The struggle between the company of Apple Incorporated and the Federal Bureau of Investigation concerning locating information contained on a terrorist’s iPhone via hacking caused a large spike in public concern for data safety and privacy in early 2016. While in the midst of controversy over Apple’s decision to not provide further assistance to the FBI, CEO of the company, Tim Cook, published a statement on the company’s official website addressing concerns and clarifying his position on the matter. In his message, Cook uses various examples of word choice, logic, and amiable appeals in order to convey his reasoning behind not aiding the FBI and to hopefully persuade the audience to support or qualify his decision. At the start of Cook’s …show more content…
address, he explains the situation at hand and directly acknowledges Apple’s customers and the general public while introducing the magnitude of the dilemma. Throughout his writing, Cook uses colloquial yet authoritative language in order to relate to the audience consisting of the general public, even going as far as saying, “This moment calls for public discussion, and we want our customers and people around the country to understand what is at stake.” Building from this, the author’s tone is friendly and explanatory which assists his argument. Cook’s use of pronouns like “we” and “our” add a personalized touch to his message. Sentences such as, “People use them [smartphones] to store an incredible amount of personal information, from our private conversations to our photos, our music, our notes, our calendars and contacts, our financial information and health data, even where we have been and where we are going,” and, “Compromising the security of our personal information can ultimately put our personal safety at risk, That is why encryption has become so important to all of us,” cause the reader to believe that Tim Cook and the rest of the company are a part of the group affected and are on the side of the general population. Narrowing down to the actual argument of the paper, Cook states that Apple has complied with “valid subpoenas and search warrants” concerning the San Bernardino case. However, they are unwilling to comply to the FBI’s demands of “creating a backdoor” into the terrorist’s smartphone in question due to the fact that creating this new way of entering into the device will lead to the high possibility of disruption of public privacy should the new route be revealed. Cook qualifies his decision by stating that Apple has provided the all of the requested information that they have access to to the FBI and “have also made Apple engineers available to advise the FBI.” Cook’s writing displays Apple as a company with the best intentions for the public, instead of one with concerns only about themselves. Drawing from the argument, the most prevalent rhetorical device used is that of pathos featuring the presence of logos and underlying ethos.
First, as mentioned before, Cook attempts to personally connect with the audience by the use of more simple language and first person pronouns. Additionally, he almost constantly speaks about the common people’s wellbeing and uses the idea of big government in order to more closely relate to what he believes the audience wants to hear; this is exemplified in the following sentence, “The implications of the government’s demands are chilling. If the government can...make it easier to unlock your iPhone, it would have the power to reach into anyone’s device to capture their data. The government could extend this breach of privacy and demand that Apple build surveillance software...without your knowledge,” among others with similar statements. Cook’s wanted outcome is that of the audience feeling as if they can trust his viewpoints and decisions while opposing those of the FBI. This emotional manipulation is paired with logical points, such as, “For years, cryptologists and national security experts have been warning against weakening encryption. Doing so would hurt only the well-meaning and law-abiding citizens who rely on companies like Apple to protect their data.” The mention of cryptologists and national experts add a new level of authority that Tim Cook could not reach on his own. The just mentioned hidden ethos can also be linked to …show more content…
the fact that the author of this particular public statement is the Chief Executive Officer of Apple Incorporated. When considering his title, it is inferred that Cook knows the inside of the company and has a unique personal authority over this issue. Adding on to the main argument, the author has included quiet arguments that take time to notice.
As said before, Cook preys upon the assumption that a high percentage of the American population has distrust in their government. The idea of big government is one that is highly prevalent in our popular culture with the existence of conspiracy theorists and anti-government doctrines. Another assumption is that someone with the CEO title cares deeply for their company and the customers of it. When considering the content within Tim Cook’s message, it is out of the ordinary to believe that he has selfish
intentions. When considering all of the angles and thoughts that Cook could have possibly considered, it is almost impossible to doubt the truth of his words. This includes the notion that positive public relations must be maintained at all costs. Conclusively, Tim Cook’s message to the public is up for individual interpretation. His use of personal appeals and authority initially draw the reader into supporting his decision to not further aid the Federal Bureau of Investigation with locating information concerning a known terrorist. However, when considering all of the possible reasoning and decision-making that was implemented into this particular public message, along with the moral dilemma concerning the public safety at the time, it is difficult to fully decide whether to solely support one side or the other. Either way, Cook’s argument is well-founded and sturdy.
