Texting and driving is one of the most debated topics in society. Whether it affects all people or whether or not you’re Just good at multi tasking. Yet, all people would come to the agreement that it is one the most dangerous activities to participate in and ends millions of lives yearly. “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks” published in New York Times by Matt Richtel and “LOL? Texting While Driving Is No Laughing Matter: Proposing a Coordinated Response to Curb this Dangerous Activity” by Alexis M.
Farris are two articles that present variations of ethos, pathos, and logos nd make identical arguments claiming that texting and driving is not only dangerous but is shaping the way Americans live. Both articles illustrate several accounts on the dangers of texting and driving and how the activity could potentially be stopped proving both articles to be well accounted for. While Matt Richtel and Alexis. M. Farris both reach the conclusion that texting while driving has a negative impact on people, Farris’ article is far deeper and less biased then Richtel’s who relies more on personal inference rather than factual evidence.
Matt Richtel begins his article “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone risks” ith a personal account of a young man getting his first car and within the first couple of months of driving ending another’s life because of texting and driving. Richtel, conveys the dangers of texting and driving through interviews with teenagers and adults. Richtel’s use of this technique in writing makes his article personal and rather informal and directed to a more general public audience by interviewing people who are guilty of texting and driving making the situation more relatable.
People such as Tad Jones who is the floor leader in the Oklahoma house who stated I’m on the phone from when I leave the Capitol to when I get home, and that’s a two hour drive, a lot of people who travel are used to using the phone” (Richtel, 2). Ricthel’s main focus is the issue with people not understanding or caring about the dangers of texting and driving. Richtel makes decent claims and produces data and surveys that should open the eyes toa general audience such as “81 percent of cellphone users acknowledged that they talk on phones while driving and 98 percent considered themselves safe drivers” (Richtel, 3).
Richtel uses real life situations and eople to persuade the audience into realizing the severity of texting and driving and utilizes the information he has in way that interests the audience to want to know more about the topic at hand. Alexis M. Farris’s article “LOL? Texting While Driving is No Laughing Matter: Proposing a Coordinated Response to Curb Dangerous Activity’ introduces the audience with information about the increasing number of wireless cellphone users a long with increasing number of text messages that are sent every year (Farris, 237).
Farris’ main goal in her article is to make the audience aware of the statistics and esearch that proves texting and driving to be extremely dangerous and to propose a solution that could help end distracted driving. Farris’ introduces the audience with statistics from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration revealing the 20 percent of all car crash fatalities in 2009 were someway involved in distracted driving targeted toward a more academic audience such as researchers and scholars.
In Farris’ article she addresses the Government and legislatures stating that Congress should “utilize its Commerce Clause and essentially force the States to legislate the area of texting while driving” (Farris, 251). She also goes on to lay out and explain the Bills and Laws that have been sent to Congress multiple times that ban using a cell phone while driving yet Farris claims that Congress has not acted (Farris, 254). Farris’ logic in her claims are supported well and she illustrates many compelling facts that prove the dangers of texting while driving to be accurate.
Matt Richtel’s and Alexis Farris’ articles discuss the same issue and ultimately have the same end in mind on what to do about texting and driving. However, the information and credibility presented in each article is different. Matt Richtel, a journalist for New York Times presents many facts about texting while driving a long with the multiple interviews with people sharing their personal opinions, experiences and views about the issue and although the interviews and facts he presents are interesting they do not prove to be credible.
Richtel fails to provide any sources for any of his research and seems biased in some of his claims in his article and completely lacking ethos. For example, Richtel presented a set of data that illustrated the number of cellphone distractions that caused deaths every year and went on to ay that “Americans have largely ignored the research” and that there is a large “disconnect between perception and reality that is worsening the problem” claiming that “drivers overestimate their own ability to safely multitask” (Richtel, 1).
Texting and driving is a difficult topic to be unbiased about but Richtel’s claims make it seem that he is basing his opinions off of research and not experience. Whereas, Alexis Farris’ article consists of constant research and data supported by multiple transportation administrations and content pulled from bills stating rules about texting and driving (Farris, 252). Alex Farris obtained her Jurius Doctor degree from the Washington School of Law making her fully equipped to research the legal matters regarding distracted driving.
Although Farris does state that Congress should step up and pass a bill ending texting and driving and propose ideas in order for it to subside, she backs up her claims with research and also attempts to see both sides of the issue with banning texting and driving. For example, Alexis stated that maybe the reason this happens is because people are so used to checking their emails and sending text messages all the time.
Farris claims “Drivers feel that they can support egislation banning texting while driving and yet still text themselves because, when it comes to texting while driving, they minimize the dangers of their own actions” (Farris, 246). Farris attempts to see the reasoning behind why people continue to text and drive without blindly making a statement and once her evidence is Justified, she states her claim again tying herself back into her main points while using the right amount of ethos throughout the article.
Matt Richtel’s use of pathos throughout “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks” is what makes the audience keep reading. By using personal interviews about individuals experiences the article seems much more applicable to the audience. Richtel interviewed a man who plead guilty to negligent homicide for the death of a woman he hit while he was distracted at the wheel of car. The man he interviewed told Richtel “l hope they don’t communicated to his audience through their emotions and made his article personal and relatable by using language that the audience could understand and connect with.
In Alexis Farris’ article “LOL? Texting while Driving is No Laughing Matter: Proposing a Coordinated Response to Curb Dangerous Activity’ provided no motional appeal whatsoever. Farris focused on the “business” side of texting while driving rather than diving into the audience’s emotions. Since the audience is mainly targeted towards scholars and researchers the terms used are complex and a lot more technical than Richtel’s article.
For example, Farris refers to the federal government and legislation multiple times throughout her article and discusses laws and policy of transportation in detail (Farris, 254). Although Alexis Farris’ pathos was not as present in her writings she targets the audience she intended to and does not et caught up in the emotions of the topic and base her article solely on emotional experience. Matt Richtel’s and Alexis Farris’ articles both illustrated key points in the controversial issue of texting while driving.
While “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks” had a strong sense of pathos through emotional connection it lacked research and evidence to back up Richtel’s arguments and claims, causing the article to seem one-dimensional. “LOL? Texting while Driving is No Laughing Matter: Proposing a Coordinated Response” exemplified ethos and logos and while it did not resent the strongest pathos, Farris was confident in her claims and arguments about texting while driving enabling the article to stand on its own.
Works Cited Farris, Alexis M. I. “LOL? Texting While Driving Is No Laughing Matter: Proposing A Coordinated Response To Curb This Dangerous Activity. ” Washington University Journal Of Law & Policy 36. (2011): 233-259. Index to Legal Periodicals & Books Full Text (H. W. Wilson). Web. 14 Nov. 2013. Richtel, Matt. “Drivers and Legislators Dismiss Cellphone Risks. ” Www. nytimes. com. New York Times, 19 June 2009. Web. 4 Nov. 2013.