This piece was about the new, and somewhat invading, regulations and practices of the TSA outside of the airport. There were many cases where, when people were getting off and on trains in certain cities their bags were getting searched for explosives while the police dogs inspected them. People believed that this was and could potentially be a privacy issue and could go against their privacy rights as US citizens.
The author of this article is Thom Patterson. There isn’t an immense amount of background on Patterson, but by the look of his CNN page, I can see that his hundreds of articles and citations within these articles (of first persona accounts, politicians, etc…) prove his credibility.
The context of this piece would be causal. Simply, this article is a reaction to the constant complaints and first-hand accounts with the TSA’s actions outside of the airport. It could also be causal because it never has to refer to history and, obviously, these opinions were voice afterwards as afterthoughts of the happenings.
The purpose for this article was to inform the people about the TSA’s new actions. It was also a very objective article because it showed both sides of how the TSA is not just for the airport, as shown by its name (Transportation Security Admission), and how the people react to their new action on new grounds. Since it is objective, I believe the purpose was to explain what is happening rather than have a clear-cut opinionated piece.
The audience of this piece would be, in general, people who use public transportation. In a more broad sense, the audience can be people who know who the TSA are and where they usually reside. It would be that kind of audience because in that sense, they would know where the TSA usually are and why this time, it is immensely different.
There are numerous rhetorical elements in the piece, such as definition, objective or 3rd person omniscient POV, and imagery. First, he begins the entire article with imagery, by describing a scene in which the TSA invades an innocent man’s privacy by allowing his dog to sniff him up and down. This imagery opens up the passage, making the reader want to continue reading with the hint of lit analysis interwoven in. He also wrote in an objective view, showing all sides of the case (somewhat like 3rd person omniscient in lit) and situation – IE first he starts with how the people feel about the TSA, and how the TSA feels. In the end, he eventually uses definition to support/explain the TSA side of things – by saying that “TSA officials [would] like to point out that the acronym stands for Transportation Security Administration, not the Airport Security Administration”.
I believe that the author did not accomplish their purpose. Although I did learn a good amount about what the TSA were doing to people, I don’t think that the man they interviewed was a prime example of how it bothered people – because he was OK with their reactions. However, even though I do know it was more of an objective piece, I believe that giving two paradox examples – of an angered citizen against the stubborn TSA – would allow the reader to indulge more into the passage and learn more.
No comments:
Post a Comment