Abby Lauter

Mr. Weinkam

ENG 111

22 October, 2009

 


On Winning the Nobel Peace Prize:

How Articles can Appeal to its Readers

With President Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize just nine months after entering the

White House, it not only brought excitement and joy but also it brought a lot of controversy

between the government parties. There are many issues debating if he truly deserves this

exceptional award and if he has actually done anything to earn it.

On the morning of Friday, October 9th it was announced that Obama had won the Nobel

Peace Prize and within minutes it was the top headline on every news website. “The choice of

Barack Obama on Friday as the recipient of the 2009 Nobel Peace Prize, less than nine months

into his eventful presidency, was an unexpected honor that elicited praise and puzzlement around

the globe” (New York Times). Out of all of the articles posted, I found many that argued for the

republican side on why President Obama did not deserve the award; news companies such as

Fox News and ABC News put out these articles. (I should have used other wording than

“Republician side” and “Democratic Side”) I also found many articles that argued the

democratic side on why President Obama did deserve the award. The article that I found most

effective would be the one titled “Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts”. This

article is from the New York Times and was written by Steven Erlanger and Sheryl Gay

Stolberg. According to “The Daily Toreador” and their article titled “Fox News conservative

bias extreme yet understandable” The New York Times tends to be more of a left leading news



company and even though the article is a little bias towards President Obama, they did a good

job showing both sides of the story using mostly logos with the help of pathos and even some

karios to help back up their arguments and make them more effective. Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 8:29 PM
Comment: I
think
this
was
a
good
piece
of

supporting
detail
because
it
shows
how

Should Obama have won the Nobel Prize? Did he truly deserve it? These are the each
news
company
leans
either
to
the

republican
or
democratic
side.


questions that everyone is asking, especially Republicans. (I should probably say something Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 8:01 PM
Comment: I
should
have
changed
the

more to the effect of ‘non-Obama supporters’ instead of republicans.) Erlanger and Stolberg wording
on
this
entire
paragraph.
It
is

somewhat
hard
to
follow
and
it
sounds
bias

because
I
used
terms
such
as
“Republican

realized that Republicans were not happy, and pointed it out at the beginning of the article by side”
and
“Democratic
Side”



using pathos by giving quotes from either themselves or other influential people and then

defended and backing theses up with logos or logical arguments, “but the prize quickly loomed

as a potential political liability — perhaps more burden than glory — for Mr. Obama.

Republicans contended that he had won more for his star power and oratorical skills than for his

actual achievements, and even some Democrats privately questioned whether he deserved it.”

After addressing the issues of Republicans and even some Democrats not agreeing with the fact

that Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize Award they used logos to back up by saying “The

committee, based in Norway, stressed that it made its decision based on Mr. Obama’s actual

efforts toward nuclear disarmament as well as American engagement with the world relying

more on diplomacy and dialogue.” Here, Erlanger and Stolberg are reinforcing what the Nobel

Committee response was to President Obama winning the award and why Obama was the logical

choice as a winner for this award. (I need to write this paragraph in present tense, which I did

not do all the time. I need to work on keeping the same tense throughout the paper.) Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 8:07 PM
Comment: This
paragraph
is
where
I

started
to
use
the
Rhetoric
terms
and
even

Another time in this article where Erlanger and Stolberg used pathos from the Republican though
we
have
been
working
on
them
the

whole
semester
I
am
still
confused
on
what

side and then backed it up with logos from the Democratic side was when they were describing each
of
them
mean
and
how
to
properly
use

them
and/or
properly
put
the
term
in
a

sentence.


what Obama has actually done since being inaugurated into office in January. Here they are


 
 2




stating the why so many Republicans and even Democrats are so surprised that Obama won the

award. “Republicans in Washington, reacting in disbelief sought to portray Mr. Obama as

unworthy. In an official statement, Michael Steele, chairman of the Republican National

Committee, said, “The real question Americans are asking is ‘What has President Obama

actually accomplished?’” By using logical statements once again to back up this topic of

question they went on to describe the few things that he has accomplished such as “his efforts

towards nuclear disarmament”. The Nobel Prize committee cited Mr. Obama “for his

extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between people”

they also said that he had “created a new climate in international politics”. These three quotes

are all logos that Erlanger and Stolberg used to back up the pathos claim that President Obama

has not done anything since being inaugurated into office that would qualify him to win the

Nobel Peace Prize. (I think that I did a good job using quotes form the articles that I found to Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 8:18 PM
Comment: I
am
not
sure
if
these
terms
are

used
correctly?

back up my thesis.)

