Alarmist Rhetoric? Say What?

Ring the Alarm

In her rhetorical analysis of Anne Applebaum’s article, Tamar Demby pinpoints and attacks the holes in Applebaum’s arguments so as to demonstrate the journalist’s failure to make proper use of hard facts in supporting her position on the use of nuclear reactors. Demby asserts that, throughout her article, Applebaum continuously makes statements that she drastically fails to support due to her lack of supporting evidence. The only verified details the journalist uses are employed to manipulate a visceral effect in the reader, thereby appealing more to emotion as opposed to logic. Furthermore, Demby writes off Applebaum’s position entirely, stating that it is solely based on an unfortunate case of “personal alarm” in response to the catastrophe as opposed to a fair-minded article. Demby further attacks Applebaum’s credibility and expertise, laying claim to the fact that instead of presenting a clear viewpoint supported by solid evidence, the journalist “relies on hot-button issues” so as to alarm her readers. In essence, Demby holds the article in contempt, looking down with scorn on its ineffective, or rather inappropriate, use of pathos as a rhetorical strategy when ethos would have been the more fitting way to go.

I disagree with Demby because, in re-reading Applebaum’s article, I found that the journalist took a reasonable and balanced stance on the issue. I feel like she explores different sides of the use of nuclear reactors, and although her position leans towards its detrimental consequences, Applebaum still provides counterarguments that give the reader some leeway to consider the other side of the story. In my opinion, she is right in making a statement that the use of nuclear has costs that go beyond the expenses of plant construction. After witnessing the disaster brought on by the nuclear explosion in Japan, it is only logical for Applebaum to shed some light on the immense social responsibility that countries must be ready to assume when constructing their supposedly “super-safe” nuclear plants. If Japan, one of the world’s most technologically advanced nations, failed in its establishment of a nuclear plant – as demonstrated by the explosion – shouldn’t other countries in the international community reconsider their decisions to build strings of nuclear plants that will impact people’s health on a global scale? Furthermore, Applebaum does provide valid evidence about the development of nuclear power in Europe. The facts she uses, although not geared towards the technological prowess of Japan, serve to illustrate a larger point – that the fate of humanity cannot be gambled for the sake of nuclear plants. One error could result in millions of lives – as was the case in Japan. Applebaum is trying to make readers more conscious of the ways in which the decisions of governments around the world could potentially destroy or even end take their lives. She is highlighting that nuclear is not a game.

Demby could improve her essay by providing some counterarguments that would help demonstrate that she has thoroughly reflected on all sides of the topic as opposed to taking an immediate position against Applebaum’s article. Demby casts Applebaum’s solely under a negative light, thereby taking certain parts out of Applebaum’s article to use as biased confirmation of her point – that Applebaum has failed to establish her ethos as a journalist. Demby does not analyze Applebaum’s piece as a whole, but rather centralizes on the ways in which Applebaum fails to support her claims of Japanese technological prowess. To be more effective in her essay, Demby should take a more holistic approach in reading Applebaum’s article so as to present evidence geared away from the Japanese and towards other points that Applebaum failed to support that prove that her article is not credible.