Rhetorical Analysis : Unbiased Facts
In the article “Comparing the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on immigration” by Miriam Valverde, summarizes the points that have been given by both candidates, Trump and Clinton, on immigration. Valverde starts off the article by bringing up two other peoples’ -Frank Sharry who is an executive director of America’s Voice & Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies.- point of view on either candidate. After quoting both Sharry and Krikorian, Valverde starts listing three points Trump has made on immigration — build a wall, increase law enforcement , American Workers — then tells us three points Clinton has made on immigration — immigration legislation, naturalized citizens, change detention policies.
Nowhere in the article does Valverde brings up what she believes or who she agrees with. Instead, she gives us the point of views from opposite sides and summarizes what either candidate have said. Since we know that Valverde is not trying to persuade us to believe in one side only, we know that the facts and quotes she gives us are not one sided or carefully picked out to make us think a certain way.
At the start of the article, instead of putting her own opinion, Valverde brings up two opposing thoughts on the candidates. By giving us opposing sides, it makes her credible because it proves to us that she is not trying to make one candidate look better. Frank Sharry — a supporter of immigrant rights and immigration reform — is quoted by Valverde saying “Let’s not normalize what Trump is proposing. It’s so extreme.” While the second person Valverde quotes, Mark Krikorian — favors stricter immigration control — says “She (Clinton) has pledged to refuse to deport any illegal alien.” The people Valverde decided to quote have completely different views on immigration. Instead of just giving us only the quote from Sharry or Krikorian, she gives us both so that we can hear what either side think about the candidates. Since Valverde is not actively trying to hide the bad side of either candidate, this tells us that she wants us to know a complete truth.
Unlike like other authors who try to convince us to believe what they do, Valverde never lets her bias get in the way of her informing us. By not letting her biased get in the way of the facts she gives us, we know that the facts are true making the article credible. Instead of ending her article with her bias, she shows us a chart that puts both Trump’s and Hillary’s points side by side so that we can compare them. Valverde tells us what issues they are talking about then just simply puts what the candidates has said about the issue. Nowhere in the chart does Valverde slander or approves of the candidate’s point of view. By simply not telling us what she believes it lets us know that she wants us to pick sides ourselves.
In the article “Comparing the candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on immigration,” Miriam Valverde only simply summarizing what the candidates have said about immigration. This tells us that her main point is to only inform us not persuade us. Throughout the entire article, she never, not even once, brings up what she thinks on the topic. Instead, she continues and only examples to us, unbiased, what the candidates plan to do on immigration. Because Valverde’s whole article was to inform us on the candidates’ point of view, the article is credible even though it is not from a well-known source.
Work Cited
Valverde, Miriam. “Compare the Candidates: Clinton vs. Trump on Immigration.” PolitiFact. N.p., 15 July 2016. Web. 8 Oct. 2016.