This analysis paper will analyze one advertisement picture that was produced by the mega food chain known as McDonalds. The ad is exuberantly promoting three cheeseburgers that the fast food chain is attempting to sell. The three cheeseburgers on the advertisement are the more popular attractions of the fast food chain including the “Angus Deluxe Third pounder”, the “Double Quarter Pounder with Cheese”, and the most famous one of all, “The Big Mac”. These three cheeseburgers have been the baseline for the McDonalds fast food chain ever since the restaurant opened. The burgers are also known world wide, making this advertisement is just a way to get the public to come and buy there food.
Within an excerpt from, “The United States of Wal-Mart,” John Dicker explains that Wal-Mart is a troubling corporation. Dicker begins his article by discussing why the store is so popular within the news in an age of global terrorism, coming to the conclusion that Wal-Mart has a huge scope in the United States and that it has more scandals, lawsuits, and stories than any other supercenter. Continually, he goes on to explain that Wal-Mart outsources jobs and their companies demands makes it hard for employees to have livable wages and good working conditions. Furthermore, Dicker addresses the claim that Wal-Mart provides good jobs, by destroying this perception with statistics showing how employees live in poverty and that their union scene
In doing so, they used 3 different logical structures in their arguments: precedent, degree, and analogies. Tim Cook debated with a constructive argument, “to guarantee such a powerful tool isn’t abused and don’t fall into the wrong hands is to never create it” (The Guardian, 2016). This is an example of degree argument, as the audience will automatically agree with any arguments with less of bad things because it is good. Apple knows there are no other cases like this one, so there’s nothing to compare to. Letting the government into the iPhone only this one time can set a dangerous precedent that can potentially force Apple to force open every iPhone in the future at government request. This became a heated legal battle, granting the access in their products for law enforcement was compared to “a political question” by Apple with an analogy (Yadron,
The first element of the rhetorical structure and possibly the strongest in this documentary is pathos. Pathos refers to the emotion exhibited throughout the documentary. Food, Inc. is filled with an array of colors, sounds, stories, and images that all appeal to emotion. Miserable images of cows being slaughtered with dark music in the background, pictures of industrial factories with no sun and unhappy workers, and even a depressing and eye-opening home video of a young boy who was killed by the disease as a result of bad food were all portrayed throughout Food, Inc. Barbara Kowalcyk, mother of the late Kevin, is an advocate for establishing food standards with companies throughout the nation. When asked about her sons death, she replied, “To watch this beautiful child go from being perfectly healthy to dead in 12 days-- it was just unbelievable that this could happen from eating food.” (Food, Inc.) Obviously very devastated and still heartbroken over her loss, Kowalcyk fought
In this generation businesses use commercial to persuade different types of audiences to buy their product or to persuade them to help a certain caused. If you analyze commercial you can see how certain things play a major role in the success of a commercial. The ad I decide to analyze as an example is the commercial snickers used during the Super Bowl in 2010;”Betty White”-Snickers. This commercials starts off with guys playing a game of football with an elderly women know as Betty White. As Betty White tries to play football she is tackled to the ground. Her teammates refer to her as Mike when they come up to her to ask why she has been “playing like Betty White all day”. This helps inform the audience that Betty White is not actually playing but instead represent another teammate. As the guys keep arguing Mikes girlfriend calls her over and tells her to eat a snicker. Betty White takes the first bite and then suddenly a man appears in her place ready to finish the game. At the end of the commercial the statement "You're not you when you're hungry" is shown followed by the Snickers bar logo. What this commercial is trying to show is that hunger changes a person, and satisfying this hunger can change you back to your normal self. They use different types
Alfred Edmond Jr. wrote the article, Why Asking for a Job Applicant’s Facebook Password is Fair Game. In the article he assessed and argued that you should provide your potential employer with your Facebook password because nothing is ever really private. Edmond effectively persuades the reader to agree with him by uniting his audience and establishing his credibility, providing scenarios that toy with the reader’s emotions, and by making logical appeals. In addition to making these appeals he successfully incorporates an informal tone that further sways the reader to grasp the essence of his argument. These are the elements that make Edmond’s argument valid and persuasive. He is able to convince us that providing a possible employer with something that is private such as our password will ultimately be beneficial for everyone in the situation.
