Ortiz 1 Guillermo Ortiz Professor Steffen Gnzel ENC 1101-0011 8 October 2013

A Rhetorical Analysis of Authors on the Disclosure of Massive National Surveillance Programs in the United States

On June 5, 2013 the acclaimed newspaper The Guardian revealed that the National Security Agency (NSA) had been secretly collecting phone records of millions of Verizon phone users daily (Sharr par. 2). Edward Snowden, a former CIA and NSA employee provided the information; he leaked the classified information to inform the public as to that which is done in their name and that which is done against them" (Greenwald, MacAskill, and Poitras par.7). Many journalists and political activists immediately questioned the transparency of the government. Protests emerged nationwide and blamed the president for invading citizens privacy and espionage. Barack Obama responded on a press conference on August 9th that America is not intending on spying on ordinary people; the purpose of the NSA is, according to government sources, to prevent future terrorist attacks (Logiurato). Journalists have different opinions on the topic; I will rhetorically analyze how two authors disagree on this current issue. For the purpose of this rhetorical analysis I will utilize techniques and strategies from authors, who are experts and literate in the field of Writing and Rhetoric. Grant-Davies Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents provides a useful strategy for rhetorical reading; three major components are analyzed: the rhetor, the audience, and the exigence. As Grant-Davie mentions, I am proposing stasis theory be used as an analytic tool, an organizing principle in the sequence of questions that explore the exigence of a situation, but defining the issues of a

Ortiz

discourse also involves determining the states that will be contested in the discourse itself. In other words, this method of rhetorically analyzing texts must be used appropriately to maximize its potential; that is, establishing the discourse in an organized manner. My rhetorical analysis will consist of a comparison of these elements, rhetor, audience, exigence, and constrains, of two sources about the topic. The two sources I chose for this analysis are: The Founding Fathers Rejected a System of Authoritarian Power by Jonathan Turley, a professor of public interest law at George Washington University and Big Brother isnt Watching You by Marc Thiessen, a fellow American Enterprise Institute and former presidential speechwriter. Both articles were written in June 2013 after The Guardian published information leaked by Edward Snowden. These articles are very suitable for the analysis because the authors opinions on the articles fail to agree, which makes the articles sustainable for a rhetorical analysis. Turley criticizes the government for the mass data collection of citizens information and disagrees with political characters that defend the NSA. He demands absolute transparency in the growing surveillance system that the US government has created; privacy is becoming more like an illusion. Turley also fears that the surveillance system may create the path for authoritarian power because leaders could, any time in the future, have control over the citizens. On the other hand, Thiessen argues that there is nothing to worry about; the government is not looking for ordinary citizens. He describes the process of collecting information as vital and crucial to the nations defense against terrorism. The data being collected is not content of phone calls, but calling records, which are useful, for example, when searching for known associates of a terrorist captured in another county. Thiessen also heavily and implicitly criticizes Edward Snowden for revealing classified information.

Ortiz 3 Based on Grant-Davies stasis theory, both articles have a rhetor, audience, and exigency. Being a professor of public interest law at George Washington University, Jonathan Turley understands how laws affect public opinion. As a professor he studies behaviors that people tend to have when a controversial issue, like the surveillance program, is publicly leaked. In contrast, Thiessen has spent several years working as a column writer for a newspaper; also, he was the chief speechwriter for several congressmen during the Bush administration. Thiessen has had a more diverse background in politics than Taylor because of his involvement with the government. Having been a chief speechwriter, he has acquired skills and knowledge that the ordinary political activist would like to obtain. Certainly, this background gives an edge when deciding which article is the most reliable in terms of ethos. Thiessens background is admirable and his articles reflect the level of knowledge he has obtained in his former years working for the government. Since this is a complex political issue, the articles are directed to readers, US citizens and foreign ones, that have a good understanding of the government role in society and a good comprehension of the background story of the issue. These types of readers conform the audience the articles focus on. The articles are not published in national newspapers or advertised on national television, therefore the people who have no interest in politics or current controversial issues will have no exposure to this information. The audiences that will read the articles are readers who looked for them by themselves; contrary to advertisement, the audience, by exigence or motivation, has to look for the discourse, in this case, the articles. This is important because the readers will want to get something out of it, which will oblige the authors to use the art of persuasion to convince the readers. Authors relate to the audiences in different ways; Turley uses the subject we to relate to the audience: If we allow these officials to strip

Ortiz

us of our privacy, we have not failed the Framers. We have failed ourselves. (Turley). On the other hand, Thiessen uses empathy as a medium to relate to the audience: Calm down, fol ks. Big brother is not watching you. The audience feels comforted when an author tells them in simple words that there is nothing to worry about. Why did the author mention certain evidence instead of other evidence? Certainly, exigence or motivation is what drives authors to write subjectively. Both writers use persuasion to illustrate a point of view in the readers mind, but they have different motives for doing so. Turley emphasizes on privacy as a trait that is slowly vanishing into an illusion. He also gives great importance to the fact that with all the information that is being collected, leaders may misuse the data to form an authoritarian government. He wants the reader to think about other governments that have had authoritarian governments and compare them to the US government; he describes: While our current leaders may be benign, we are increasingly dependent on their good motivations and discretion for our liberty (Turley). His motive is clear: he wants to increase the awareness in the audience that the surveillance program could eventually bring terrible consequences to our society. In contrast, Marc Thiessens motive differs substantially with Turleys. Thiessen describes the NSA as a protector of the United States security; the surveillance programs are crucial for protection against terrorism. His motive is to persuade the audience by describing the benefits of having such a program and using clear examples that demonstrate the usefulness of the program. In this example he demonstrates it: for example, a new terrorist phone number found on a cellphone captured in a raid. It will then plug that new dot [bit of information] into the field of dots to find out which dots are connected to the new number (Thiessen). He also appeals to the logos of the discourse when describing the three only possible ways the government can retrieve information from terrorists; of course, a national

Ortiz 5 surveillance program is the most efficient way. Clearly, Thiessens motive is to stop the misconceptions about the NSA and raise awareness about the benefits the NSA may bring us. Reading these two sources rhetorically with the help of Grant-Davies stasis theory has helped me to identify key points where the authors disagree; Turley and Thiessen clearly disagree because of their previous experiences, background, and because they have different political views on the relationship between public privacy and the NSA. Their motives differ when trying to persuade the audience to learn something out of their opinions. Neither author described the other possible point of view: the benefits of the NSA, in the case of Taylor, or the consequences, in the case of Thiessen. Certainly, they were avoiding mentioning other points of view to further persuade the audience. As a reader, our job is to rhetorically analyze every text concerning the topic in order to fully understand the authors exigence and motives.

Ortiz

Works Cited Greenwald, Glenn, Ewen MacAskill, and Laura Poitras. "Edward Snowden: The Whistleblower behind the NSA Surveillance Revelations." The Guardian. The Guardian, 09 June 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. Logiurato, Brett. "Here's How Obama Is Planning To Reform Government Surveillance In Response To Edward Snowden's Leaks." Business Insider. Business Insider, 09 Aug. 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. Thiessen, Marc A. "Big Brother Isnt Watching You." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 10 June 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. Turley, Jonathan. "The Founding Fathers Rejected a System of Authoritarian Power." US News. U.S.News & World Report, 07 June 2013. Web. 08 Oct. 2013. Grant-Davie,Keith. "Rhetorical Situation and Their Constituents." Writing about Writing: A College Reader. Ed. Wardle, Elizabeth, and Doug Downs. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2011. N. pag. Print.