Analyzing Rhetorical Strategies in "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters"

This post will analyze the Rhetorical strategies used in the text Iv'e been analyzing.

Wellcome Library, London. "A Man Looking Though a Magnifying Glass at a Picture of a m Wellcome" 10/27/2014 via wikimedia.
Attribution 4.0 International License.

Author' Ethos:

She, to some extent, include personal stories, by quoting and referencing the testimony of a NASA researcher, Joseph Roche, who has first-hand experience in the matter.

In her next article on the subject, she analyzes the response this article got from Mars One CEO, Bas Lansdorp. This is a great example of taking direct counterarguments into account, then refuting them, increasing the author's ethos.

Obviously, these are good things to include, because they provide plenty of credible-seeming material to the audience. In addition, it is vital that she provides those counterarguments, because that helps her avoid the same mistakes she criticizes Mars One of: not being open enough. This way, she has somewhere to stand in attacking the company for its secrecy.

These definitely increase her ethos to the reader. The author stands firm on her assertions and supports them reasonably.

By establishing her ethos, it allows her to more effectively explain her point to her readers, as they won't have to worry as much about whether they can trust her or not.

As far as I can tell the only reason the author takes the stance she does is because of the testimony of Roche. It doesn't appear that she has any personal issue with the company. Roche himself, would probably be biased in favor of the company, because based on his character, one can assume that he supports scientific endeavors. However, because of what he saw from 'the inside', he does not support Mars One.

Author's Pathos:

She really doesn't appeal much to emotion, which I think is good. The article as a whole is more-or-less a straightforward account of what she and Roche think about Mars One, and why. The most emotional thing I could think of is that she depicts the company as lying to everyone, which the audience could take personal offence to.

I don't think the author is really trying to generate any emotional response. Emotionally isn't a good way to think about something like this. The goal of the article is to make the reader think about the information presented in a reasonable manner, and come to the conclusion that the author did.

The emotional response that could arise from the article is one of personal offence to being lied to by Mars One. However, I think this is overshadowed by the logical and ethical appeals.

I think by not including emotional rhetoric, her credibility increases, because I view appeals to emotion to be a bit cheap. By not relying on irrational minds, it shows that has a logically and ethically strong case to make.

Author's logos:

The author includes some statistics, plenty of expert opinions (those of Roche, who is as expert as anyone outside of the company is likely to be), and an entire article of an interview of the CEO himself, and an analysis of it.

The author wants the readers to think about what she has to say, so providing those things encourages that. She doesn't just want people to feel a certain way, she wants her statements, and those of Roche to make the audience come to the conclusion on their own, with the arguments she makes, that Mars One is how she says.

So long as the reader is willing to think, the reader should naturally do so when facing statistics and experts' evidence.

I think that logical appeals are effective for this case because it shouldn't really be an emotional topic. there is a truth, and it seems like some are trying to hide it, while others are trying to expose it. The way someone gets to know the truth isn't by thinking with their "heart," but by thinking logically about the evidence presented to them, which is what the author encourage here.

Reflection:

After reading Addie's and Jenny's posts analyzing their rhetorical situations and strategies, I realized how directly the rhetorical situation and audience affects which strategy is most effective.

For example, with Addie's text, about ethics and credibility in journalism, the most important strategy seemed to be ethos, as Addie said, as the author couldn't afford to make the same mistake as those she criticized.

The audience also plays a huge role, like in Jenny's text, where ultimately, it would have to convince some very high-up decision makers in order to change anything, those people would most easily be convinced by logos, not emotion or credibility.

Analyzing Message in "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters"

This post will analyze the actual message of the text I have been analyzing, and how gets that message to its audience.

Ochoa, Luis A. R. "Message in a Bottle" via flickr.
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic License

• The publication date was March 16th, 2015, so it is a pretty recent article, all things considered, especially since Mars One has been around since 2011.
• The medium used was an internet publication site called, ironically enough, medium.com. On this site, and on news sites in general, authors are expected to write somewhat formally, have a point (so they aren't solely bashing someone they don't like, or so they don't get too boring), and they at least need to approach a degree of professionalism. Though it's not one of the big sites that has a massive revenue stream and huge reader base, they, of course, will want to emulate that style.
• The major event that sparked the article in the first place was a NASA researcher who went first-hand into the selection process, to see what it was like, then spoke out against the company's apparent shortcomings from an insider's perspective.
• The major historical event that Mars One is trying to recreate in the modern era, or at least trying to appear to recreate, is the inspiring moon landings and space exploration of the 1960's and 70's. This is important because people want to believe, and therefore, may do so readily, that something great like that will happen again, and that we haven't, as many say, stagnated in the realm of human space exploration.
• The primary source is the NASA researcher, Joseph Roche, who uncovered this information in the first place, and he comes from the same kind of culture of loving science, and supporting space research.
• Physically, this text is separated pretty far from the Netherlands, where Mars One is based. However, that doesn't matter too much, as so are a lot of the applicants, who, according to Roche, don't even meet in person with the staff at Mars One.
• This text is one of the earliest on this particular subject by this author, but after this was published, Mars One had a representative do an interview responding to it, and then this author responded to that interview. So there is more on this subject, and it is almost a dislodge, for one exchange of ideas.