For the first rhetoric article, I chose the McPick 2 McDonalds commercial. This commercial displays pathos with a catchy jingle playing throughout the ad, and how they repeat, “Let me get a McPick 2.” It displays ethos because McDonalds is a well known fast food chain that many people like, so people are normally going to believe what they say. It shows logos by explaining how the deal works, and how the food is delicious, or juicy, which makes you want to go eat some of the food. I think this commercial is very effective because they put a catchy jingle in your mind about juicy food. This makes you want to go eat at McDonalds.
Should Apple be forced to unlock an iPhone or not? It becomes a controversial topic during these years. Most people are concerned with their privacy and security. Darrell Issa is a congressman and has served the government since 2001. Recently, he published “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent” in Wired Magazine, to persuade those governors worked in the Congress. It is easier to catch administrators’ attention because some of them want to force Apple to unlock the iPhone. Darrel Issa focuses on governors because he thinks they can support the law to make sure that everyone has privacy. He addresses the truth that even some of the governors force Apple to hack iPhones when they need people’s information. He considers maintaining people’s privacy as the primary purpose. He also insists that Apple should not be forced to use their information which could lead people’s safety. In “Forcing Apple to Hack That iPhone Sets a Dangerous Precedent,” Darrell Issa uses statistics and historical evidence to effectively persuade his audience of governors that they need to consider whether or not Apple should be forced to hack or not because it could bring people to a dangerous situation and forget the purpose of keeping people’s privacy.
Glenn Greenwald, a talented and widely read columnist on civil liberties for the Guardian newspaper, failed in his attempt to alarm his readers to the flagrant and widespread violations of American privacy. Although his article was full of facts, documentation, and quotes from top rank officials, the article did not convey any sense of wrong doing or outrage. Rather it was dull, lacked passion and a sense of persuasion. In fact, the only attention grabbing part in the whole article is the title.
“What Corporate America Can’t Build: A Sentence”, a newspaper article written by Sam Dillon, addresses corporate America and those in the education system coming into corporate America. The message Dillon conveys to his audience is that there is a problem with the clarity and effectiveness in communication as the work force progresses towards written communication, highlighted by how common emails have become. Dillon’s article strongly influences people in the education system that will soon be entering corporate America, along with those who are already in the workforce. The New York Times author manages to achieved this through his use of statistics that show how harmful
"The Triumph of Technique – The Logic of the NSA." LibrarianShipwreck. WordPress.com, 22 June 2013. Web. 08 Feb. 2014.
Social media has changed the game of politics. In today’s world, with the public looking to smartphones and tablets as their primary source of news, politicians have been forced to adapt the tone and content of their message to fit this new, more connected audience. Perhaps no politician understands this more than notorious billionaire, real estate tycoon, and now presidential candidate, Donald Trump. Through utilization of social media, more specifically Twitter, combined with his disregard for sounding too extreme or politically incorrect, Trump has gained a massive web audience - over four million followers and
“The beauty of me is that I am very rich” according to Donald Trump. His ignorance has lead him to do things that he shouldn’t being doing or has done. In the past few months he has been racist man that would insult people that are from a different race. When Trump started running for president he would insult and bully everybody in general not knowing the people’s stories. He made people seem like they are poor and have nothing to live for, Trump’s inability to see past his greed. He wants to separate the United States and wants people to think he is the best of the best; Trump should not be President.
In this case study, I aim to present the recent issue about Cyber security, protecting client’s private data and information through the controversial Apple and
Digital privacy concerns, which have been a major issue in our country since 2001, increasingly violate our basic human rights as global citizens. The growing amount of government surveillance has manifested in the enactment of acts such as SOPA and CISPA. Although their intent on stopping digital piracy and attacks were clear, both were immediately met with harsh criticism; they allowed big corporations to violate our privacy rights by sharing our personal information with both other companies and the government. Our President, although publicly expressing his acknowledgement of the issue, failed to discuss an array of other pressing dilemmas regulated by the recently exposed National Security Agency (NSA), especially those involving the mass data stockpiles and the rights of foreigners against immoderate and disproportionate surveillance by the US. Furthermore, the intentions of the NSA still remain unclear; why is the collection and the extended retention of this data useful? Those in power believe that the collection of this information allows them to preempt terrorist attacks; a very difficult claim to prove. Our lack of clear answers demonstrate the need for a larger audience who support government transparency. The NSA’s misconduct has dealt multiple blows to the rights of millions both at home and abroad, and the amount of secrecy involving this agency shrouds it in obscurity, inhibiting public debate about these crucial matters.