Jennifer Moerk

Bret Zawilski
Rhetorical Analysis Paper
September 19th, 2017

Hacking In: Rhetoric in Two Disparate Cybersecurity Articles

Recent events and the ever-growing presence of the Internet make it clear that

cybersecurity has become an increasingly important topic in modern conversations about

technology. Experts Jay Reed and Michelle Tatachar discuss how businesses should better

protect themselves in the digital age in their article, 5 Cybersecurity Mistakes That Lead to

Regulatory and Legal Action, while journalist Andy Greenberg explores the impacts of

cybersecurityor, perhaps, lack of proper cybersecurityin How an Entire Nation Became

Russia's Test Lab for Cyberwar. Though united by a common topic of cybersecurity and

defense against hacking threats, Reed and Tatachars article is aimed toward a business-based

audience which values logos and ethos-based approaches to information, whereas Greenbergs

article utilizes a more narration heavy, description based application of all three pisteis meant to

interest a more general audience.

A major way the two articles differ is in their disparate overall rhetorical situations. The

Reed and Tatachar articles exigence is the rising presence of hackers and businesses being

forced to deal with the consequences of their failures to adequately protect data as a result of the

growing numbers of cybersecurity threats aimed towards them (Reed & Tatachar, 2016). The

article targets an audience interested in a description of how best to avoid issues of being hacked

that is centered more on information and credibility. This audience is mainly comprised of

business owners and employees, as the human errors of employees and owners are the part of a

company which is easiest to target by hackers. As the authors present the five biggest problem

areas that need to be addressed by companies, the numbered list format ensures that the

information is presented quickly and concisely with key points clearly enumerated (Reed &
 2

Tatachar, 2016). This clarity obliterates any chance of distraction from the major ideas. Reed and

Tatachar are not constrained by jargon, as there is an expectation that the audience is familiar

with technological and business-related terms.

However, Greenbergs article is necessitated by the need to report current events,

specifically Russias hacking exploits and the cyberwar they are waging upon the Ukraine. He

warns in the articles subtitle that Russias cyberwar on Ukraine is a blueprint of things to

come, displaying his intent to inform the general public about the threat Russia poses

(Greenberg, 2017). Current events are a natural exigency for journalists as they provide insight

into news around the world to inform their readers. Greenbergs audience is the readers of Wired

magazine. This audience will be interested in the news and how it is related to technology, but

they are likely not cybersecurity or business experts, so technical jargon is avoided. Greenbergs

article is structured more like a narrative story, including lines which set the scene such as it

was a Saturday night last December, and Oleksii Yasinsky was sitting on the couch with his wife

and teenage son in the living room of their Kiev apartment (Greenberg, 2017). Use of a

narrative structure generates more interest than a list or even a typical news report, allowing for

easy readability by a casually interested audience.

Another difference exists in the two articles applications of the three pisteis. Reed and

Tatachar present their ethos by describing their occupations and areas of expertise, saying that

Michelle A. Reed is a partner and co-leader of Akin Gump's cybersecurity, privacy and data

protection practice and Jay K. Tatachar is an associate in Akin Gump's intellectual property

practice (Reed & Tatachar, 2016). The details of their credentials cement the authors firmly as

experts in the field who contribute trustworthy advice. The article also has the benefit of being in

the Risk Management journal, formed by the Risk and Insurance Management Society, that
 3

business professionals consult and trust. Reed and Tatachar utilize logos as their main appeal to

their audience, as they factually explain why and how cybersecurity should be implemented and

back their arguments up with facts and examples of past cases such as that of Lewert v. P.F.

Chang's China Bistro Inc., in which the company announced that it had sustained a data breach

before it knew the true scope of the breach (Reed & Tatachar, 2016). Further, they give a list of

problem areas that need to be addressed in order to avoid investigations, enforcement actions,

and class-action lawsuits to provide concrete steps for business experts to take (Reed &

Tatachar, 2016). These concrete examples provide a solid logical base for their information.

