The Cruelty Behind Your Ballpark Hot Dog Analysis
The Cruelty Behind Your Ballpark Hot dog is an article published by the Los Angeles Times where author Bruce Friedrich voices his concerns with the inactions of the USDA in response to violations of The Humane Slaughter Act made by major “slaughterhouses” across the country. By using several rhetorical devices, Friedrich voices his opinion on the actions taking place in several abattoirs across the country and his disappointment in the responses to them. I generally disagree with the way Friedrich conveys his opinion; however, I understand and support the morality of his message. Bruce Friedrich makes his argument through the use of pathos, a rhetorical appeal that evokes an emotional reaction from the reader, and several other rhetorical
…show more content…
It is obvious that he wants these plants shut down and the people working them to be tried legally. This can be seen through his repetition of writing that the consequences for said actions should result in these plants being “suspended” and “shut down” and the workers “criminally prosecuted”. While he makes this his goal in writing the article, he fails to mention the negative possible reactions this could cause. Furthermore the author neglects to inform the reader of any negative consequences that could occur if these plants were shut down or if the workers were prosecuted, which consequently detracts from the message he is trying to convey. The author gives several specific examples throughout the article of animal abuse which he then follows with the corresponding consequences of these actions and the lack of implementation by the USDA in these incidents. The author writes in this specific order to create an emotional response from the audience by first making the reader remorseful for the animals explaining how they were brutally treated. He then describes how there were no consequences for these actions which consequently causes the reader to feel outraged and more likely to side with
It is obvious that he wants these plants shut down and the people working them to be tried legally. This can be seen through his repetition of writing that the consequences for said actions should result in these plants being “suspended” and “shut down” and the workers “criminally prosecuted”. While he makes this his goal in writing the article, he fails to mention the negative possible reactions this could cause. Furthermore the author neglects to inform the reader of any negative consequences that could occur if these plants were shut down or if the workers were prosecuted, which consequently detracts from the message he is trying to convey. The author gives several specific examples throughout the article of animal abuse which he then follows with the corresponding consequences of these actions and the lack of implementation by the USDA in these incidents. The author writes in this specific order to create an emotional response from the audience by first making the reader remorseful for the animals explaining how they were brutally treated. He then describes how there were no consequences for these actions which consequently causes the reader to feel outraged and more likely to side with