1. Home

A Rhetorical Analysis of a 2016 Political Cartoon about Threats to Journalism

In this rhetorical analysis essay, the student examines a 2016 Politico political cartoon by Matt Wuerker commenting on journalism and the threat of disinformation.
PAGES
1
WORDS
476
  Cite
View Full Essay
About this essay
This essay received a B by one of Kibin's paper graders. Click here to see what was done well and what needs improvement.

More essays like this:

Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin
- Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University
Exactly what I needed.
- Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA
Wow. Most helpful essay resource ever!
- Chris Stochs, student @ UC Berkeley
Generating Preview...
This essay received a B by one of Kibin's paper graders. Click here to see what was done well and what needs improvement.

More essays like this:

Not sure what I'd do without @Kibin
- Alfredo Alvarez, student @ Miami University
Exactly what I needed.
- Jenna Kraig, student @ UCLA
Wow. Most helpful essay resource ever!
- Chris Stochs, student @ UC Berkeley

View other essays like this one:

Bridget's feedback:

"This close-read of Wuerker's cartoon makes effective use of detailed observations to support your interpretations, such as your insightful point about the pipe sizes. A particularly successful moment that conveys your control over the text (the political cartoon) and demonstrates your ethos is when you are able to present on the artist's intentions as separate from your critique: this is a good example of sound rhetorical analysis.

There are a few areas that are unclear, including how Wuerker's cartoon defines journalism, modern/modern-day journalism, and traditional journalism. Is "modern journalism" used explicitly by Wuerker, or is this your interpretation of what is shown? (If the latter, this should be explained and justified.) The definitions and where they are derived from (i.e., from Wuerker or from your analysis) should be made more clear so para. 4 can build on a clear foundation.

A few other clarity moments are related to lower-order concerns (writing mechanics). For example, "there is significantly less clean water" (para. 2) can read as either less water or that the water is less clean. This should be revised to anticipate reader comprehension issues. Similarly, the punctuation in the rather long first sentence of para. 3 creates significant barriers to clarity; these include a comma splice and a dependent clause before the semicolon. Use a thorough proofread to catch these issues and ensure your reader can focus on your discussion."

Learn more about this feedback