A Closer Look: Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics
In “Violent Rhetoric and Arizona Politics” by Nathan Thornburgh, the author tries to get the message across that rumors can lead to more violence, than what actually happens. In a time where there are rumors flying, and people getting killed and a congresswoman shot because of them, Thornburgh is out there to prove his point that perhaps rumors are leading to all of this violence in Arizona. However his argument would have been more effective had he shown less bias, been a bit less dismissive and had provided more evidence and statistics to back up his paper. While not all bias is bad, too much can lead to an argument being less effective.
Thornburgh’s bias can be seen in many aspects of the paper. In Thornburgh’s paper bias can be seen in his use of tone and word choice. Thornburgh chooses, out of the many names to call the shooter, “Coward” (Gooch 325.) While it definitely shows Thornburgh's anger, where does the bias come from? Simple. Thornburgh's praise and protection of the congresswoman. It his small things, like his commenting on “Gifford was one of few politicians offering concrete law enforcement steps” and the fact that he later states numerous other facts to paint her in a good light (325). At the very end he goes on to say “Gifford’s is a sensible politician who was likely shot because she dealt with Arizona's reality, not its rumors” (Gooch 325). It is Thornburgh's bias, as bias is simply whichever way you lean towards in an argument, of the congresswoman that leads to him calling the shooter a coward. In anger or not, bias still promoted this. While bias is not bad, too much of it clouds your argument. That is what bias did here, as the fact that Thornburgh supports the congresswoman pops out at you and is right in your face at some points. It does not help Thornburgh's argument either, as he becomes dismissive of certain things within his argument.
Thornburgh can be seen as dismissive...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document