Martinlutherking.org is a site devoted to a “true” biographical sketch of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. It has been online since January 14, 1999. Let’s be honest; how many of us have been searching for something and simply typed http://www.whateveriamlookingfor.org/ into the address box? This site provides a valuable lesson in why that may not be a good idea. This site is produced by Stormfront—a white supremacist group. The main purpose of the site is to persuade the audience that Markin Luther King was a fraud, unworthy of the holiday bestowed upon him. Their target audience seems to be young children and while the rhetoric used might be effective for a portion of this target audience, it would most likely be ineffective to the wider audience.
The main page of the site seems, at first glance, to be respectable and academic. It sports a simple grey background with links to various articles and discussion pages. In the middle of the page sits a drawing of a distinguished-looking Martin Luther King (seen right). The page lures in potential student audience members with a link at the top of the page encouraging them to take a quiz about Martin Luther King. At the bottom of the page are links to various printable posters with the encouragement to hang them in school hallways. In fact, the only indication that this site is at all biased lies in the text of the quote facing the image of King: “That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" This is a direct quote from an article linked to the main page.
Being a student myself, I immediately clicked the link to take the quiz. The heading reads: “Many Americans don't know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own holiday.” This line is an effective appeal to pathos. It urges you to question the fairness of the statement. I didn’t pass the quiz—not even close. The questions are phrased in a way that makes them entirely rhetorical. “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?” “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?” “Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?” “Name the man who served as King's personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 wassentenced to 60 days in jail in California ‘lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion.’” These are four questions from the fifteen question quiz. These questions provide no possible means for answer, but are designed as a clever mechanism for presenting information. This section of the site is best designed to reach its target audience. The format allows younger children to comprehend the information presented. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the site.
The links from the main page connect to articles and dissertations about the life the life of Dr. King. The information in written at an advanced level and the average length is somewhere in the range of 5000 words. Another link connects to a 66 page article. I, as a college student, found that the articles were to long and complex to allow me to retain any information. This is an ineffective means of reaching the target audience. The site’s purpose in to persuade the young students who have not yet been “brainwashed” by society. The information may be interesting and relevant, but if it is not presented in a way that can be understood, there is no point in presenting the information.
The text also alludes to the Founding Fathers. Martin Luther King is seen as a great man and a revolutionary by many Americans. The text compares Martin Luther King to the Washington and Jefferson. The text reminds us that Martin Luther King is the only American to have his own holiday. It asks the question: What makes Martin Luther King better than Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson who share the rather generic “Presidents Day”. This is perhaps the most effective rhetoric presented in the site. This is effective to children in that children have a heightened sense of fairness: “That’s not FAIR!”
One of the downloadable posters in particular is very effective as a means of using connotation. The poster describes King as a communist, woman-beater, plagiarist, subversive, adulterer, and sexual deviant. All of these words have negative connotations. This poster would not be nearly as effective if it describes King as a man with possible, mistaken communist ties; or if it described King as a privateer. People wouldn’t develop the same emotions if King was described as rebellious or a cheater. The use of words with a negative connotation is prevalent in this poster.
The site seems to get off topic and reveal its true agenda in some of the links connected to pages, not about Martin Luther King, but African Americans in general. One of these pages, entitled “Black Invention Myths”, lists 63 inventions credits to African Americans. These inventions range from peanut butter, to the gas mask, to the toilet. It format is full of rhetorical questions. Each invention is listed, followed by a rhetorical question stating the commonly accepted inventor of each item. Then the text goes on to explain the “real” inventor of each item. Another link discusses Kwanza and explains all of the false traditions associated with Kwanza. This article has a link to a site about the horrors of Black Africa, complete with a picture that seems somewhat irrelevant in the context of the article. This may be effective from an emotional standpoint, but academically is confusing and misleading.
The tone of this site is possibly the most disturbing and rhetorically ineffective point of the site. The text and pictures are entirely one-sided and present an unrealistic view of Dr. King’s life. The text throws into question everything about King, from his personal life to his name. The tone is negative to the point of being unbelievable. This rhetoric is damaging to the ethos of the writer and adds very little to logos of the information. The tone makes the writer appear closed-minded and immature. There is no alternative viewpoint and this technique of ignoring alternative points of views throws into question the authenticity of the view being presented.
Finally, the site is rarely updated which makes the site seem out of date. The majority of the articles are from the late 1990s—nearly ten years ago. Several sections refer to the upcoming holiday, Martin Luther King Day, which is not for nearly four months. This is damaging to the kairos of the site.
In conclusion, while the information presented in the site may have merit, it is overshadowed by the obvious negative rhetoric and poorly acknowledged arguments. The site is too complex to reach its target audience, but to narrow to reach a wider demographic. The site is a rhetorical failure.
The main page of the site seems, at first glance, to be respectable and academic. It sports a simple grey background with links to various articles and discussion pages. In the middle of the page sits a drawing of a distinguished-looking Martin Luther King (seen right). The page lures in potential student audience members with a link at the top of the page encouraging them to take a quiz about Martin Luther King. At the bottom of the page are links to various printable posters with the encouragement to hang them in school hallways. In fact, the only indication that this site is at all biased lies in the text of the quote facing the image of King: “That night King retired to his room at the Willard Hotel. There FBI bugs reportedly picked up 14 hours of party chatter, the clinking of glasses and the sounds of illicit sex--including King's cries of "I'm f--ing for God" and "I'm not a Negro tonight!" This is a direct quote from an article linked to the main page.
