Objectivity is the name of the gameCaryl Rivers, an “author, journalist, columnist, media critic and nationally renowned journalism professor at Boston University" ("Caryl Rivers"), in his essay "Totem and Taboo: The Culture of the News Media" (1996), from his book Slick Spins and Fractured Facts: How Cultural Myths Distort the News, claims that the news media are not as objective as they claim to be. Rivers supports his argument with a wealth of examples, both historical and personal experiences, as well as facts and references to others connected to journalism. She writes to uncover the "cultural myths" that inherently influence the news media to promote better, more accurate, reality-based reporting. Rivers writes to inform a target audience of already established journalists as well as aspiring beginning journalists. However, its use of everyday language might even attract general public readers interested in a subject such as journalism or simply wanting to become a better observer of the information presented by the news media. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why Violent Video Games Should Not Be Banned”?Get the original essayCaryl Rivers effectively addresses the notion of objectivity in the news media and convinces the public, especially journalists, to place greater importance on objectivity by thinking more deeply. and more honestly about their reporting through the use of the three rhetorical appeals (pathos, ethos, logos) and through writing style. Caryl Rivers begins his long but intriguing essay with the appeal of pathos. “The news media are generally seen as agents of change, and that is sometimes true… Bad news can actually persuade people that the world is much more dangerous than it is” (Rivers 48) . Rivers' "hook" sentence introducing his essay as well as the first sentence of his second paragraph certainly grab the reader's attention, as the statement prompts readers to visualize and think about stories that have been proven in the past to be of powerful invitations to national change as a subject. played on the emotional strings of the hearts of the general public. But, of course, not all reporting has brought positive change. The media tends to heavily emphasize the dark side of the world, which can “persuade people that the world is much more dangerous than it is” (Rivers 48). ). For example, Rivers mentions crime, a topic that floods news stories daily. Due to heavy media coverage of crime, people tend to "see the world as much more threatening and filled with threats" (Rivers 48), but statistical data regarding crime rates tells a different story. Throughout history, new laws and restrictions have been implemented, leading to a gradual decline in violence. Rivers, making the public understand that the media likes to intensify its coverage of certain topics, despite the reality of conflicting statistics behind such topics, provokes feelings of concern and conscience in readers since "[we] tend to believe this that spreads before us, because the media has such an air of authority” (Rivers 50). Another example in which Rivers appeals to the reader's emotions is when she discusses a specific delusion – the lack of sympathy for the individuals a journalist is reporting on. - that objectivity tends to create. We [journalists] are often placed indifficult situations in relation to other human beings. We criticize them. We sometimes reveal that they are doing things that are wrong. We invade their private worlds in times of pain. Our work – discovering and reporting the truth as best we can – can indeed cause harm to others. We shouldn't pretend that all we feel is the buzzing and clicking of electronic devices when this happens. We should worry about this. It will keep us honest – and human. We can try to be impartial; we can try to be fair. But we will never be truly objective. And we must not shirk our moral responsibility for the sake of this impossible goal. (Rivers 54). This passage certainly has a strong emotional impact because it reminds the general public and journalists that journalism can be a difficult profession because it requires the judgment of other individuals and the public. The way a journalist presents a story can greatly influence the thoughts and opinions of their peers towards those people. Not to mention that this power that the journalist holds could easily destroy an individual's reputation. Rivers recommends that journalists consider their emotions to enable them to write in a more honest and respectable manner. Throughout her essay, Caryl Rivers skillfully uses the appeal of ethos. First, she establishes her authority through her credentials. Rivers is a critically acclaimed journalist and novelist. In 2007, the Society of Professional Journalists awarded her the Helen Thomas Lifetime Achievement Award. Additionally, she has published widely in several major US newspapers, including the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post, and is a continuous contributor to the US news blog Huffington Post. Rivers's credentials, as well as the multiple occasions in which she herself inserts her personal experience as a journalist and the way in which she has seen firsthand the subjectivity of the news media, assure her audience that they can trust to what she has to say about journalism. and its lack of objectivity. It further establishes credibility through its inclusion in quotes from other authoritative individuals. For example, Rivers cites James Alan Fox, a professor of criminology at Northeastern University in Boston, Massachusetts, to support his assertion that the intensity of news coverage (in this case, crime) by the news media inadvertently leads viewers to believe a distorted image. reality (48). Additionally, she draws on the expertise of Theodore L. Glasser, professor of communications at Stanford University and author of books on journalism, and Howard Kurtz, "a journalist and author best known for his media coverage." (“Howard Kurtz”). Clearly, Glasser and Kurtz are also particularly skilled in journalism, the very subject Rivers addresses in his essay. Alongside the considerable appeal of ethos, Caryl Rivers makes considerable use of the appeal of logos. She shares her personal experiences as a journalist to strengthen her arguments. For example, Rivers examines how the news media is overwhelmingly staffed by white men and considers "[t]he set of viewpoints, ideas, and attitudes that often accompany being a man or being white…as neutral and impartial…[while] people with a different view A number of attitudes are almost always considered to be biased or to be 'defenders'” (52). These prejudices against race and gender undeniably promote a lack of objectivity within the media. To illustrate this fact, Rivers recounts a