Rhetorical Situations and Op/Eds

Objectivity and subjectivity, both can be facts, but where the facts are derived from is how these two terms differentiate. Objectivity, in writing, is where the authors writing is not influenced by ones feelings when the facts are being presented to the readers. On the other hand, subjective writing is influenced by the authors personal feelings and emotions on the matter. None the less, both types of writing still have the capabilities of presenting actual facts. 

In certain genre’s of writing, such as an op/ed (opposite to the editorial, or opinion editorial), it requires the author to be subjective in their writing. Transitioning from objectivity to subjectivity, in my opinion, can be slightly easier than transitioning from subjectivity to objectivity. Writing subjectively can be ‘easy' because you are able to freely expression your opinions based on how you feel purely, however, you must still represent the facts in the knowledgable way in order to still present yourself as a trustworthy author. As the author, you have the ability to choose a side in which your opinions match while introducing the facts in a way that favors the opinions. Although op/eds are subjective, I do believe in some sense it still can be objective a long as the logic in the facts also line up with subjective feelings - depending on the topic (but honestly, that may be wrong, but that is how I view it). For example, reading the Tuscon shooting op/eds, I felt were subjective because each author presented their opinion on the matter, while presenting the facts, but based it on their opinions in terms of legal issues, cultural issues, etc. To me, this was, in some sense, also objective because in this situation, I do not think any sensible person would try to make excuses and try to condemn the shooting.

Rhetorical situations consist of a speaker or a writer, an issue, a medium, and an audience. A blog is a perfect response to rhetorical situations. Blogs are person writing platforms, that allows the author to create writing pieces on matters they want to discuss or freely talk about, in order for an audience to view it. Normally, different blogs attract different audiences and therefore the blog is more relevant to that specific audience because the piece of writing relates to the audience in which is was created for. 

Every day it seems like there is another issue to tackle, and with lighting speed there are a ton of writers publishing their articles responding to the matter. One rhetorical situation topic that has specifically caught my eye - as well so so many other eyes - has been the new Nike advertisement controversy. On the ad featuring Colin Kaepernick, the tagline reads “believe in something even if it means sacrificing everything.” As a women of faith (Judaism - as discussed in some previous blogs), it is frequently a challenge living in, what I consider a secular world. In a country, that expresses separation in church and state but rarely accommodates to those standards. And so, pushing the actual events that led up to the campaign, the words written on it, are words that are truly relatable. This is a situation I would be interested responding to, by trying to relate the two situations, two worlds, and how they associate with the same issue. 

Disclaimer: I am in no way trying to criticize this country, because at the end of the day it is my home that I do love, but there are struggles I do feel like I have to deal with constantly. 

Op/eds are a perfect way of communicating rhetorical situations which respond to current, well talked about situations. These types of articles have a specific purpose, with some action the author thinks need to be taken and is written based on the opinions and beliefs the author has. They appeal to specific audiences because they voice a specific opinion. Not everyone agrees with the same opinion and beliefs and therefore op/eds will not appeal to everyone, but to a certain crowd, who do share those beliefs.