Profiling

On Oct. 31^st 2001 the article, “Airlines, passengers confront racial profiling” was released on CNN by an un-named author.  The article spoke of specific incidences of unjustly racism on airplanes. It’s purpose was to inform the intended audience that racial profiling was not ok.

In order to prove the author point he used the technique of pathos. She/he tried to make the reader feel for the victims in each occurrence of racism. For example, the author stated that the passenger “was so embarrassed.” And that he never made it to his brother wedding due to discrimination. The passenger asked if he did anything wrong to raise suspicion, they told him the pilot didn’t like the way he looked. The passenger was told to get off the plane because the crew did not feel safe flying with him.

Khan (the passenger) was then let back on the plane to get his backpack. If he was considered such a threat why was he allowed back on the plane? This is backward logic. The author made his point by using this logic to show to the reader that this doesn’t make sense. It proves the point that profiling is wrong.

The article spoke of the tragedy on Sept. 11 when two planes got hijacked by Al Qaeda, with 92 people on the flight, it crashed into the world trade center. The author was using Logos/facts to explain the reasoning why there’s racial profiling on planes ever since 9-11. It was then stated that the FBI and the airlines are now working together to fix the problem. The FBI is held high in society. By having this agency work with the airlines proves that racism is wrong and they are finding ways to stop it.

At the end of the article, the author included a number that can be used to report hate crimes and discrimination. This helped the author prove his point that racial profiling is wrong and needs to be reported.  Over all, the article used pathos to connect with the reader and logic to prove their point. The article succeeded its purpose.

Before “Airlines, Passengers Confront Racial Profiling,” was posted John Stossel posted on abcnews.com on n Oct. 3^rd 2001 about Racial profiling and when it’s ok? He didn’t necessarily say he was for racial profiling. It was detailed article on how racial profiling can be helpful. The article gave the reader to information and the final the decision if it was ok or not was left to the reader.

For example, “Though black males aged 15 to 24 are just 1 percent of the population; they are responsible for up to 20 percent of violent crime. So if you stop black men, say many police officers, you’ll catch more criminals.” When John interviewed a bulk of black people each one of them stated they want cops to focus more on Arabs. When John informed them on the statistics on the black crime rate and if all black men should be stopped they had second thoughts.

Similar to the “Airlines, Passengers Confront Racial Profiling,” article abcnews also spoke of the racial profiling of Khan on the airplane. It stated that, “Six million people in America have some connection by descent or religion with Arabs or Islam.” This statement defends that racism is wrong.

“When is Racial Profiling Ok?” Mostly used one main persuasive technique which is logos. The article was much shorter and gave only a few pieces of statistic. It also didn’t try to convince the reader to think a certain way. The author informed the reader and let their final thoughts be their own.

Even though both articles came at the reader from a different approaches. Both articles show that if everyone is treated like their criminal then there would be no need for racial profiling. Everyone should be treated fairly. In the end racism is never ok.