Summary Of Rhetorical Analysis Of Ellen Goodman's Columns

Rhetorical Analysis of Ellen Goodman’s Columns

Journalist, author, and syndicated columnist Ellen Goodman is an entertaining and powerful writer. She takes current news and tries to find the general truth and values behind the subject. She uses humor, skepticism, sarcasm, rhetorical questions, and perspective to make her columns more meaningful and relatable. She generally supports positions from the progressive wing. I found this to be true in the five articles I read: “Dispensing Morality” (April 9,2005), “Views That Facts Can’t Shake” (June 18, 2005), “The backward plight of the working woman,” (May 2, 2008), “Feminism isn’t supposed to make women ‘happy’” (November 2, 2009), and “How to Talk About Dying” (July 1, 2015).

Goodman uses powerful language in her columns to get her points across. An example of this is in “Dispensing Morality” (April 9,2005), where she uses words such as “decency” to say it makes sense for doctors to have the right

An example of her using humor, sarcasm, and play on words can be seen when she says, “The idea that the wage gap might be because of, um, sex discrimination seems soooo 20th century,” stating it's ridiculous to think some people don’t believe equal pay is fair. Sometimes Goodman builds a “strawman” then starts to light a match to each paragraph and totally sets it on fire, stating what really matters. This is the device she uses to frame her “Dispensing Morality.” At first, the reader thinks she supports a professional’s right to follow their conscience. Then, after she says “It’s not that simple,” she explains why pharmacists should do their jobs. In “Views That Facts Can’t Shake,” she uses rhetorical questions to expose people who make up their own science and pay for approval. On rare occasions, Goodman uses personal anecdotes. An example is in “How to Talk About Dying,” where she uses her life experience and what she's heard from others to make her