Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 6

Abdelhalim 1

Mostafa Abdelhalim
Enos
ENGW 1111
September 28, 2016
Freedom Affairs: The Choice to Stand or Sit
The notion of freedom of expression has been very controversial despite it being backed
by the First amendment. Whether it be the burning of the American flag, the making of a
controversial cartoon, or most recently the choice to sit down during the national anthem,
controversy seems to follow the first amendment. Colin Kaepernick, the quarterback for the San
Francisco 49ers, has made a bold statement by refusing to stand for the national anthem prior to
every game played. He has stated that he is not going to stand up to show pride in a flag for a
country that oppresses black people and people of color. (Colin Kaepernick) Whatever the
reason may be, Kaepernick has had his fair share of critics claiming Kaepernick has disrespected
the United States. Amid this controversy, the Los Angeles Times Editorial Board released the
editorial Colin Kaepernick shouldn't stand up if he doesn't want to in which they argue that
Keapernick should be able to sit if he wants to. In this article, the Los Angeles Times effectively
uses modes of persuasion such as pathos and logos in justifying Kaepernick.
In writing this article, the LA Times targeted the so called patriotic audience in the United
States. These patriots feel as if their flag is being disrespected by Kaepernick not standing for
the national anthem and have heavily criticized him. They are addressing these bitter citizens of
the United States by constantly reminding them that Kapernick has the right to protest. They are
writing to an audience who is educated, but may not fully understand the situation; this is
demonstrated by their inclusion of background of the situation. However, most of the points

Abdelhalim 2
argued demonstrate that their audience should understand the situation for them to hammer their
own opinion into the mix. The LA Times stated their audience in the statement Kaepernick has
generated an endless stream of angry, personal attacks on Twitter and elsewhere in which he is
accused of displaying an ungrateful, hypocritical disrespect for the United States. (Colin). The
LA Times demonstrate who they want to appeal to, as they have constantly been witness to
Kaepernicks harassment on social media. They are attempting to defend his actions from the
detractors of his actions and protests. In the article, the writers are constantly reflecting on the
right to protest throughout the article and wants the audience to see their viewpoint.
As for the specific demographics of the audience, it seems as if the LA Times is
specifically aiming at those who lean towards the right side of the political spectrum, specifically
republicans. It is demonstrated in the passage
Kaepernick has generated an endless stream of angry, personal attacks on Twitter and
elsewhere in which he is accused of displaying an ungrateful, hypocritical disrespect for
the United States. On Monday, for instance, Fox News host Sean Hannity called
Kaepernick a spoiled brat, out-of-touch, super-rich athlete who lives in the greatest
nation on earth. And youll be shocked to hear that on Tuesday, Donald Trump weighed
in, calling the quarterbacks failure to stand a terrible thing, adding that you know,
maybe he should find a country that works better for him. (Colin)
Although the writers are not specifically addressing Sean Hannity and Donald Trump,
their reference of the prominent republicans suggest the critics of Kaepernick that they are
arguing against in the article are predominantly republican. Despite not all republicans
supporting these two republican figures, their very selection of these two prominent republicans
demonstrate they believe most of Kaepernicks critics are republican. There were many other

Abdelhalim 3
prominent figures in society that criticized Kaepernick, but they chose Hannity and Trump to
include in their article. They create a mentality in this article that the people they arguing against
are mostly republican.
Even though the primary conversation seems to be whether or not Kaepernick is justified
in sitting during the national anthem, there is a much larger conversation happening. This
situation would not have even occurred without the infamous tensions between police and
citizens, specifically African Americans. Over the past few years, police brutality has been a hot
topic, with the killings of many innocent African Americans. Freddie Gray, Walter L. Scott, and
Alton Sterling are just some of the many victims killed by the police. Kaepernicks entire reason
for protest was to refuse to show pride in a flag for a country that oppresses black people and
people of color. (Kaepernick). Although, this the larger conversation behind this situation, The
LA Times focus on the conversation on whether he is justified in not standing during the national
anthem.
The entire purpose of this article is to justify the decision of Kaepernick to stand or sit
during the anthem. Their main point is stated with the paragraph Maybe you agree with him.
Maybe you believe that police disproportionately shoot young men of color without sufficient
justification and that they are too rarely punished for it. Or maybe you disagree and feel that
police are asked to put themselves into tough, dangerous situations and deserve the benefit of the
doubt. But either way, hes entitled to his protest. (Colin). They reiterate the purpose of this
article, not to persuade the audience that what he is doing is right, but that he is justified in what
he is doing. They are justifying his right to be able to make the choice to sit or stand.
The LA Times is able to appeal to their targeted audience of heavy critics of Kaepernick
by heavily utilizing the mode of persuasion, Pathos. The authors overload this piece with overly