Moving into the Democratic side (once again I need to work on how I refer to each

political party.) of the debate on whether or not Obama should have won the award, Erlanger and

Stolberg had multiple logical statements to back up the claims that were being made. One claim

that was very dominant throughout the article was that even though President Obama is a young

president, he has already done a lot. Here, Erlanger and Stolberg make a statement about how

extraordinary it is that Obama has won this prize, “Normally the prize has been presented, even

controversially, for accomplishment. This prize, to a 48-year-old freshman president, for

‘extraordinary efforts to strengthen international diplomacy and cooperation between peoples,’

seemed a kind of prayer and encouragement by the Nobel committee for future endeavor and

more consensual American leadership.” In this statement not only did they use pathos, to show


 
 3




their feeling and emotions toward Obama winning the Nobel Peace Prize and how proud they

were of him but also they quickly followed their statement with logos to back up what he had

done that was so extraordinary. Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 9:44 PM

Comment: I
like
how
in
the
article
I

choose
they
showed
both
sides
of
the
issue,

Not only is President Obama and young a “freshmen” President that has accomplished a it
made
it
easier
to
write
the
paper
on.



lot but he is being recognized for all the things he has by a multitude of different people. In a

statement coming from former Vice President Al Gore, Gore called Obama’s award “well

deserved” and went on to talk about what Obama has done to make it such a well-deserved

award. “Mr. Obama has generated considerable goodwill overseas, with polls showing him

hugely popular, and he has made a series of speeches with arching ambition.” Not only has

Obama done these things but Gore also stated that, “He has vowed to pursue a world without

nuclear weapons; reached out to the Muslim world, delivering a major speech in Cairo in June;

and sought to restart peace talks between Israel and the Palestinians, at the expense of offending

some of his Jewish supporters.” Sections like this in the article are what made it such an

effective article. Erlanger and Stolberg were very good at using effective quotes that showed the

emotion and feelings on this topic by many different people. After they used these effective

quotes to show the emotion, they then followed these with logical information to back the quotes

up. (I could have analyzed this a little more but I wasn’t really sure how to.) Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 9:52 PM
Comment: I
should
have
clarified
that
they

were
using
“pathos”
here

Along with the many other statements that they use in this article to back up why

President Obama was worthy of winning the Nobel Peace Prize, they also used this statement

from the Nobel Committee, which sums up their decision very well, “The question we have to

ask is who has done the most in the previous year to enhance peace in the world,” the Nobel

committee chairman, Thorbjorn Jagland, said in Oslo after the announcement. “And who has

done more than Barack Obama?” Using logos to back that up, Jagland goes on to say, “On the


 
 4




domestic front, he is pressing Congress to overhaul the nation’s health care system. In foreign

affairs, he is wrestling with his advisers over how to chart a new course in Afghanistan and has

been working, with little movement, to restart peace talks between Israelis and Palestinians”.

This statement was a strong use of logos that they used to back up the pathos and controversial

argument that everyone is asking “Why did Obama win the Nobel Peace Prize?, What has he

done?”

A lot of people now think that because President Obama won The Nobel Peace

Prize, it will give him more of an incentive to not only do bigger and better things but also

accomplish more during his presidency. This part of the article is where Erlanger and Stolberg

failed to use logos to enhance their pathos and arguments. Even though they gave great quotes

that included pathos such as the two following they did not back them up using logos. Angels

Merkel, Chancellor of Germany agrees, with this and said, “It was an incentive to the president

and to us all, to do more for peace.” Last year’s laureate, former President Martti Ahtisaari of

Finland, also saw the award as an endorsement of President Obama’s goal of achieving Middle

East Peace, “Of Course, this puts pressure on Obama…The world expects that he will also

achieve something.” If Erlanger and Stolberg could have used logos but giving another claim

from the peace prize committee to back up these two quotes, they would have summed up their

article with a very strong and effective argument. Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 9:54 PM
Comment: I
could
have
analyzed
the

rhetoric
in
this
paragraph
a
lot
better
but

In the end, I think Erlanger and Stolberg made a very effective argument in their article once
again,
I
really
was
not
sure
how
to


because
I
am
still
confused
on
rhetoric.


“Surprise Nobel for Obama Stirs Praise and Doubts”. Even though Erlanger and Stolberg used

Audience and directed this article towards the democratic side, they did a good job representing

both sides of the argument. To do this they used Pathos, Logos, and even some karios to support

their claims. Most of the time Erlanger and Stolberg made a pathos statement followed by logos


 
 5




statements that supported the pathos statements, as showed through out the paper, This was a

very logic tactic because it helped get the point across by using emotion while still showing both

sides of the issue with different logical statements, statistics, and other claims from committees.

Towards the end, the argument got a little weak when they made good points using pathos, but

had no logos to back their statements up. They could have added in some statistics, or another

statement or two from the Peace Prize Committee on how they came to their conclusion and

what that all entails. Overall, they did a good job showing both sides of the story using mostly

logos with the help of pathos and even some karios to help back up their arguments and make

them more effective. Abagail Lauter 12/6/09 9:56 PM

Comment: In
the
end
I
think
that
I

summed
everything
up
pretty
well
and
even

though
I
am
still
a
little
shaky
on
the

different
types
of
rhetoric
I
still
managed
to

use
them
alright.




 
 6