Gelina also contends that freedom of speech is not something that is mutually exclusive utilizing absolute statements, to emphasize how opposing arguments which may be presented to the reader are impossible to justify. When she talks about the Financial Times headline of “Pope backs free speech, but faith is off limits”, Gelinas makes use of sarcastic, incredulous tones saying “as if”, making the reader feel as if this viewpoint is thus not viable. The contrast between Gelinas use of emotive language made earlier on in the piece to her more casual language in describing the popes response as a “cute vignette” highlights and incokes feelings of doubt from the reader on whether opinions made by people on the opposing side of the argument such as the Pope have been fully understood, making their opinions less reliable. By choosing to address opposing responses in her article to the issue, Gelina also ensures that she appears to the audience to have considered both sides of the argument come to a reasoned conclusion, thus lending herself with more credibility and standing on the issue making her contentions appear more reliable to the audience.
Gelina goes on to appeal more towards the democratic values of the reader as she contends that as individuals we should be fighting for the freedom of speech. By stating that “nobody with power likes free speech” she juxtaposes and divides the audience, appealing to the group loyalty of the assumed majority who would be without “power”. This makes the reader feel as if they should be thus supporting Gelinas viewpoints as they are part of the majority who “likes free speech” by implication. By stating that changing freedom of speech laws could lead to possible knock on effects to the future where it may be “irresponsible to criticize a wartime president or prime minister” it appeals to the democratic values and justice of readers who will not want their rights taken away from them. By using the anecdotal scenario of the sensor made on “more than half of American colleges” that “restrict campus speech” she draws more concern over the loss of democracy, using something that would be close to the hearts of the American readers, invoking more personal feelings towards the issue. The use of the word “vaguely” further highlights to the readers how quickly this can change, thus invoking further concern from the readers as it highlights the ambiguous and elusive changing nature concerning freedom of speech. At the end of the article she reinforces the idea that “to make one exception means to make them all” reminding audience of how disagreeing with her contentions make them bystanders or supporters of criminals and corrupt individuals. The final sentence of the article further reminds the readers and reinforces the arguments made throughout the article of how victims should not be blamed and the necessity of defending freedom of speech.
Home
Help
Search
Login
