“…As Kuu Kyi, was shocked to learn that Rohingya

“…As a responsible member of the community of
nations Myanmar does not fear international scrutiny” (McPherson, 2017). Ms.
Aung San Kuu Kyi, a top civilian official within the government believes she is
handling the situation well compared to the opposing view of the United Nations
official who deemed this as ethnic cleansing. The editorial board’s purpose is
to shine light on the issue of how the Rohingya’s are living in fear.


The Rohingya, a group of Muslim minorities are fleeing the country of Myanmar.
They are fleeing due to Myanmar’s army campaign. Myanmar’s army is killing,
raping and setting fire to Rakhine’s villages where they once called home. However,
the people of Myanmar disagree with the misinterpretation of information and
believe that this army campaign started as a result of the raid on border posts
by an organization called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. Myanmar’s
retribution resulted in 600,000 Rohingya being driven out of Myanmar. Even so,
they are seeking refuge in Bangladesh. On the other hand, Ms. Aung San Kuu Kyi,
was shocked to learn that Rohingya are fleeing and have discussed with
Bangladesh officials to aid them in their recovery at Rakhine. This would
create a sense of normalcy for them. Nonetheless, Hannah Beech, a reporter from
New York Times described how the majority in Myanmar view Rohingya’s as, “illegal,
violent and fast-multiplying aliens.” This statement does not completely allow
one to feel welcome to return home. The editorial board builds their
creditability by using sources from other New York Times articles and facts to
appeal to our emotions but towards the end of the article, the argument starts
to lack in result to the quality of sources and manipulation of emotions.

We Will Write a Custom Essay Specifically
For You For Only $13.90/page!

order now


The editorial board begins building credibility by
inserting New York Times articles describing the topics of Myanmar and
Rohingya. Such as, “U.S. Threatens to Punish Myanmar Over Treatment of
Rohingya,” “Burma: New Satellite Images Confirm Mass Destruction,” and “Across
Myanmar: Denial of Ethnic Cleansing and Loathing of Rohingya.” The editorial
board lists points like, “…288 Rohingya villages set ablaze…,” or “…universally
share an image of the Rohingya as illegal, violent and fast-multiplying aliens…”
The editorial board hyperlinks these articles in order to present data,
information and reveals that the board has done their homework. As well, this
emphasizes the credibility within their own article. Furthermore, their
credibility is built on being the editorial board of New York Times. The board
is composed of 16 journalists with expertise in various areas. One of the
reporters Hannah Beech, is the journalist for TIME magazine and is known to be
an expert in the subject area of Asia. In addition, the New York Times is one
the most trusted newspaper outlets in the U.S, with a worldwide audience and
122 Pulitzer prizes (represent 16 journalistic principles). On the other hand,
Sergey Ponomarev, a photographer took a photo of a Rohingya’s boy drawing at a
refugee camp in Bangladesh. This adds to the credibility because it asserts
that they are willing to get images that are proof of the event occurring. Therefore,
it is evident that the editorial board conveys ethos through their vast
expertise in different fields of knowledge and the research they gathered to
produce high-quality journalism.


Throughout the article, the editorial board heavily
uses pathos to convey emotions of pity. The editorial board begins discussing
the Myanmar army and how they have “…already driven more than 600,000 people
out of Myanmar, exposing them to acute suffering and stretching the resources
and patience of neighboring Bangladesh.” The board demonstrates the calamity
that the Myanmar army has created and allows the audience to wonder if they
have enough resources to help 600,000 people.  The editorial board further discusses the
underlying problem in order to reveal the “…loathing of the Rohingya in
Buddhist-majority Myanmar…,” where many in the community hold this
perspective.  In addition, the editorial
board points out that the Myanmar army is killing, raping and setting fire to
288 Rohingya villages. These facts would allow the international audience to
sympathize with the events occurring in Myanmar and hope that the Rohingya are
safe. Plus, the editorial board illuminated the situation through a photograph
taken by Sergey Ponomarev of a Rohingya boy drawing his perspective on the
killings in Myanmar. The drawing of blood, fire, death, and a soldier killing
tugs on heartstrings because this is something that no one should have to
experience nor see. This overwhelming amount of facts are clearly stated but
produce feelings of pity and makes the audience fearful for the Rohingyas


The editorial board shifts to presenting information
using logos. However, I believe they need to establish more specific methods of
presenting their information. They state in the article that there are
“well-documented reports detailing the Myanmar Army’s campaign of killing…,”
and “…reports that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi had agreed in a meeting…” They do
not announce where they received the reports from or from whom. Plus, the
editorial board reveals that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi is a civilian official in the
government but do not reveal and does not seem to be aware of how much power
she has. On the other hand, the editorial board may have selected sources that
allow their article to be more persuasive to the audience instead of viewing
both sides equally. Thus, the audience are geared to siding with the Rohingya’s.
I would suggest the editorial board to not use too many emotional facts to
elicit a sympathetic response.


            It is revealed that the authors start
their arguments strong with an emphasis on credibility and emotions but loses
power through the overload of emotions. The editorial board should further
discuss how the Myanmar army and Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi will resolve the problems
and if it is not resolved, that the proper sanctions will be applied. How can
ethnocentrism exist in Myanmar?