"No Orangutan Writ of Habeas Corpus" & "Orangutan Declared a ‘Person’ by Argentine Court"

This is probably the most biased article that we have read so far. As has been pointed out by many of our peer's, it was written by a woman for PETA one of the most radical animal rights campaigns to date and you can see why they have gotten this reputation. Right at the top of the PETA article you read "animals are not ours" They are the biggest words on the entire page and then to draw even more attention to it they "not" is even bolded everything and underlined and you can tell right from the beginning that this group is biased and they come across as hostile.  You can see from the way that the PETA article is arranged that the author wants you to see certain facts and words, for example the article frequently uses the term "we" instead of "them" which makes the reader feel as if they are included in the statement. By including the reader in the articles you make it personal and that helps the reader take a vested interest in the reading.  Both articles also use a lot of pathos and they personify the animals as much as possible this too makes the reader invest in the animals and in the article.

PETAs articles are notorious for their use of rhetoric and there ability to twist events to fit their version of the events that they cover.  They have an amazing ability to grasp their audiences and exigence, this is what makes them such a successful company and what makes them a household name. However it also makes people very leery of the messages they have because they are known as a radical company. They are known for their protests and their never take no for an answer attitude. You could tell that even from reading the first article before the judge had ruled to make the orangutang a person they had already convinced themselves that they were going to succeed. All of the adjectives they used to describe the orangutang were human emotions, skills and traits.  Overall I think both articles were incredibly well written and ended up being very effective due to their use of rhetoric, both visual and non visual,
and their ability to make this argument personal.