Every year,
on the third Monday in February the nation comes together to honor our past and
present presidents. This year due to the
election of Donald Trump as President, the day took on an unusual meaning with
the holiday being labeled “Not My President’s Day”. Rallies were held in more than two-dozen
cities such as New York, Chicago, Los Angeles, Atlanta, and Philadelphia. Many
participants carried signs reading “Not My President” and “Resist” while
chanting, “No Ban, No Wall”. Protesters were expressing their discontent for the
President’s un-built wall on the Mexican border and his executive order on
travel by immigrants.
On my search about this event I came across an
article that targeted anti- Trump supporters. This article begins with the
sentiment, “If it’s one thing President Trump has done in his short time in
office, its change they way millions of Americans enjoy what was once leisure
time.” So from the start, this article is already has a negative attitude about
President Trump. The author of this article is using tactics that evoke strong
feelings towards our new president. The article talked about a “Not My
President’s Day” Facebook page that was created showing unity among anti-Trump
supporters. The blog also uses a picture
from a tweet of former President Barack Obama and former Vice President Joe
Biden saying, “We’re cancelling President’s Day”. This visual image suggests that if you
supported Obama than you should be against Donald Trump. The article later
lists every location of every rally being held on President’s Day. Ultimately
this article used the appeal of being a part of a group. The Facebook groups
and visuals of Barack Obama, are utilized to entice the reader to want to be a
part of this group.
In contrast
the article titled, “Not My President’s Day Protests an Abject Failure”
communicates a different perspective about the rallies being held around the
country. The article title clearly expresses the author’s view that the rallies
are a failure in contrast to the first article which regards the rallies as
successful. The demographic audience is geared towards Trump supporters and
protestors that are seeing no success in their efforts. The article looks down upon
the hype of the rallies stating that the over zealousness of news stories are
leading readers astray. Many headlines about the rallies stated, “Thousands of
Demonstrators Across U.S. Say‘s Not My President’” but the article illustrates
that in each city there was only a small number of protestors. This tactic
shows that the rallies did not have as huge of an impact as the public was lead
to believe. For example, in Washington, D.C. only about 700 people marched
against Donald Trump. When the numbers are broken down, 700 people marching
seem like less of an impact than thousands. The number of the anti-Trump
extremist, according to the blog, is dwindling down. The author explains that
the public will grow tired of rejecting President Trump by learning to accept his
policies. The author believes that ultimately the protests are not going to affecting
Donald Trump’s presidency. The author uses fear and compliancy to urge
protesters to give up.
The two
articles highlighted about the President’s Day rallies clearly exhibit two
different opinions. It is up to the reader to decide which article is more
compelling.
Sources: How to Celebrate. (2017, February 19). Retrieved February
23, 2017, from https://www.good.is/articles/not-my-presidents-day-calendar
20170, J. P. (2017, February 21). Limbaugh: 'Not My
President's Day' Protests an 'Abject Failure' Retrieved February 24, 2017, from
http://www.breitbart.com/video/2017/02/21/limbaugh-not-presidents-day-protests-abject-failure/
Well, yes - when opposing points of view are expressed, it is incumbent upon the reader to decide which argument is more compelling. This particular blog post was to focus upon a particular event which subsequently spawned competing narratives - and so do you mean to discuss the protests from February 20 specifically? Or perhaps do you mean to examine the #resistance movement in general?
ReplyDeleteRemember that our class is not about evaluating the relative worth or validity of different "sides" in a debate; but rather is concerned with the strategies and tactics which are used. You suggest that one article is favorable to the protests and one article is critical of the protests. It appears as though each article makes the effort to characterize the size of the protest - so that the "impact" of the protest might be minimized due to the relative size of the crowd in various cities. Likely, the comparison would be with the enormous crowds which gathered on the day after the Inauguration. Clearly, the "movement" tried to re-create that impressive spectacle, but was unable to do so. Coordinated, multi-location protests are hard to pull off - even more so when you are trying to do a SECOND one.
Your two articles seem to be typical talking-points designed specifically for their respective echo chambers. Breitbart.com - from the perspective of Progressives - may very well be the most reviled website in the world. One can safely assume that anything posted on that website will probably never be read by a democrat. Does that context change the way you understand this article?
