Regarding the recent victory of U.S. troops in Iraq, the editorial board of USA Today expresses their opinion on the foreign relationship between Iraqi and American governments. Three years ago, the city of Mosul was overtaken by the Islamic terrorist group, ISIS. The terrorist group was fueled by power and violence to obtain control of the Iraqi government and people. The terrorist group overwhelmingly took control of large cities, destroyed invaluable religious sites, and brutally killed thousands of civilians. In order to cease the relentless battles in Iraq, American troops intervened. For several years, American troops have fought the malicious and unsympathetic terrorist group on behalf of the Iraqi civilians and prime minister Haider Abadi. To elaborate their opinion of the intervention and the involvement of the U.S. Government within the Iraq borders, the editorial board used several techniques to display their thoughts. The commentary of the article was divided into two sections: agreement with the intervention process and other views of how the United States will continue to play in the Iraq tensions. In the first section, the editorial board appeals to the audience by describing the emotional and "devastating" tribulations of the U.S. soldiers and the Iraqi civilians. By creating the exaggerated tone and ethos within the article, the authors can elicit a positive discussion about the U.S. government intervention. The authors also provide a factual basis for the events that occurred in Iraq, which allows a credibility to be established. After utilizing these techniques, the editorial board later goes on to comment about how without the Untied States troops, the Iraqi civilians would not be able to enter a state of peace and hope. In the second section of the article, the editorial board emphasizes the engagement of other worldwide organizations to help the future of Iraq. Although these remarks provide commentary about the incident in Iraq, the factual basis of the article did not help me understand why the U.S. Government originally became involved in the fight other than to help the Iraqi people. Perhaps facts regarding the relationship of the Iraq government and the American government previous to the ISIS civil war would have been more helpful.
Emily, I agree with your critique about Eli Pariser's TED talk. Filter bubbles are not allowing Internet users to be exposed to a large variety of opinions and perspectives. There is a plethora of political news articles available to users across the country, but the "algorithm" that you mentioned prevents citizens from learning new perspectives about politics. If some citizens in communities don't have the personal resources to learn about our United States government through family or community, the Internet may be their only resource of political knowledge. If the search engines of Internet sites eliminate political news from articles and editorials that have all different political ideologies, then they may not retrieve the knowledge they need to formulate their own opinions about public policy and other social issues. As a result, citizens do not have enough political knowledge to vote and become politically engaged. In regard to your discussio
Comments
Post a Comment