Running Head: ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

Attack on Paris Controversy

Mayra Torres
University of Texas at El Paso
RWS 1302 Tuesday

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

2

Introduction:
There had been several debates all over the world pertaining the truth on the recent
attack on Paris. On Wednesday, January 7, there was an attack at a local newspaper office
Charlie Hedbo, a satirical newspaper that released comics relating Muslims. For many it
is believed that this was what triggered the attack. However, there had been many
disagreements as to what really happened, whether it was true, or if government was
involved. This is the main point being discussed in the first source. A documentary called
Charlie Hebdo Shooting: Paris Attack Hoax NWO Expos by a man going by the name
redsilverj. In this documentary he argues the reality of things, how it has all been made up
by someone else. The second source has its views completely opposing this idea. It is an
article called Speaking truth to children about the Paris attacks, by Amelia Jenne. In this
article, the readers are being shown how kids think about this attack. It is giving the
perspective of a kid. Now, which of these two completely different sources is giving the
truth to its audience? Which is being more persuasive? And how are they achieving its
purpose? In the first source, it is trying to make the viewers believe the whole movement is
false. Whereas, the second is making every single reader feel for this tragic event through
the eyes of children.
Audience and Purpose
In the documentary, the audience seemed to be in the minds of the author is
everyone. However, the youth would be specifically who he is triggering; this is because
they have an open mind, to gather newer and controversial information. He made this for
everyone to see because he wants everyone to be informed of what he believes to be the

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

3

reality of the situation. The author is trying to persuade viewers, to believe that the footage
of the attack is false. The second source, the article it has a different audience: parents. The
author is attempting to persuade parents to see how children are not blind to the horrors of
society. He is also pursuing to make these parents angry at the terrorist, because children
are aware of it. Most people have a general knowledge on the attack. They know the basics,
that an armed group killed innocent journalists for doing their job. However, as what they
want to know, it differs on the two different audiences. Parents want to be informed; they
want to know the fact of what is happening. But as to the other group, they what to know
the truth, they are seeking for evidence that the attack it is in fact a Hoax. For the
documentary the audience will spend half an hour, which is the length of the video as to the
other where maybe fifteen minutes, would be needed to read and comprehend the article.
The author in the documentary has a very informal language, which is why he is pursuing a
younger generation that will clearly understand his point of view. For the article, the tone
used is clearly more formal and informative very appropriate for the intended audience.
There are not many similarities found within these two genres, other than the
original topic which is the Paris attack. The purpose for both is to convey each of its
messages across, whether it is not the same point. As for the differences; there are many, the
age gap in between audiences, the tone used in both, and the purpose of each.

Rhetorical Issues: Ethos, Pathos and Logos

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

4

The first genre might fail to establish a strong credibility due to several factors.
First, the fact that it is a YouTube video means that it has probably not been peer reviewed.
This takes away from the ethos of the documentary. Second, the username of the author
Redsilverj and the picture he has seem very immature and unprofessional. Although, he
does use good terminology and he is using back up research all throughout the video,
giving back some credibility taken away from the points previously mentioned. He links
another video to the documentary and suggests the viewers to watch it before starting the
documentary. By this he does become effective in the end into persuading the audience to
believe some of the points he will be mentioning. The second source establishes a good
credibility because it has interviews with the parents of many children affected by this
attack. The fact that the intended audiences are also parents worrying for their children
makes the purpose of the article effective. For a parent hearing the opinion of another
parent gives this person the comfort that the truth is being spoken. Also the use of children
pictures holding posters, gives extra credibility for parents.
As into pathos, the documentary does succeed in creating many emotions in the
audience, from sadness, to anger, to disappointment. How the author relates what the
French are feeling to how Americans felt during 9/11 in the video it is mentioned
Remember this is Frances 9/11They are experiencing the emotional pain just like
America during 9/11 ( Redsilverj 2015) . This event caused much grief to Americans and
the fact they are feeling the same way means that they are detrimentally suffering from this.
Reminding the viewer of these past feelings gives, again, a sense of grief, or sadness of
knowing that feeling. Another feeling in the audience is that anger of starting to realize
how the government is lying, and how this whole thing is made up and made more

