Summary Of David Brooks Engaged Or Detached

David Brooks’ article in the New York Times editorial “Engaged or Detached?”, Brooks argues that most political writers are engaged writers and that writers should be more detached. His article is about the difference of engaged writers and detached writers. According to Brooks, an engaged writer “often criticizes his own party” and a detached writer thinks of writing as “more like teaching than activism.” Also, in his article, he aims towards writers whom are thinking about writing about politics. Brooks finds that more writers in today’s world are engaged writers and that they are driven toward topics that “can do the most damage to the other side.” Many things about Brooks could affect the audience. Brooks is a writer on politics, culture

In his article he uses some logos, but I don’t think there is much in it. He has an example of what Democrats and Republicans are in most people’s minds. This is the only logic I think Brooks uses in the article. The is also pathos in his article, but to me, there is only pathos is you agree with one side. The descriptions are a way of giving emotions. These emotions are only one sided, so you may feel something and another person may feel another. I don’t think this was a good way to use pathos in the article. I did not really feel any emotions in it, so that is why I think that they depend on what one person feels against another. Since there is no real pathos in the article, one may hope to find to ethos in it. I do not think that Brooks used much ethos at all. He did not really explain his credibility in it. He tries to tell you to choose that side that most people are not on, which is detached. But, he does not say why he wants you to choose a side. He does not say what kind of writer he is, which would make his credibility non-existent. He says that he “would still urge you to slide over to the detached side of the scale.” This does not support him at all, and does not give him credibility. This is where ethos, logos and pathos exists in this article, and how I feel about how Brooks used