More Disclosures about Stop- and- Frisk by the Editorial Board - Article Example

Editorial Evaluation Editorial Evaluation In the New York time, the editorial by the “More Disclosures about Stop- and- Frisk,” is written by the editorial board. This editorial demonstrates an argumentation type called the Rogerian argumentation. It is a kind of negotiating strategy where it keeps the audience from being annoyed and defensive. This motivates them to keep on listening to what the writer is talking about because they do not feel threatened by his or her assumptions, inferences, opinions, and viewpoints (The editorial board, 2013).

The editorial board starts by exploring the common ground that they share with the audience. They do this by stating the audience’s side of the issue objectively and fairly. This makes the audience realize that the writer is treating the issue with respect. For instance, the editorial board note that Mayor Michael Bloomberg defended the dishonored “stop- and-frisk program” and point out that the mayor claim the program to be important in cutting crime in New York City. However, we find the editorial board trying to give an objective statement of its position about crime by providing its opinion (The editorial board, 2013).

The editorial board’s opinion is that the mayor’s claim is not credible. Again the editorial board tries to avoid using attacking language. It also implies that its position is not superior to that of the audience. The editorial board’s assumptions are that the crime would never decline in New York City, as compared to other cities, because citizens were detained millions of times without legitimate reason. In this case, the editorial board tries to explain the context in which its position is valid.

Furthermore, its viewpoints are that crime would not stop even after the stop-and-frisk program insinuates the police department to command police officers to stop torturing people on the street. The editorial board also explores how its position differs from that of the audience by providing evidence. The evident suggest that the police department could have achieved its public safety goals through the legal use of stop-and-frisk program; when officers have legitimate reasons for criminal activities; and avoiding violation of the constitution (The editorial board, 2013).

To conclude, the editorial board finally presents the thesis. This thesis is phrased in a way that reveals that the editorial board has made some concessions toward the position of the audience. For instance, it comes to agree that the crime rate in New York City is likely to decrease. This is because; in 2012 New York City had the lowest count of murder in at least 50 years. The editorial board, therefore, insist that there would be fewer murders in the current year. It also suggests that the rate of torturing citizen by police officer dropped from more than 200000 during the first quarter of 2012.

The editorial board therefore insists the protection of over 21000 people during the third quarter of the current year. In this case, we find the editorial board focusing on building bridges between itself and the audience. It places considerable weight on the values, opinions, and assumptions that it shares with the audience. This emphasizes on “you win and I win too” solution. Reference The editorial board. (2013). More Disclosures About Stop-and-Frisk. Retrieved from http://www.nytimes.

com/2013/11/30/opinion/more-disclosures-about-stop-and- frisk.html?ref=editorials&_r=0