Our class is about gaining proficiency in recognizing persuasive strategies. This post does a pretty good job of pointing out some of the clear distinctions in left-leaning v. right-leaning articles - but each seems to be about re-affirming a worldview rather than providing information. For the term paper, you need to start with a broader understanding of the event/competing narratives you will examine. Let me know how I can help!
There are numerous conflicting opinions across the nation and on social media when it comes to Donald Trump being elected as president. Recently, anti-Trump activists seized the President‘s day holiday to organize “Not My Presidents Day” rallies in cities around the country. In the past, this holiday has always been a designated day to celebrate our past and present presidents.
ReplyDeleteIn the leftwing leaning blog entitled “How to Celebrate “Not My President’s” Day” the author is trying to appeal to a more liberal viewpoint in multiple ways. First, the blog title implies that the article will provide insight to the reader on how to celebrate “Not My President’s Day”. In addition having a comedic visual of former President Obama and Joe Biden also appeals to liberal Americans by further highlighting the former administration lack of support for President Trump during the election. Also this visual’s underlying message conveys President Obama’s continued lack of support for Donald Trump. Therefore it is assumed that Obama supporters will not support President Trump as well.
Social Media now plays a key role in politics but for this specific rally it was a major tool. The blog previously highlighted states the specific name of the Facebook group where people can go to gain more information on the rallies. This persuasive technique influences anti-Trump readers to visit the “Not My President’s Day” page, research the rallies on this Facebook page, and then possibly compelling the reader to partake in a local rally. The Facebook group inspires unity for all rally participants and clearly states rally locations.
In contrast, “Limbaugh: ‘Not My President’s Day’ Protests an Abject Failure” is a right leaning blog site. The first sentence of this article states that the “Not My President’s Day” protests were a failure. People who have more conservative views and who did not partake or support the rallies will be convinced that the protests failed. The use of statistics is a persuasive technique utilized greatly by the author. Limbaugh explains although that the headlines claimed that thousands of people rallied, the actual break down of protesters by each city show points out that each rally individually only had about seven hundred participants. These hard facts further sway the reader because the numbers illustrate concrete evidence that the rallies were actually relatively small in size.
Once again social media is employed as a compelling persuasive tool to influence a person’s point of view. The blog site inserts the actual radio broadcast so the reader can hear Limbaugh’s passionate vocalizations along with actual videos of the rallies. However the only the comments featured are made by Trump supporters. The article acknowledges that “Yes there was a crowd of people rallying” but that not everyone there was supporting the rallies. The viewer is persuaded to believe that in the numbers not all of the people present were against Trump. This point further accent the fact that rally supporter numbers were actually small in size. At the end of the article there is two buttons present, so that in one click the reader can share this article to Facebook or Twitter therefore making this blog easy to be shared and communicated.
Each of the articles discussed have different viewpoints and employed social media to communicate information about the rallies that were held on President’s Day. Both of these articles used persuasive techniques to influence their target audiences. Ultimately, the media plays a huge part in getting both sides of the issue out to the public. There has been numerous protests for and against Donald Trump however the “Not My President’s Day” rallies are particularly interesting and depending upon your viewpoint can be viewed differently.
Yes, you are accurate with basically all of what you say here.
ReplyDeleteUltimately, there are many narratives regarding Mr. Trump, and the "Not My President's Day" rallies, as well as about the #resistance in general. These "narratives" do not exist as stated goals for particular individuals or organizations - although there would be a great deal of overlap among them. Instead, they can be recognized in strategic choices - and their effects can be measured in the broad ebb and flow of public opinion.
Consider the idea of crowd size now - weeks after the event itself. Now, those who had defended the significance of the crowd size have relegated that debate to the larger problem of how the opposition (viewed as the Trump administration) continues to dismiss and smear opponents. As specific events recede from attention, the symbolism of those events is what imprints upon the narrative. "How many people were there" becomes replaced with "They don't respect us."
Don't get too bogged down in assessing each detail or evaluating the validity of each claim. Consider the ways that the general public may or may not notice certain aspects of certain stories. The broader impact of competing narratives is seen from a broader perspective.
Good work here! Let me know how I can help!