Good and bad rhetoric

BAD:
http://www.mtmultipleuse.org/endangered/endangered_species_act.htm

This is a website maintained by a group called "Montanans for Multiple Use." While there are some elements of effective argumentation, there are definite pitfalls. The site prevails upon the readers pathos with an entire section of stories, personal and otherwise, that explain the negative impact the Endagered Species Act has had on life and industry. Under the heading "ESA Reform," this section in particular allows the reader to see the negative impact of the ESA. However, this site lacks any ethos. No where does it have sponsoring groups, political leaders involved, or any idea of who is behind this movement besides the "irrate, tireless minority" referred to in the header quote by Samuel Adams. To me, language such as "WE FINALLY WON ONE AND IT IS ABOUT TIME," leads to more of a mistrust of the authors of the site. Overall, the language seems very unscientific to me as a biology major. Logos is somewhere in the middle, with definite evidence presented, but without ethos, it is difficult to trust any support of the ideas presented here.

GOOD:
http://www.nesarc.org/

While hard to navigate their site, this organiztion does what that last fail to - establish ethos right off the bat. They have a listing of supporters on their main page and on several of the linked pages they discuss other groups and politicians they have supporting their cause. Also, there is an entire page of op-eds and articles that have been contributed to by this cause. This leads to a more trusting embrace of their logos which is dotted throughout their webpage. The reform they propose is clearly outlined and reasons for each change are readily available. As well, the site appeals to the average reader with a section headed, "The ESA is incredibly complex.Get answers to your mostfrequently asked questions!" Although the pathos is less obvious, it is nonetheless obvious. Throughout the pages, the impact of the ESA is noted, with stories and hard facts.

I had a lot of trouble finding video/photo commentary on this issue.
BAD: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VME9cGkm_TA
This video is very funny, but does not, once again, give any ethos. The joking manner in which it approaches the issue almost makes me as the viewer trust its integrity even less. The pathos is definitely there with cute fuzzy animals, but it lacks some logos as well.

GOOD:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1tI8szusZA

While I obviously did not watch the entire 1 hr. 28 min presentation, it has ethos in that it is a lecture series given at UC Santa Barbra by professors and leaders in environmental fields. As for logos, almost any lecture given by a professor is going to have logos - we love logos! However, as it is more of a review of the past 30 years of the ESA, it definitely lacks some pathos. It is a good review on the past and a look at what can be done.