The relevant points here are that the primary source has a first-hand account, and the relationship this subject has to a historically inspiring endeavor. This is because, on one hand, people will likely support another challenging goal, because it worked well the last time, but then this credible source comes about to say it's all a rip-off. This is sure to cause some tension between the public, Mars One and Those who say it's not likely to succeed.

The physical location of the text relative to the event isn't very relevant to this topic, because most of hat is happening occurs over the internet. 

The authors message is pretty clear: here's some evidence that suggests that Mars One isn't what it seems. Really, its a very suspect operation - paraphrased, of course.

Analyzing my Own Assumptions

This post will be an exploration of how my own values and beliefs relate to the article I've been analyzing, and possibly how that could shape my analysis in particular ways.

J. "Monkey in a Mirror" 8/23/3006 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do I share with the society or culture in which the text was written?

My own beliefs and values, at least the ones that are relevant to this subject, are the same as the ones that the text assumes the general public has. That is, I don't like it when people lie to me, get my hopes up (for nothing or very little), or, as it is starting to seem Mars One does according to the text, when people do those thing to solicit money. In my personal view though, these things are a bit more inappropriate, because it shines the whole field in a bad light. As Roche suggested, this could cause people to lose faith in space exploration, or even science in general, which would be really unfortunate. It also mentions the inadequate media coverage for something this important to the field. That is another value I share, as a.) I want more people to interested in this kind of thing, and b.) I don't want the little information people do get about this to be praising it, if in reality, it is a big rip-off. 

2. What cultural or social values, beliefs, etc., do I and the text not share?

In terms of different cultural values, I can't find any that I differ on from those the text expresses. It's pretty straightforward in Portraying Mars One as violator of a just a few social norms.

3 and 4. If the text is written in a different culture or time period...

It wasn't. Maybe it's a bit mundane, but this text is pretty darn relatable.

This is important, because this shows that I may not be a very good, critical judge of this text. I might be too much in agreement with it to analyze it properly, though I'll certainly try to. I will still attempt to critically analyze this text, but it should be kept in mid that I am in sync with the cultural values of the essay, and have that narrow perspective on the issue.


Reflection:
From reading Thomas' and Sam's posts, I noticed that a lot of us have the same cultural vies of the text we chose to analyze. This will probably make analyzing them difficult, as it is generally easier to be critical of things from which we are more removed. And we do need to be critical of these texts if we want to effectively tear them apart, finding the inner-workings or their rhetoric.

Analyzing my Text's Cultural Setting

This post is an analysis of the cultural setting of the text I'll be analyzing in different ways over the next couple of weeks.

NASA. "Mars Atmosphere" 5/3/2006 via wikimedia.
Public Domain.

The article was published March 16 of this year, so it is fairly recent, at least relative to some articles. The author lives in America, but that doesn't matter so much as the story is pretty widely known throughout the 'developed' world, and especially among space-faring nations. At the same time, the company is based in the Netherlands, but as a global effort, that isn't extremely relevant either.

1. A common cultural norm, at least one people usually expect of large companies, is transparency with the public. People really don't like to not know what is happening in the world, and lies, conspiracies, and scams are typically how companies break this norm.
2. The text addresses these values indirectly by assuming that the reader shares them, and frames the article to be about how Mars One works against them.
3. The text seems to be implicitly supportive of these values, because it still depicts Mars One as a deceptive group that defies them, and assumes that is a bad thing, like anyone would who holds those beliefs or values.

Cultural Evaluation of "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters"

This post will be a cultural analysis of the text I've chosen for the rest of this module, "Mars One Finalist Explains Exactly How it's Ripping off Supporters." I will analyse what it tells us about the culture in context of the subject of Mars One.

Paurian "The Detective" 5/21/2009 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License.

1.
The first cultural key word I noticed was in the title: ripping off. This is indicative of the culture we live every day. When things don't live up to our expectations, they aren't just let-downs, they are rip-offs. Don't get me wrong: how Mars One is being described here is pretty much exactly a rip off, but it's noteworthy that the harshness of the title doesn't stand out: it needs to be that strong to get its message across.

The second is "solicits." Although it's really just another word, it carries a kind of negative connotation with it that places it in context of our culture. As a company, it needs to have some public relation on good terms, but since it's trying to pass off as a non-profit, it still needs funds, and rather than ask for them or raise them, it "solicits" them, like it has to be really sneaky and low-key about it. this is as if to suggest that it's got, maybe some shady practices.

2. (3 in the book)
Essentially, this article tries to say that Mars One is a sketchy company, and their goal of sending people to mars within the decade is "dangerously flawed" because of the lack of real standards, and the seemingly focused attention on money generation, rather than astronaut selection and training.

3. (5 in the book)
The key words pointed out in section 1 add to the sketchy, probably untrustworthy image of the program, explicitly with "rip-off," and implicitly with the connotations of "solicitation."

In society, we generally value openness and honesty, and have an extreme aversion to deceit and secrecy. In this article, Mars One is reported to have been acting against those values, and being the especially quick-to-judge beings we are, we get easily riled up in anger far easier than we get interested and do more research.