Rhetorical Analysis Of The Article On Public Shaming On The Internet

In the twenty-first century, technology, specifically social media, has produced for the world, revolutionary ways of communication, as well as, the crippling phenomenon of ill-received statements and online humiliation. While all humans are inherently flawed and often make mistakes, social media has created the unfortunate reality that misstatements and inconsiderate jokes presented online are incapable of forgiveness. Almost every day, a new person, whether they be famous or not, is under scrutiny for a comment or picture they posted online that has been deemed inappropriate by other viewers. In Jon Ronson’s New York Times article titled, “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life,” he documents the many cases of online punishments that people have received after “pressing send” on social media, without thinking about the repercussions.

Throughout the article, Ronson uses personal interviews, historical accounts, and credible context to some of the ridiculed posts, to strengthen his argument that the public shaming mentality of social media users is responsible for the downfall of many people, who simply didn’t think before posting. In his effective use of pathos, logos, and ethos, Jon Ronson combats the “mob mentality” of the internet and shines light on both the drastic impact that online humiliation can bring, as well as, humanity’s ultimate desire for approval via social media.

Pathos

Jon Ronson begins his article with the backstory to Justine Sacco’s downfall, which highlights his use of pathos. He shares how ordinary the tweet seemed to Sacco at the time of her infamous posting. Her effortless and simplistic thought process while submitting the social media comment appeals to the emotions of the audience. As many people in today’s world are social media users, Ronson relates the normality of Sacco’s posting process to similar experiences of his social media-using audience. Ronson effectively appeals to the audience's emotions by describing Sacco's down fall; this builds sympathy between the readers and Sacco. Additionally, he describes how Sacco’s family reacted when she went home. Ronson creates a scene of strong emotional tension in recounting how one of the first things Sacco’s aunt said to her was: QTD “This is not what our family stands for. And now, by association, you’ve almost tarnished the family.” This scene makes the audience feel empathetic for Sacco.

Ronson also includes an emotional quote from Sacco, describing how lost she felt after the situation: “All of a sudden you don’t know what you’re supposed to do,” she said. “If I don’t start making steps to reclaim my identity and remind myself of who I am on a daily basis, then I might lose myself.” Lastly, Ronson effectively appeals to the audience’s emotions by recounting the full and true story of Justine Sacco. He exhibits to his readers, the true nature of Justine Sacco and her meaning behind her tweet. He demonstrates how her tweet “wasn’t racist but a reflexive critique of white privilege — on our tendency to naïvely imagine ourselves immune from life’s horrors” instead of an offensive joke against Africans and those suffering from AIDs. In his ability to show the world a real person effected by tweeting an insensitive remark, Ronson effectively uses pathos to appeal to readers, forgetful of the fact that there is a real human being behind every screen.

Logos

Next, Jon Ronson effectively persuades the audience of his argument using facts and evidence to support his claim. In the case of Justine Sacco, Ronson presents all of the factual evidence attributed to her situation, including her firing and the impact it took on her mental health and life afterwards. Another instance where Ronson uses facts and evidence to strengthen his claim is when he explains the story of two tech developers at a press conference making an inappropriate joke and getting fired. He tells the full story of the men, noting facts like the one man’s reasoning for looking ahead in the woman’s photograph and the conversation in a back room where the two men were fired. Ronson presents a neutral account as he explains what happened to both sides of the event.

While beginning with the men’s experience, he shifts, giving the point of view of the woman who tweeted about the insensitive joke. This shows that Ronson is developing his claim fully by giving all sides to the story. Ronson lastly uses logos when he describes his discoveries in the Massachusetts Archives in Boston. He gives historical accounts of how public humiliation has been a long debate since the 1700’s. He tells of Declaration of Independence signer Benjamin Rush’s movement to combat public humiliation, back in 1787, which adds additional factual support to his overall purpose in proving that public humiliation and shaming via social media is morally wrong in many cases.

Ethos

Jon Ronson proves himself as a credible source numerous times throughout his article. First, he provides in-person accounts of the online shaming victims that he personally interviewed. By directly interviewing these people who faced the wrath of social media, he gains credibility by receiving his information directly from the source. By building relationships with people like Justine Sacco, Ronson is able to earn their trust as an unbiased listener, and he is able to use the unique information that his interviewees trust in telling him, to gain the trust of his readers.

Second, Ronson follows each story from beginning to end. This shows that Ronson is not leaving any parts of the story out to manipulate what the audience thinks. The audience is aware of how Ronson presents the story in an impartial manner, while still effectively developing his argument of how these social media people were harshfully punished. Lastly, Ronson most effectively proves himself as a credible source when he accepts responsibility for once being in the social Twitter mob. “In the early days of Twitter, I was a keen shamer. When newspaper columnists made racist or homophobic statements, I joined the pile-on. Sometimes I led it.” Overall, Ronson strengthens his argument by establishing this kind of credibility, because with his readers’ trust in him as a source, they can more effectively understand his purpose for the article.

In conclusion, in his article entitled, “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life,” Jon Ronson convincingly argues through his use of pathos, logos, and ethos, that public shaming on the internet through “mob mentality” is wrong and is attributed to humanity’s desire for self-approval. He uses pathos to appeal to the audience’s emotions while making them feel sympathy towards Justine Sacco and the other victims. He uses logos by giving all facts of each story, including how Justine Sacco was affected by the backlash and criticism that she received, especially with details of her being fired from her job. Lastly, Ronson proves himself as a credible source by meeting with the victims, including all sides to the stories, and accepting responsibility of once being in the Twitter mob. At a time when “Twitter mobs” ravage the authors of misstatements and inconsiderate jokes, this article exposes the other side of the story where victims of backlash see their lives ruined before their own eyes.