Introduction
In English Composition 1, we often analyse how writers build arguments through rhetorical appeals, including ethos, which refers to the credibility or authority of the author (Corbett and Connors, 1999). This essay examines three articles on the issue of Nile monitor lizards invading Florida’s ecosystems: a 2009 Tampa Bay Times piece by Michael Kruse, a 2011 DecodedScience.org article by David R. Wetzel, Ph.D., and a 2016 Atlantic article by Ed Yong. The focus is on question 5 from the discussion prompt: Do any of the writers use appeals to ethos or credibility more than the others? What evidence supports your answer? Through analysis, this essay argues that Wetzel employs ethos more extensively than Kruse or Yong, primarily through academic credentials and source citations, while the others rely on narrative and expert quotes. This comparison highlights how ethos strengthens persuasive writing on environmental issues, though it varies by genre.
Ethos in Kruse’s Journalistic Narrative
Kruse’s 2009 article adopts a storytelling approach, framing the Nile monitor invasion as a “war” between humans and lizards in Cape Coral. His ethos stems from his role as a journalist for the reputable Tampa Bay Times, which implies investigative reliability. He builds credibility by quoting experts like Todd Campbell, a University of Tampa biology professor, who provides insights from fieldwork, such as the lizards’ reproductive rates and failed eradication efforts. Kruse also references local biologists like Harry Phillips and Scott Hardin, adding layers of authority. However, this appeal is somewhat limited; it relies on external voices rather than Kruse’s own expertise, and the narrative style prioritises pathos through vivid descriptions (e.g., “flesh-eating African lizard”) over rigorous sourcing. As a result, while credible, Kruse’s ethos feels secondary to engaging readers emotionally, aligning with journalistic conventions that value accessibility (Herrick, 2017).
Ethos in Wetzel’s Scientific Overview
Wetzel, writing in 2011 for DecodedScience.org, demonstrates the strongest appeal to ethos among the three. His Ph.D. credential is explicitly stated, establishing him as an expert in biology, which directly bolsters his authority on invasive species. Furthermore, he cites peer-reviewed sources, such as Campbell (2003) on species profiles and Enge et al. (2004) on population status, showing a command of scholarly literature. This not only verifies his claims— like the lizards’ diet threatening endangered species—but also models academic integrity. Wetzel’s explanations, such as gestation periods and control methods (e.g., toxicant baits), are presented with precision, drawing on organisations like the National Wildlife Research Center. Compared to the others, Wetzel’s ethos is more pronounced because it combines personal qualifications with systematic evidence, making his article resemble a scientific report rather than popular journalism. This approach effectively persuades readers by emphasising factual reliability over anecdote (Corbett and Connors, 1999).
Ethos in Yong’s Science Journalism
Yong’s 2016 Atlantic article blends science with broader implications, using ethos through references to cutting-edge research. He cites genetic studies by Stephanie Dowell and Evon Hekkala, including DNA sequencing of monitors, which predicts invasion patterns based on African origins. Quotes from experts like Steve Johnson from the University of Florida add credibility, particularly on management strategies. Yong’s own reputation as a science writer for The Atlantic lends implicit authority, as the publication is known for rigorous reporting. However, his ethos is less dominant than Wetzel’s; it leans on summarised research rather than direct citations or personal credentials. For instance, while discussing climate adaptability, Yong uses simulations but does not list sources as extensively. This makes his appeal effective for a general audience, yet arguably less academically robust, focusing instead on narrative flow to engage readers (Herrick, 2017).
Comparison of Ethos Appeals
Overall, Wetzel uses appeals to ethos more than Kruse or Yong, supported by his explicit Ph.D. and detailed citations, which provide verifiable evidence of expertise. Kruse and Yong, as journalists, prioritise quotes and context, resulting in solid but less intensive credibility-building. For example, Wetzel’s sources (e.g., Enge et al., 2004) allow readers to trace information, enhancing trust, whereas Kruse’s ethos depends on local anecdotes and Yong’s on synthesised science. This difference reflects genre: academic-style writing like Wetzel’s demands stronger ethos for persuasion on complex topics like invasive species (Corbett and Connors, 1999).
Conclusion
In summary, Wetzel’s article employs ethos more effectively through credentials and citations, outpacing Kruse’s narrative-driven credibility and Yong’s research summaries. This analysis underscores ethos’s role in environmental discourse, encouraging responsible reporting to combat issues like the Nile monitor invasion. For students in English Composition, recognising these appeals improves critical reading, though limitations exist in popular media’s depth. Ultimately, stronger ethos could enhance public awareness and policy action on invasive species.
References
- Corbett, E.P.J. and Connors, R.J. (1999) Classical Rhetoric for the Modern Student. 4th edn. New York: Oxford University Press.
- Herrick, J.A. (2017) The History and Theory of Rhetoric: An Introduction. 6th edn. New York: Routledge.
