In an enthralling article, E.J Dionne JR. writes about today’s
issue of Obama care. I know that we’ve all heard way too much fuss about it
already, but I really think that this piece is a good read. I do think that the
Dionne could have used some more quotes to show his point of view, or at least
helped his argument, but I think that if he had added more, he would have had
to give up other parts of his article to keep it somewhat brief.
That being said, I would like to get down and dirty with
this article. I noticed that this article is trying to be disguised as straight
news (news that doesn’t show opinions) until mid-article. Personally, I think
that this is a scummy way to write, because it almost tricks the reader into
thinking something that they might not have initially thought, but the way that
it is done is nearly flawless, and as an aspiring journalist, I nearly begin to
drool. The flow of the straight news to opinion is so beautiful I almost want
to curl up into a ball and weep at my own writing technique. If only.
Another thing that I noticed was the question as a beginning
sentence. Normally this is a huge no no in the journalistic world. It’s almost
like the comic sans of journalism. It looks childish and can get annoying after
a while, but I think that in this form it works quite nicely. The fact that the
whole first paragraph (which is a tad on the longer side, normally a turn off
for me, but here it yet again works to the writers advantage) is just a list of
questions works to help get Dionne’s point across, and subconsciously plants
the answers into your brain. At first, it can seem a little obnoxious that
Dionne chose these questions, and then left you hanging, but he eventually
answers them in the end, making it even more satisfying than if he had just
straight up answered them in the beginning. (Yet another technique that I wish
to acquire.)
The last thing that I wanted to bring to light was the lack
of versatility in sentence length. (and
the fact that this writer seems to be making all the wrong decisions, and
somehow coming up with better end product than most people who make the right
decisions. Witchcraft.) All of the sentences are relatively the same length.
Why then does my eye gallop across the line like sea biscuit across the clouds?
I don’t know. And it really bothers me. Like, a lot.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteYou have good insights, but your essay reads more like commentary than an analysis. You should write in the third person, not first or second. You should also make the distinction between the DIDLS devices used by the author clear and have a clear thesis. Many of your insights (sentence length, structure) focus on syntax, but you never use that term. You also do not focus on three different DIDLS techniques.
I have also read articles where it is hard to notice when the opinion of the writer slips in. I wonder if this technique is only used in specific types of articles. There are some that hold an obvious bias to one side of the argument, but as long as both sides are shown, this does not seem like too much of an issue.
Is it an issue for journalism to have an easily detectable bias? Is it worse when the bias is hard to detect, but still plays a large part in how the audience views the situation?
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteIn your opening paragraph, you should have a clear thesis, because this assignment is supposed to be written as a thesis-driven essay. Also, there should be three clear areas of rhetoric discussed in your essay, and it was hard for me to tell what areas you specially choose, especially when your talked about how the article was "trying to be disguised as straight news." It should be stated which are you are talking about. I also did not notice three separate rhetoric areas, which is important to do. Your make good points in your essay, but it is more opinionated than informative. You talked about how the essay had little sentence versatility, but you did not say how this created meaning in the article. Part of the assignment is after identifying a certain technique, to discuss how that technique created effects and meaning in the article.
Rachel,
ReplyDeleteWhile I love reading your voice, these close reads are meant to serve as a practice for an AP essay. Sadly we must show our opinions through a thesis-drive essay rather than a commentary. Take a look at this post on Ms. Holmes’ blog and it will clarify what she is looking for in these close reads: http://msholmesokemos.blogspot.com/2013/11/heres-what-im-seeing.html
You have the beginnings of a great supporting paragraph on syntax. Try to explain how the questions and sentence lengths impact the meaning of the article. You also need to address two other parts of DIDLS and explain how they add to the meaning as well. Sprinkle some textual evidence to support your claims and you’ll have a solid essay.
Keep in mind that the reader doesn’t know what you’re thinking. Be sure to clarify the meaning you got out of this article and back up all the opinions you assert with textual claims. Personally, this article felt pro-Obamacare from the beginning, so I am curious to hear your thoughts on why it felt unbiased at first.
Hopefully the link I provided will help!