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

5

extravagant by media. He also talks about this being part of a new plan, of having a world
free of religion. Government wants to get rid of every part of religion. For the audience,
that definitely evokes a bigger saddening and anger feeling. In this sense, the author does
have an effective persuasion. The second genre has also huge pathos involved in the article.
First, the pictures of children holding u signs of I am Charlie and the questions these kids
have fearing a war. This makes parents and everyone else reading this feel for these
children and fearing again that they are also feeling disappointed on what is happening.
Lastly there is the logos, in the documentary he uses a good amount of facts to
prove the reality of what he is talking about. Before the video can be played there is a link
that must be watched, this video is the footage from the attack but broken down so that the
viewer can see that the footage displayed on the news is fake. The author does this too so
that the viewers know what he is talking about throughout the video. Throughout the video
there are different sources, such as articles and speeches given by others talking about the
topic from where he gathers the information. In the description box there are posted all of
the links from where the facts were taken from. As from the article there are tweets
presented that show how some parents feel about the attack. The article also presents many
quotes from different people form children to the relatives of kids. But solid facts such as
dates, numbers graphs or charts are not shown in the article which takes away from the
logically side of it.
Both genres use emotions and feelings to pursue the audience making this a
similarity. However, what the video lacks on credibility the article has and vice versa what
the article lacks on logos the video has many.

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

6

Structure and Delivery

The information in the documentary is quite limited, first because he cannot talk so
much before people will start noticing some bias due to the fact that the author is talking,
and through his voice his feelings can be heard. Some people can take it that he is being
carried away by his emotions and not by the truth. By this he has a limitation; he cannot let
the feeling take over the sound of his voice. Another limitation is also the length of the
video, it is 33 minutes and 48 seconds (Redsilversj, 2015) ; he has to make sure that he
only talks about what he has planned already so that the video would not get any longer.
There are also pictures and quotes being showed in the video and he has to time himself
and the pictures to coordinate and support what he is taking about at the same time. The
author uses many different pictures to support what he is talking about, if not it would be
impossible to have someone look at the video for 30 minutes with the same image on the
background. Every time there is a different topic being mentioned a picture relating to that
topic is placed.
Since the second one is an article the information is clearly shaped so that it can be
read in a short amount of time, with short and concise paragraphs and only relevant
information to the topic. It has pictures in between paragraphs to keep the reader active and
interested with messages to support the elements presented. To both sides of the article in
the webpage there are no advertisements or pictures so that the reader would not be
distracted while reading. This helps in conveying the message considering that the audience
are parents and have no time to read a long article or watch a half an hour documentary.
These adults need to obtain the information in a short amount of time. As visuals the article
includes the pictures of children holding signs with messages like I am Charlie, I am a

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

7

cartoonist too or When I grow up I want to be a journalist too, I am not afraid (Jenne,
2015) this just to support the information with actual children proving the message.
Since these are two completely different genres it is hard to find similarities in the
way they convey the message and structure it, however both use pictures to support their
messages and prove their point. As in differences, the video has a different length time
again due to the audience, young people would have more time to sit and watch to the video
whereas adults who would much rather read a short article.
Conclusion/Synthesis
Even thought the information in the documentary was great and might be true, the
article it is best at conveying its message, anyone that read this could comprehend its
message and believe in those childrens anxiousness. It does a great job at providing its
message to the intended audience.

ATTACK ON PARIS CONTROVERSY

8

References
Jenne, A. (2015) Speaking truth to children about the Paris attacks.
Mashable. Retrieved from http://mashable.com/2015/01/12/childrenparis-attacks/

Redsilverj (2015, Jan 12) Charlie Hebdo Shooting: Paris Attack Hoax NWO Expos
(Documentary) [Video file] Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=WVI8_6gTrDg