Persuasive Essay Sample: Rhetor in the article Facebook is Better Without Trump

The article “Facebook is Better without Trump” by Greg Bensinger of the New York Times brings out a strong argument that the former president of the United States should not be allowed to post content on Facebook and other social media sites, because he promotes violence and misinformation. Bensinger possesses some strong persuasive skills and by the end of the article, even I, a self proclaimed liberal who believes everyone is entitled to an opinion no matter how bad it is, was sold-- Facebook is definitely better without Trump. Bensinger presents his argument by utilizing a number of logical, emotional, and ethical appeals with an aim of swaying his readers towards his perspective. This persuasive piece was written on 16th March, 2021, a few months after Donald Trump lost the 2020 presidential elections. During his presidency, Donald Trump was known to run to Twitter and Facebook to give his opinion about various events. On January 2021, Trump was widely blamed for inciting his supporters to raid the Capitol and he did this by posting on the platforms and giving a speech saying that elections were rigged and he should have won. This resulted in the actual capitol attack on January 6th. Following this incident, Facebook placed an indefinite ban on Trump’s account. The article by Bensinger was inspired by the ban and he wanted to convince his audience that it should have been upheld. According to him, Facebook stated that Trump’s posts were dangerous and incited the public to become violent and this went against the company’s policies. Bensinger starts the article by submitting that Facebook has been blocking and deleting posts that go against its policies, including the ones that propagate untruths as well as hateful speech. An oversight board was already reviewing Trump’s suspension and they were to make a ruling whether Trump should keep on posting in the following weeks. Bensinger argued that the board should uphold the company’s decision to keep the former president off the site. Doing otherwise would only encourage Trump and other leaders such as Jair Bolsonaro and Rodrigo Duterte, who are also infamous for posting misinformation, to keep posting. He also argues that Facebook should treat everyone equally and since the company pulls down multiple misleading posts from people everyday, then leaders should also get the same or even stricter treatment. The standards for prominent people on the platform ought to be higher because of the kind of influence they have on the masses. However, Facebook’s algorithms are designed to magnify extreme content that is popular so as to keep users on the site for longer, thus, more profits for the company. Bensinger concludes by admitting that removing accounts for troublesome people is an effective way of stopping dishonest and untruthful content from circulating on social media. Bensinger addresses readers of the New York Times. These would be middle to high class adults in the US, who read the newspaper and are supporters of Trump. Bensinger purposes to convince Trump supporters that he does not deserve to be on social media platforms because all he does is promote misinformation and incite violence. The author uses simple language to ensure that his readers easily understand his point. He probably hopes that people on Facebook, particularly those in the board, get to see the article and be convinced that they should uphold Trump’s ban on Facebook. Bensinger uses three main appeals to present a convincing case. Logical appeal is used to make the author seem more knowledgeable and his argument more reliable. He uses statistics to back his statements. “In just his final year in office, roughly a quarter of his 6,081 posts contained misinformation, lies or harmful rhetoric” (Bensinger, 2021). Statistics play an effective technique to make the readers believe that Trump’s posts cause more harm than good. Presenting facts also demonstrate that the author has carried out extensive research before writing the article, thus, making the information more credible (Long et al., 2020). Another instance of logical appeal in the article is presented as an anecdote evidence where the author submits that in other countries, politicians have used Facebook to promote harming of Filipino citizens as well as the mosques’ destruction and Muslim genocide in Rohingya Myanmar (Bensinger, 2021). This kind of evidence enables the reader to better comprehend Bensinger’s argument as he uses examples to show the effects of bad leadership on social media platforms. The author also uses emotional appeal to persuade his readers. He paints Trump as the worst thing that could happen to social media by attacking his personality. Bensinger hopes to make his audience abhor Trump’s ideologies to the point where they think that he should not be given a chance to post them on Facebook. He calls Trump “dangerous” and says he does not mind violating Facebook’s policies as he has been immune to being blocked for so long. Benginger states “…the company allowed bigoted and provocative posts to remain, such as Mr. Trump’s threat to protesters after George Floyd’s death” (Bensinger, 2021). Mentioning George Floyd’s death makes most of the readers emotional because this particular event left the whole world mourning and angry with the police as well as Trump’s leadership at the time. This statement makes the readers recall how Donald Trump acted insensitive towards the whole situation. Instead of being sympathetic and regretful towards the situation, Trump said that if people started looting during the Black Lives Matter movement, then the police would respond by shooting. This portrays Trump as an apathetic person who does not deserve to be given a chance to redeem himself on the social media platform. Bensinger uses ethos to call out Facebook for not handling hateful speeches from famous people well. He submits that Facebook as well as other social media companies are greedy because they would rather have hateful and dishonest posts go viral and negatively influence people than have decent posts that only result in less screen time, thus, less profits. “Hoping to both have and eat their cake, Facebook and Twitter tried labeling problematic posts with warnings and links to other sites, which few people notice, while doing little to stop the posts’ dissemination” (Bensinger, 2021). This statement makes the reader question Facebook’s ethical values and makes them see that it would only be fair if Trump is kept off the social media site like the “average Joe”for violating its policies. As a member of the editorial team in the New York Times, Bensinger has earned himself some degree of respect and can be trusted as a credible and reliable source of information. Given his career in the media industry, the readers can regard him as an expert in his field, therefore, taking his point of view seriously (Long et al., 2020). One thing that stands out in the article is the serious and disappointed tone of the author. He is disappointed that Facebook has not been serious enough about violation of its policies by famous people. He is also disappointed that the company is actually considering not banning Trump and he thinks that Facebook would be better off without him and other leaders who spread misinformation and hate speech. The author’s choice of words effectively demonstrate this sense of disappointment (Jjgavila, 2021). For instance, he says that if the oversight board restores Trump’s account, then this would be “an affirmation of Facebook’s self-serving policies permitting the most divisive and engaging content to remain”. This choice of words makes Facebook appear selfish, greedy, and dispassionate. In conclusion, Greg Bensinger effectively uses logos,pathos and ethos to convince his audience that Facebook is better without Trump. He has explained that Trump’s insensitive personality coupled with his desire to spread misinformation and his sense of immunity make him post information that can easily cause violence and harm people and for this reason he should be banned from addressing his millions of followers through Facebook. In as much as Bensinger makes a valid point, one is left wondering whether Trump’s First Amendment right is violated by Facebook’s ban. Works Cited Bensinger, Greg. “Facebook Is Better without Trump.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 16 Mar. 2021, https://www.nytimes.com/2021/03/16/opinion/facebook-trump-ban.html. Jjgavila. “Managing Your Tone with Word Choice and Sentence Length.” Business Communication Lab Resources, 6 Oct. 2021, https://bizcomm.uark.edu/managing-your-tone-with-word-choice-and-sentence-length/. Long, Liza, et al. “Persuasive Appeals.” Write What Matters, MSL Academic Endeavors, 18 Aug. 2020, https://idaho.pressbooks.pub/write/chapter/persuasive-appeals/.