Abdelhalim 4
emotional diction to appeal to their writers that Kaepernick is justified in what he is doing. In the
statement Oh, for goodness sake. Is it actually possible that 240 years after the signing of the
Declaration of Independence the message still hasnt sunk in that in this country, unlike some
others, citizens are free to express their opinions? (Colin) They place the image that this country
was based on principle of any citizen being able to express themselves in any way they want.
They also argue if this was the intended goal of the founding father for citizens to be allowed to
disagree, how are citizens supposed to go against the framework of the country they love? In this
sense, their goal is to create a sense of guilt within readers for going against the foundation that
the United States was built upon. Their use of a rhetorical question inserts the feeling of guilt
within the intended audience forcing them to thinking about their lack of progression of
accepting the fact that each citizen is allowed to express their own opinion.
They also utilize emotionally charged diction in order to get her point across in the
statement. For example, the phrase Oh, for goodness sake provides a certain amount of
emphasis. It feels as if they are pleading with the audience to accept their opinion, and realize
that they are clearly in error. Anytime, the phrase Oh for goodness sake is stated it is
automatically placing an emotionally charged exclamation point on the statement that follows it
or precedes it.
The LA Times further strengthen their persuasion of critics of Kaepernick by utilizing
another mode of persuasion, Logos. Logos is the mode of persuasion that utilizes fact or reason.
In this article, they utilize reason with the statement Even when the opinions in question are
unpopular or unpatriotic or even, for that matter, wrong? And that the rest of us are free, as well,
to express our agreement or disagreement? (Colin) They are trying to display reason by not
criticizing the people who disagree with Kaepernick decision to sit. They are actually informing

Abdelhalim 5
the audience that it is their right to be able to agree or disagree. Despite the essay strongly being
backed Pathos, they are able to create an element of Logos by breaking the fourth wall. They are
saying the reason people are able to have this conversation of whether Kaepernick is right, or
even the fact that they can write the article defending Kaepernick decision to sit, is the same
reason Kaepernick is able to sit during the national anthem. Their utilization of the First
Amendment provides a solid stance of evidence and fact that critics simply cannot argue.
Although this article effectively utilizes the mode of persuasion logos and pathos, ethos,
appealing to an audience based on the credibility of the character of the writer, is not really
demonstrated in this article. The LA Times do not utilize their credibility or expertise to back up
their point. They do not mention why they are accredited for the audience take their side. Most of
the appeals utilized are more of an emotional and logical appeal, not an appeal based on their
character. Although this does create a less effective argument, they still used other modes of
persuasion effectively.
Overall this article maintains a more colorful, opinionated tone. It feels as if the article is
more of a casual conversation. For example, the first sentence starts with the statement Here we
go (Colin). This demonstrates an element of annoyance with all the critics of Kaepernick
choice. Rather than undertake a formal tone, they resort to the usage of a casual emphatic tone.
This is highlighted by their blunt diction; Most sentences are short and straight to the point. The
writers seem determined to pound the idea that every American is entitled to protest, and express
themselves in whatever manner they deem fit. The short, blunt style seems appropriate as it
creates a heavy impact after each sentence is stated.
The LA Times Editorial Board is able to effectively justify Colin Kaepernicks actions in
this article. Their unusual tone and persona provides an effective diving point in getting their

Abdelhalim 6
ideas across. The writers also successfully back their stance with fact and reason through the use
of the first amendment. Readers should clearly to take away that Kaepernick is justified in his
actions, and he is entitled to sit or stand as he pleases.

Citations

The Los Angeles Times Editorial Board. Colin Kaepernick shouldn't stand up if he
doesn't want to. The Los Angeles Times, 31 Aug. 2016,
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-kaepernick-national-anthem-20160831-snapstory.html. Accessed 19 Sept 2016.

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi