As a responsible member of the community ofnations Myanmar does not fear international scrutiny” (McPherson, 2017). Ms.Aung San Kuu Kyi, a top civilian official within the government believes she ishandling the situation well compared to the opposing view of the United Nationsofficial who deemed this as ethnic cleansing.
The editorial board’s purpose isto 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 andbelieve that this army campaign started as a result of the raid on border postsby an organization called Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army. Myanmar’sretribution 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 withBangladesh officials to aid them in their recovery at Rakhine. This wouldcreate a sense of normalcy for them. Nonetheless, Hannah Beech, a reporter fromNew York Times described how the majority in Myanmar view Rohingya’s as, “illegal,violent and fast-multiplying aliens.” This statement does not completely allowone to feel welcome to return home. The editorial board builds theircreditability by using sources from other New York Times articles and facts toappeal to our emotions but towards the end of the article, the argument startsto lack in result to the quality of sources and manipulation of emotions. The editorial board begins building credibility byinserting New York Times articles describing the topics of Myanmar andRohingya.
Such as, “U.S. Threatens to Punish Myanmar Over Treatment ofRohingya,” “Burma: New Satellite Images Confirm Mass Destruction,” and “AcrossMyanmar: Denial of Ethnic Cleansing and Loathing of Rohingya.
” The editorialboard lists points like, “…288 Rohingya villages set ablaze…,” or “…universallyshare 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, thisemphasizes the credibility within their own article. Furthermore, theircredibility is built on being the editorial board of New York Times. The boardis composed of 16 journalists with expertise in various areas. One of thereporters Hannah Beech, is the journalist for TIME magazine and is known to bean expert in the subject area of Asia. In addition, the New York Times is onethe most trusted newspaper outlets in the U.S, with a worldwide audience and122 Pulitzer prizes (represent 16 journalistic principles).
On the other hand,Sergey Ponomarev, a photographer took a photo of a Rohingya’s boy drawing at arefugee camp in Bangladesh. This adds to the credibility because it assertsthat 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 vastexpertise in different fields of knowledge and the research they gathered toproduce high-quality journalism. Throughout the article, the editorial board heavilyuses pathos to convey emotions of pity.
The editorial board begins discussingthe Myanmar army and how they have “…
already driven more than 600,000 peopleout of Myanmar, exposing them to acute suffering and stretching the resourcesand patience of neighboring Bangladesh.” The board demonstrates the calamitythat the Myanmar army has created and allows the audience to wonder if theyhave enough resources to help 600,000 people. The editorial board further discusses theunderlying problem in order to reveal the “…loathing of the Rohingya inBuddhist-majority Myanmar…,” where many in the community hold thisperspective.
In addition, the editorialboard points out that the Myanmar army is killing, raping and setting fire to288 Rohingya villages. These facts would allow the international audience tosympathize with the events occurring in Myanmar and hope that the Rohingya aresafe. Plus, the editorial board illuminated the situation through a photographtaken by Sergey Ponomarev of a Rohingya boy drawing his perspective on thekillings in Myanmar.
The drawing of blood, fire, death, and a soldier killingtugs on heartstrings because this is something that no one should have toexperience nor see. This overwhelming amount of facts are clearly stated butproduce feelings of pity and makes the audience fearful for the Rohingyaslives. The editorial board shifts to presenting informationusing logos.
However, I believe they need to establish more specific methods ofpresenting 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 donot announce where they received the reports from or from whom. Plus, theeditorial board reveals that Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi is a civilian official in thegovernment but do not reveal and does not seem to be aware of how much powershe has. On the other hand, the editorial board may have selected sources thatallow their article to be more persuasive to the audience instead of viewingboth 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 toelicit a sympathetic response. It is revealed that the authors starttheir arguments strong with an emphasis on credibility and emotions but losespower through the overload of emotions. The editorial board should furtherdiscuss how the Myanmar army and Ms. Aung San Suu Kyi will resolve the problemsand if it is not resolved, that the proper sanctions will be applied.
How canethnocentrism exist in Myanmar?