How authors use language and syntax can make a difference in how they deliver the text. The attitudes and emotion are tied with their language. Rhetorical strategies and power of persuasion will come with their use of words and like a lawyer how much they bend the truth that may be up to interpretation. But to me evidence is the best way to persuade and telling the audience how they may benefit or not helps too. The Authors use of language speak to the community, they can communicate similar goals and ideas with the jargon of the community. The use of rhetoric is done not much to be honest; it seems within the discourse communities everyone tends to have common goals and similar values, there’s no need to persuade anyone inside, however outside the group the rhetorical must be prevalent.
A headline sets up expectation by saying a relatively false or true claim, it excites you or bores you, but it sets up the article by giving the main idea to you with careful choice of language to minimize word count and increase communication.
The articles depending on where you read them can be clickbait but usually headline and the article itself have different language and syntax. Like I mentioned before the headline is supposed to give shock value with minimal words, not too much deviation, and maximum communication for your own brain to make a conclusion without reading it. This is the way articles uses rhetoric in their headlines to persuade you to a certain view (for example fox news and CNN headlines).
The question starts pointing out a framework, I do not know if this is from the reading or in general, but usually the “framework” for a headline and article are based on bias and rhetoric. For example, Fox news and CNN being politically based will have different frameworks on how they communicate due to their inherit bias, especially with language they use and accusational words used to talk about opposite party.
In the continuing context of CNN and Fox and general headlines and articles the authors will usually be a figure of importance or follower to that group, hence publications and sources will be funded by the political party. This is a way to skew facts regardless of scientific backing or not.
The discourse group in this case would be the political parties and they are trying to use rhetoric and accsuational syntax to persuade audience to see their point of view, however sometimes it’s just for the intended for the party followers to watch it. Date of certain publications and who its tailored to matter; democrats focus on the youth while the republicans focus on the elderly (general stereotype oversimplification). And arguments tend to be based on how one party thinks highly of them selves and low of others, complete disregard of logos or logic.
However more progressive or democratic political headlines and articles by NewsChannel’s will have more logos present as they are “progressive” and more logic based, however at the end of the day It seems the rhetoric and publications and research are all founded on political agenda of the discourse group to recruit mor to their group. (and don’t get me started on the republicans; had to end this short before I write a six page essay on them)