Check, please

This entry is targeted toward a TIME article found in the September 24th issue of TIME magazine. The scan I made of it can be found here:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v42/Wariat/School/001_zps2b9214e9.jpg

(Apologies for the size of the scan. If you can't make out the writing, I found that saving the article and zooming in works pretty well.)

The TIME magazine article, written by James Poniewozik, featured here mentions a few topics that I think are pretty curious. Although it's a tiny article and located toward the end of TIME, which is usually reserved for the facetious articles, it manages to jam in some good information about fact checking.

One would think that fact checking is a straight-forward topic. Either the fact checker is correct, and the checked topic is fact/non-fact, or the checker screwed up. However, Poniewozik points out that while the rhetor can put the spotlight on a supposed fact, what the spotlight isn't on is just as important. That is to say that what is implied by the supposed fact is just as, if not more so, important as the main fact itself.

For example, in the article Poniewozik highlights the Republican claim that Obama "...was ditching welfare work requirements..." While this was an exaggeration, Poniewozik points out that the Republican response to this was to continue using it anyway.

Another facet of the article that is fantastic is where Poniewozik points out how fact-checking seems to be a secondary need for journalism. That it isn't automatically done. He calls it an "extra credit" with regard to how it's handled. How no one balks if it is not done. This connects with what he was talking about prior because many journalism sources could become targets and suffer certain consequences due to their fact checking. 

My favorite example is where Pozniewozik mentions that Runner's World, a magazine dedicated to the sport of running, reported on how Paul Ryan lied about his marathon time. As a result, the magazine was "...called a lefty rag for exposing Ryan's marathon fib."

The way this touches upon what we covered in class is probably best shown when looking at it through the pisteis lens. By scoffing at fact checks and running with exaggerations, it seems that the Republican party is banking on the pathos side of the equation. By using exaggerations, the GOP can inflame anyone following them. In addition to this, I would argue that by continuing to use exaggerations, the Republican party is essentially creating its own exigent situation, one that would not have come up if they had not exaggerated the way they did. Thus, I believe that Vatz's argument is vindicated in the sense that the GOP has successfully used rhetoric by creating an exigence and evoking their audience.

As a final note, I'll point out that the reason I tend to avoid political speeches is primarily because of their common focus on either the pathos or ethos side. These speeches are meant to rile up and rally the crowd gathered to hear the speaker. Thus hyperbole becomes popular, in addition to aggrandizing vague political accomplishments. This hot air is antithetical  to my method of choosing what political path to follow in that I prefer research and information over emotional evocation.