Unlike Reed and Tatachars logos and ethos, Greenberg relies heavily on pathos. His

article has pictures which are more for context and interest than information, and the tone is

close to that of a narrative story, so the descriptive nature of his diction and the actions of the

characters he presents are easy to relate to and be affected by. He balances his emotional

appeals with fact-based logos by presenting the facts of the situation and elaborating on how

these facts connect to the big picture of Russias hacking. He demonstrates the facts by reporting

that on separate occasions, invisible saboteurs have turned off the electricity to hundreds of

thousands of people and warns with emotion that the quintessential cyberwar scenario that

experts have worried about has come to life (Greenberg, 2017). Even a small amount of ethos

is utilized, as many points in his story contain references to a variety of experts and sources,

including but not limited to: Viktor Yushchenko, former president of the Ukraine; Oleksii

Yasinsky, former director of information security at StarLightMedia, Ukraines largest TV

broadcasting conglomerate; and ESET, a Slovakian security company which both protects the

average consumers computer and has pored through the [CrashOverride] malwares code
 4

(Greenberg, 2017). All of these sources have demonstrated expertise in their field or have

enough notoriety to be highly regarded, therefore adding to Greenbergs overall credibility.

Further disparity between the two articles arises from use of narration and author voice.

Reed and Tatachar utilize a very factual narration, making an effort to be as clear as possible in

as few words as possible. The only narratives present are in short blurbs of past cases presented

as cautionary examples. They mostly avoid metaphors and other flowery language to ensure

clarity for an audience interested in raw information, although the authors do occasionally cross

to conversational idioms such as there is no need to reinvent the wheel and on the other hand

(Reed & Tatachar, 2016).

Greenbergs narration is more descriptive and story-like, with many of the passages

seeming as if they were directly from a novel. The article starts with the clocks read zero when

the lights went out, capitalizing on the type of hook you might see in a mystery novel to garner

interest (Greenberg 2017). The author comes back to this narrative structure every few

paragraphs to communicate the intrigue that follows the tale of the cyberwar Russia is waging

against Ukraine. The article mixes story-like narration with factual and more formal paragraphs

so that information is conveyed among the interesting story tidbits. Whether fact-based or story-

based, both articles speak to their intended audiences expectations and interests.

Both articles contain sharp differences from each other in their use of rhetoric, but each

stay true to the field from which they originate. Reed and Tatachar use diction which is heavy in

technological and business jargon, the likes of which is nearly impossible to escape in a technical

or business field. Lack of pathos is also typical to business writing, as executives who are

seeking factual analysis of their company would balk at emotions having a place in official

reports on profits and the like. Reed and Tatachars narration is also typical to their field, as it is
 5

meant to concisely convey information without much in the way of flowery language or detailed

metaphor. For Greenberg, however, his journalistic background allows for more room for

creativity in terms of style. For a journalist, keeping the reader interestedand hopefully

interested in subscribing to your magazineis of the utmost importance. As such, Greenberg

does not need to follow a strict logical formula to convey his gathered information, instead

presenting it with a great deal of what more technical fields might consider extraneous

description. Utilization of primarily pathos and logos helps balance his argument by keeping it

informative but still relatable, and ethos backs up his information. Story-like narration would

seem out-of-place for those who are more technologically immersed in cybersecurity

information, but for a casually interested audience, the narration keeps things fresh and

interesting throughout a long feature article. Though each article finds little crossover apart from

their common topic of cybersecurity, both take stock of their individual rhetorical situations and

utilize the proper elements to ensure the information they are trying to convey is properly

demonstrated to their intended audiences through the authors rhetoric.

 6

References

Greenberg, A. (2017, June 19). How an entire nation became Russia's test lab for cyberwar.

Retrieved September 01, 2017, from https://www.wired.com/story/russian-hackers-

attack-ukraine/

Reed, M. A., & Tatachar, J. K. (2016). 5 cybersecurity mistakes that lead to regulatory and legal

action. Risk Management, 63(8), 34-38. Retrieved August 31, 2017, from

https://search.proquest.com/docview/1831184320/fulltext/2D7E32CBABA949A8PQ/1?a

ccountid=8337.