Opinions

In school we’re all taught that the best and only way to write any professional papers, or really any way to speak your ideas to others, is the classical writing style using Ethos, Logos, and Pathos. In our society today it seems very hard to find examples of this except for very respectable outlets of information, such as the New York Times. In any case, though, most other companies or corporations that produce mass information for people are not exactly “following the rules” and don’t really go out of their way to promote or teach the style we learn for a few classes in high school or college. Today it seems the norm to let emotions run wild, as it presides over all other appeals, to get people to listen to you, let alone to be informed. Even professional speakers, politicians, and correspondents throw ethics and information out of the window when addressing the public and it’s a trend that seems to be getting out of hand quickly.
    Now, this issue isn’t rampant to the point where no one can get a word in edge wise and it is almost impossible to get any factual evidence with data to support any claims or ideas, but it’s to a point where it’s really becoming an injustice to the people. Those that distribute such information should be embarrassed that any information that is not intended to be opinion is not 100% fact checked and unbiased. It’s happening way too often then it should and it seems to affect politics from the general public to government officials.
    It’s not too hard to find evidence either because practically every day you can flip on the television or read a newspaper in print or online that is very aggressive in emotion. There are countless examples, but two prominent ones that I will bring attention to. One was the planning of a mosque to be built in New York City a few blocks away from the site of 9/11. Of course tempers flared and irrationality ensued as many pundits were attacking the city’s officials, the Imam, and in general were causing paranoia. Instead of reporting and gathering people’s opinions the actual pundits themselves took to putting their own two cents into the whole thing. Many people were saying that it was a tribute to the attacks while others were saying that it would turn into a fostering home for terrorists to plot. This is unfortunate because all these poor people wanted was a place to worship, which shouldn’t be denied. Another great example would be the shooting of Arizona Governor Gabrielle Giffords. Many people thought that heated extremism in politics influenced the shooter, but it’s still unclear. This turned into a bad argument on both sides because this story brought on the realization to question how intense politics had gotten in our day and age. This issue itself was the poster child of it’s own argument as many analysts and politicians fought tooth and nail over whether this was an important issue and cause.
    I think this is a problem that we need to address soon before it gets out of hand and terrible things happen. Right now these providers of information aren’t being held accountable to a standard of integrity other than their own. If they provide any inaccurate information or let employees inject their thoughts there should be consequences if they are not addressed. I believe that there should be some sort of agency like the FCC that can police these companies that stream information. This way it is guaranteed that consumers get fact-checked precise data instead of opinions or generalizations.