Being a student myself, I immediately clicked the link to take the quiz. The heading reads: “Many Americans don't know enough about MLK. After taking this quiz, you will see how little the schools, news media and political establishment have told you about the only American with his own holiday.” This line is an effective appeal to pathos. It urges you to question the fairness of the statement. I didn’t pass the quiz—not even close. The questions are phrased in a way that makes them entirely rhetorical. “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last night on earth in an adulterous liaison?” “According to whose 1989 biography did King spend his last morning on earth physically beating a woman?” “Whom did King plagiarize in more than 50 complete sentences in his doctoral thesis?” “Name the man who served as King's personal secretary from 1955 to 1960, had joined the Young Communists League at New York City College in 1936, went to prison for draft evasion in 1944, and in 1953 wassentenced to 60 days in jail in California ‘lewd vagrancy and homosexual perversion.’” These are four questions from the fifteen question quiz. These questions provide no possible means for answer, but are designed as a clever mechanism for presenting information. This section of the site is best designed to reach its target audience. The format allows younger children to comprehend the information presented. This stands in stark contrast to the rest of the site.
The links from the main page connect to articles and dissertations about the life the life of Dr. King. The information in written at an advanced level and the average length is somewhere in the range of 5000 words. Another link connects to a 66 page article. I, as a college student, found that the articles were to long and complex to allow me to retain any information. This is an ineffective means of reaching the target audience. The site’s purpose in to persuade the young students who have not yet been “brainwashed” by society. The information may be interesting and relevant, but if it is not presented in a way that can be understood, there is no point in presenting the information.
The text also alludes to the Founding Fathers. Martin Luther King is seen as a great man and a revolutionary by many Americans. The text compares Martin Luther King to the Washington and Jefferson. The text reminds us that Martin Luther King is the only American to have his own holiday. It asks the question: What makes Martin Luther King better than Washington, Lincoln, or Jefferson who share the rather generic “Presidents Day”. This is perhaps the most effective rhetoric presented in the site. This is effective to children in that children have a heightened sense of fairness: “That’s not FAIR!”
One of the downloadable posters in particular is very effective as a means of using connotation. The poster describes King as a communist, woman-beater, plagiarist, subversive, adulterer, and sexual deviant. All of these words have negative connotations. This poster would not be nearly as effective if it describes King as a man with possible, mistaken communist ties; or if it described King as a privateer. People wouldn’t develop the same emotions if King was described as rebellious or a cheater. The use of words with a negative connotation is prevalent in this poster.
The site seems to get off topic and reveal its true agenda in some of the links connected to pages, not about Martin Luther King, but African Americans in general. One of these pages, entitled “Black Invention Myths”, lists 63 inventions credits to African Americans. These inventions range from peanut butter, to the gas mask, to the toilet. It format is full of rhetorical questions. Each invention is listed, followed by a rhetorical question stating the commonly accepted inventor of each item. Then the text goes on to explain the “real” inventor of each item. Another link discusses Kwanza and explains all of the false traditions associated with Kwanza. This article has a link to a site about the horrors of Black Africa, complete with a picture that seems somewhat irrelevant in the context of the article. This may be effective from an emotional standpoint, but academically is confusing and misleading.
The tone of this site is possibly the most disturbing and rhetorically ineffective point of the site. The text and pictures are entirely one-sided and present an unrealistic view of Dr. King’s life. The text throws into question everything about King, from his personal life to his name. The tone is negative to the point of being unbelievable. This rhetoric is damaging to the ethos of the writer and adds very little to logos of the information. The tone makes the writer appear closed-minded and immature. There is no alternative viewpoint and this technique of ignoring alternative points of views throws into question the authenticity of the view being presented.
Finally, the site is rarely updated which makes the site seem out of date. The majority of the articles are from the late 1990s—nearly ten years ago. Several sections refer to the upcoming holiday, Martin Luther King Day, which is not for nearly four months. This is damaging to the kairos of the site.
In conclusion, while the information presented in the site may have merit, it is overshadowed by the obvious negative rhetoric and poorly acknowledged arguments. The site is too complex to reach its target audience, but to narrow to reach a wider demographic. The site is a rhetorical failure.
Blogger won't let me add the picture of the poster discussed in the article. This is the picture of Martin Luth King used in the opening page.
I really believe that your analysis of this website is very good, very professional sounding. It seemed to me that you had really taken the time to go through the whole website.
ReplyDeleteI think that you did a good job of giving both sides of the arguement. The question why does Martin Luther King Jr. have his own holiday. I know that is not necessarily your question, but you still put it in the analysis. Also the other side saying that it was a very extreme site and maybe not so believeable.
I think that to make your paper better it would be good to point out the tools of rhetoric used. You point out some, but most are just talked about and not necessarilly said what they are.
At the end I would not say that the site is a complete rhetorical failure, because that can't be true, I am positive that there are people out there that listen and believe the information given to them on that website. It is a very small minority, but there are still people the website influences.
I think you did a really good job at grabbing the reader’s attention at the beginning of the paper. It made me want to keep reading. I also really like how in the paragraph where you talk about your experience of taking the quiz. The questions were extremely powerful. I was almost shocked by some of the information. I think you are right that it seems like their target audience wouldn’t comprehend much of what was said. Good job on the analysis.
ReplyDeleteTo possibly improve your paper it might be good if you talked about more tools and if you gave more examples for each tool. It might also help if you had more distinction between paragraphs. It was a little hard to read when it felt like it was all connected and together. It will help bring out all of your different points.