Anika Rucks

For my news piece to present to the class I chose this: "How Will Bad Bunny's Super Bowl Show Shape US Politics?" by Jennifer Medina. This newsletter discusses how Bad Bunny had previously said he would not be performing on the mainland of the US as long as Trump is in power, due to fear of the Trump administration targeting his shows with ICE. These fears were later somewhat confirmed by Kristi Noem, the Homeland Security secretary, who said that ICE would be "all over" the event. This article seems to be very informational, it's from the New York Times, is not an opinion piece, and it uses a lot of facts throughout the article, like quoting people and using statistics. The article also discusses why they think Bad Bunny took this opportunity despite previously being against doing anything like this, and suggests that Bad Bunny will "take the opportunity to make some kind of political statement", and then the article suggests that it will definitely be an anti-trump statement, which I think makes sense in the context of what Bad Bunny has said previously. I thought the article was pretty good, I went into the article being of the opinion that these two things, Bad Bunny playing at the Super Bowl, and US Politics were only minutely related, but came away from this with the opinion that Bad Bunny's show at the Super Bowl will likely influence not only the opinion of Bad Bunny and the Super Bowl, but also, depending on what happens there, may cause outrage at the Trump Administration for targeting a large, very US, event in their unconstitutional hunting down of immigrants. The rhetorical strategies used in this article, such as logos, pathos, and the use of counterarguments throughout the piece. The logos was the statistics and comparing of numbers in the piece, making it feel more credible and more logistical rather than based on nothing but opinion. The pathos came in the form of quotes from Bad Bunny himself, as well as some people from the Trump Administration. Many of these quotes may seem neutral at first, but because the only quotes from the trump administration are about hating people or wanting to deport people, while Bad Bunny's quotes tend to be more about making Bad Bunny out to be a real person (which he is) and giving him the nuance that is not afforded to the Trump Administration. (To be honest, I find this a good thing, I don't think we should put people like Bad Bunny and Trump on the same platform. I mean, I don't really think Trump should be given any platform, but that's just me.) The last example I used was about counterarguments. One example of this is when Medina talks about how, while yes there is a lot of polling showing decline in support for Trump, most of that polling is from Democrat leaning groups, who may not be getting as many responses from people who do support Trump. With the Super Bowl coming up though, I am thinking I will likely pay more attention to what happens during it. This article therefore had a significant impact on me, even though I'm someone who does not like or watch football, and therefore has done a good job at spreading information and convincing people of it's stance.