Manti Teo went from a household favorite to a disgraced
figure very quickly. Losing the Heisman trophy to Johnny Manziel and getting
blown out by Alabama in the national championship game are the least of his
worries right now. He has lost his own personal dignity and credibility.
Reports came out that the “girlfriend” he was “dating” was actually a fake
identity that Teo was tricked into believing. Some would say that Teo was
involved with the whole scheme to give him a better chance of winning the Heisman.
And some would even go as far as saying that Teo did all this to hide the fact
that he was gay and wanted a fake girlfriend to cover it up. Either way, Teo
has become a very disgraced figure on college sports.
In the culture that we live in today, the media has a lot of
influence on celebrities and the image that they portray to the public.
Although the media has crushed Teo’s image and not many people believe in him
anymore, some people still do trust him.
I found two blogs about Teo and their opinions on the whole
situation. Each blog used the rhetorical appeals of logos, pathos, and ethos to
convey their opinions of Manti Teo. I found it very interesting that the blogs
each ended with a paragraph showing support for not Teo and building his reputation
up. This was effectively done by the use of pathos by both authors. Even I
started to rethink my beliefs on Teo after reading those paragraphs. The authors
really pulled at my emotions which made me question my beliefs and outlook on
the whole situation. The blogs were different in the fact that one recognized
what Teo did, but didn’t want to blame him. The author even sympathized for him
and felt his pain. He even went as far as saying that he is a champion in his
eyes. The other blog also recognized Teo as a liar and stated what he did was
wrong, but then went on saying that Teo was the perfect person to attack
because of his honesty and trust in other people. The author also states that
the world could use some more people like Teo due to his trust in other people.
Both blogs use logos to present the facts about Teo lying because they are
undeniably true.
I agree with you that both authors use Pathos, but I think they use it differently. I believe that Lang uses Pathos as away to capture the reader into agreeing with his perspective on the Manti Teo issue. For example, Lang states that "Te’o is incredibly naïve and gullible, allowing himself to be deceived via an internet con that even Danny Ocean would describe as laughably elaborate." Because Lang uses the reference to Danny Ocean he is capturing readers attention and helping persuade them into siding with his idea of what Manti really is, a gullible person.
ReplyDeleteOn the other hand, Archbold uses Pathos to present facts that persuade the reader to believe that Teo is only human and everyone makes mistakes. He does this by mentioning that "from 2005-2010, at least 31 off-the-field arrests involving 25 of University of Flordia players occurred." He is trying to show that there are worse things going on then Teo's issue in college football.
I find it difficult to celebrate Teo's trust in people when it has been so blatantly exposed as naivity if not even borderline studpidity. In this whole mess, it's been tough to see really any upside for the guy. If he knew about it all along, then he is manipulative and dishonest and if he legitimately just found out recently then I have a long way to go before being impressed with his intelligence and grip on life. In my opinion, there is little admirable about eargerly placing the bulk of your weight on a stranger in the form of trust. Ronald Reagan often said to "trust but verify". When dealing with strangers, that's not a bad approach.
ReplyDelete