discussionthat she had with a reporter from an East Coast newspaper. The journalist estimated that women and blacks "no longer really suffered from it and that it was white men who were victims of discrimination" on the basis of a study which revealed prejudice against girls of the from teachers (Rivers 52). Rivers inferred that the journalist had not done any prior research on this topic to support her claims, as she had reviewed recent research and studies regarding the issue of discrimination for a book she had written, as well as the Evidence – “videos in which female teachers, unaware of their behavior, ignored the waving hands of little girls in the front row to call boys to the back” – made it clear that “bias against girls is a real phenomenon” (53). Journalists are supposed to review like doing as much research as possible to come to a more objective conclusion, without considering a small part of a sample as a complete representation. Rivers further demonstrates prejudice against women and black people with another personal story. Objectivity often does not mean a thorough examination of all the “facts,” but only those the gatekeeper suspects. I [Rivers] was once writing an article for a newspaper in which I used a black academician and a female professor as primary sources. But an editor asked me to add another source, a white professor who had no research history in the field. Clearly, the editor simply didn't trust the "facts" presented by the woman and the black man, believing - probably subconsciously - that they were somehow suspect. When my source was a white man, I was never asked to go get them. a woman or a black man to reinforce the credibility of the information, but the opposite was often true. (Rivers 54) History has repeatedly viewed women and blacks (or any other race other than white) as a minority and therefore not entirely trustworthy. As mentioned previously, the news media, and therefore the standards of objective reporting, favor the views of white men because masculinity and whiteness are considered the “norm” of society. However, as Rivers points out, this bias against women and black people leads to inaccurate and dishonest journalism since a woman or black person with knowledge of the subject in question due to their respective careers in that field is not considered a legitimate source but more like a white man. who has no prior knowledge of the subject. Additionally, Rivers incorporates statistical data throughout his essay to appeal to the reader's logic. For example, Rivers points out that it is usually the editor-in-chief of the news media who decides which stories will be published and, therefore, "journalists often confuse conventional wisdom, or the latest fad or pronouncement from a time-honoured guru by the media, with real facts” (50). Consequently, “unreserved acceptance of such ahistorical ideas [like] the idea that welfare created illegitimacy” appears, “[b]ut a third of births in pre-Record Concord revolutionary war were illegitimate, and [the] founding mothers were not on the same page. food stamps” (Rivers 50). It is obviously illogical to think that a current program is the cause of a problem that existed in the past. Therefore, journalists and viewers should keep this in mind and remember to proactively fact-check, because the “golden past” we tend to believe in does not exist. Another opportunity inwhich Rivers uses a statistical fact to prove his point of view is in his case. discussion of the subjectivity of news media that focus their coverage primarily on those from the upper-middle class, because it is these stories that interest “elite” journalists. It was no surprise that during the 1992 presidential election, urban problems and poverty issues were barely mentioned and, instead, a tax cut for the middle class was widely debated. The Clinton camp didn't want to talk about poor people or black people, because black people weren't going to vote Republican, and Clinton knew the election was for the middle class. George Bush was not going to dwell on poverty. The boys (and girls) on the bus didn't dwell on the problems. (Rivers 51) This lack of coverage of issues facing the working class and poor leaves a major imprint of subjectivity rather than objectivity in the news media, especially when millions of Americans are struggling with issues such as layoffs and paying their bills every day. Although Caryl Rivers' use of the three rhetorical appeals provides broad support for his case, his writing style also played an important role in solidifying his argument. Rivers structured his essay with varying sentence lengths to keep the audience interested. She effectively organized each new thought into a separate paragraph to avoid long paragraphs, keep the reader attentive, and better focus her arguments. Her use of informal but strong words and phrases, as well as first and second person pronouns, connected Rivers to her audience. Additionally, his personal stories as a journalist and his admission of making a common mistake that many young journalists make unintentionally helps readers, especially fellow journalists, identify with Rivers and confirms Rivers' well-intentioned motivations. to address the issue of objectivity in the news media, which she summarizes at the very end of her essay. More often than not, the biases [Rivers] discuss are unconscious and unintentional. [Rivers] believes that most journalists are conscientious and want to do a good job. That their thinking has been shaped by forces and ideas they do not realize they possess is no more an indictment against journalists than it is against all Americans—except that what journalists write and say is so important. (Rivers 57) Additionally, Rivers even incorporates a few parallel phrases to enhance his ideas. An example is found in his first paragraph: “…people tend to believe that the world was orderly and just again, especially when today seems chaotic and disorderly” (Rivers 48). She combines “orderly” and “just” with their opposites “chaotic” and “disordered” to create a parallel construct showing the equal importance of both ideas. Another example is found much later in Rivers' essay, where she explains how the opinions of white men are "considered neutral and impartial" while the opinions of those of a different gender or race are " considered biased or advocating independence. ]” (Rivers 52). Again, she compares “neutral” and “impartial” with “advocate” and “biased” to show the relationship between the two concepts. Finally, Rivers uses transitional words and phrases as well as proper grammar, spelling, and punctuation throughout his article. Ultimately, Rivers brings together all of these important writing elements to not only help him construct his argument in a manner, 1996. 1–16.