response prep John Abou Nasr

Social Perspective: Malala has been exposed as a sort of celebrity amidst the world following the shooting. She has received recognition from major A list celebrities and flaunted on the media for everyone to witness. This creates social implications as to that one terrorist act, towards this one young female, and towards the other individuals affected by this terrorist act as well as others happening all across the world. The media plays a vital role in influencing individuals through its various programs. Some people may see Malala as a hero or survivor and feel empathetic towards her situation, while others may look down on the terrorist act and then judge a whole community based solely on this act. This can create a significant amount of tension and shift the peoples' minds into a more closed type thinking as well as create unnecessary racism by having only specific coverage of the case and not all of it.

Emotional Perspective: I feel that the author's tone in the text is one of disappointment and a sort of injustice and invasion of privacy. Throughout the text the author repeatedly looked down at the media and generally the system of society where the individuals with a higher status are perceived as more noteworthy of coverage. The author also takes into consideration the issue of invasion of privacy of Malala; as she stated, "As an intelligent young role model, I don't imagine Malala would want this, I would think all she wants to do is knuckle down and get on with her education and hopefully will be allowed to do so in peace." Lastly, there is a tone of injustice when the author speaks of the other victims of that act, which indirectly raise the question of how would they feel not being recognized for their misfortune while a fellow victim was, or for not receiving the same or similar treatment from the government and media for their traumatic experience?

Rhetorical Perspective: The author places emphasis on some words in the text to create mainly negative connotations, for example when she stated "mentors" which brought to attention that mentors in appearance was different to mentors in fact for Malala as well as several other key terms. The text is a semi formal/informal method of conveying her message; it is also a very opinionated piece with little credible evidence to support many of her claims in the article. The author uses many sweeping statements and has a one sided/biased perspective, instead of objectively writing. The use of rhetoric questions is apparent in the article.

Logical Perspective: The main style of the article is Hasty generalization. Although the author covers various sub sections within the main point of the media and government being unjust, each point revolves around hasty induction. For example, one of the points mentioned was that Malala received a lot of support and care while most women do not, especially if they are victims of the state. This concludes that if one is a victim of the state and a female, then they would most likely not receive care and support. There are many other points similar to the one just mentioned about hasty induction, which makes the article lose much of its credibility since a main portion of it revolves around fallacies. The author also begs the question when stating that women are being exploited in society. She further goes on as to say that she wonders if some men realize their own actions, since it is ingrained in our society. This all leads to the author implying that all men exploit women in society, because all men live in this society.

Ethical Perspective: The text is mainly about raising awareness on how ethical the government and media are when it comes to terrorism in the news. The author is trying to imply that the media should be more ethical when it comes to delivering the news. The media should be more objective and deliver everything about a story instead of just the parts that are most convenient for them. The focus was also on how the government and various other entities are exploiting this victim to try to gain as much as possible out of it for profit and for exposure, which creates a huge ethical dilemma of whether or not these entities happened to do all of this to raise awareness of the issue at hand or simply for the greed. Then again, is it ethical for the author to be subjective when dealing with such a sensitive issue that can have an immense impact on society?