Blog # 4 - Editorials and OP-EDs

So, I’m writing this as I read each article/editorial. I think it will be easier to talk about them as they are fresh in my mind.

The first article I read was “Why Facts Don’t Unify Us”. It seemed pretty straight forward. I wasn’t sure about their research methods, but I guess that is besides the point. The authors wanted to make the article seem scientific and credible. What bugged me is when they stated, “These findings help explain polarization on many issues.” I mean, do they really? Did they test that as well? These guys established some credibility at the beginning, but then made that generalization and then stated, “Essentially the same tale can be told with respect to immigration, terrorism, increases in the minimum wage — and candidates for the highest office in the land.” To me these are just generalizations made to make people feel good about the way they think. The last thing that got me was how they got all preachy with their last sentence, “For those who believe in learning, and the possibility of democratic self-government, that’s very good news.” This is just there to make the reader feel like they are one of those people, that they are good.

Just finished “Liberals Are The Sort Of People Who….” and holy shit. I could not believe that dude is an actual journalist. His whole article sounds like those rants that you see in Facebook comments on a political video. His argument was not based on logic, at all, but rather an emotional piece to confirm the beliefs of conservative readers. This is not to say anything about his audience, either. I’m sure many conservatives think this guy is crazy too. But, I get it. There are liberals like him as well. I’m not going to get into politics, though. That’s not what this is about. His genre is...well...I don’t really know. It’s an opinion piece for sure, filled with emotional appeals and fallacies. It seems like he is just a hyper-conservative blog writer, rather than a news writer/journalist. If people share the ideologies that he mentioned, then I’m sure he did a great job with his piece.

(Just want to say that his entire article reminded me of the “Drake the type of n***a meme.” I don’t know what is allowed in this blog, so I blurred out n***a.” And it’s used in the same way as “dude”, so I hope no one gets offended, because I’m sure you guys know this meme.)

Okay, finished up “Criminal rape cases should not be on a ticking clock.” So this article is hard to analyze because you have to read as unbiased as you can. There is pathos used in this article, but it is on a different level than the crazy dude from the “Liberals” article. This article talks about something more serious than “F you liberal pansies.” The credibility is established due to the fact that the author is an attorney, so you can believe what she says about laws and acts. But, you also have to take into account that she represents the accusers in the case. (I am not taking a side here, just trying to be unbiased.) What makes her use of emotions more appealing is that she uses anecdotes, and the real names of victims. I think she did a good job in using pathos. She ends the article with a call to action, “If Gov. Brown signs this bill into law, statutes of limitations no longer will be a sexual predator’s best friend and a victim’s worst enemy.” I say it’s a call to action because although it does not ask the reader to do anything directly it reinforces everything the author just said, poking at readers’ feelings just a bit.

First JSTOR piece down: “WHERE AMERICAN PUBLIC SCHOOLS CAME FROM.” Right away I can tell that this article is credible. There are facts pulled from sources, dates, and citations. The ethos is clearly there. There was no agenda being pushed, it was just informative. I guess it answers a question that some people may have, but it does not make you choose a side or tell you that you are wrong. This article feels academic but readable, it makes you feel smart that you understand it. It breaks away from the long, verbose (oooh, fancy word) language usually found in academic writing. And it was short.

Done with “VIRAL BLACK DEATH: WHY WE MUST WATCH CITIZEN VIDEOS OF POLICE VIOLENCE.” This piece was more persuasive than informative. Right away I could tell that the author wanted to relate to the audience. He establishes his credibility by stating his qualifications, then immediately follows with a hashtag. As soon as he is finished with that sentence he states his argument, “We should acknowledge and absorb the pain captured in the videos, just as antiracist activists bore witness in the past to gruesome photographs of lynchings.” So, you can tell there is a structure to his argument and that he is going to follow some academic parameters. This is way different than the “liberals” dude who just rambles. He uses #staywoke, which I see as a way to appeal to his audience. What is funny, well I wouldn’t say funny, but ironic is that the hashtag he is using has become a meme now among younger culture. Many people are not using it the way he is anymore, and thus it loses its original meaning and value. Take for example this picture to the right I found on a “funny pics” Instagram page. I also see the hashtag pop up on the Spongebob memes from time to time.The author uses titles to get his main ideas across, but for some reason I feel like he is trying to hard. I understand his argument and can feel the emotion, but he is so passionate that he may deter some readers.

“HOW DOES THE LANGUAGE OF HEADLINES WORK? THE ANSWER MAY SURPRISE YOU.” I just want to say that I found this article and the writer to be pretty clever. The way she writes is inviting and non-threatening. You don’t feel intimidated by the words and you don’t feel like something is being pushed on you. She writes about something I am sure we are all familiar with...you’ll have to read the article to find out. It’s a clever piece backed with historical evidence, and relevant examples. She does not establish credibility in who she is, but rather in how relatable the subject she is talking about is to the reader. It was nice article to end all that reading.