http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/20/opinion/greene-candidates-appeal/index.html?hpt=op_t1
Our Untelevised Presidents by Bob Greene
The diction in Greene's article is key to understanding his feelings about the media and how it effects our choices in government. Words describing political awareness before mass media like "decipher", "distant", "indistinct", and "rumor" make it clear that Greene believes the mass media has improved our awareness. These words are also sophisticated causing the reader to trust Greene's opinion as fact however not so sophisticated that the average reader cannot understand allowing him to reach a wide audience. The diction surrounding a quote about the disadvantages of mass media is skeptical and negative; words like "believes" instead of "says" imply a lack of fact, and using "devour" to describe reading the newspaper makes the act seem uncivilized.
Greene includes many specific details about how presidents were represented in the public prior to mass media to show just how little the public knew about a president. Four entire paragraphs in the article are devoted to facts about who first what represented in each of the technological media advances. Specifically, Greene highlights that John Adams was never photographed in any way. Greene uses this to support his claim that every vote is a "leap of faith", but by including this detail at the end of the paragraph, we can tell that Greene considers the leap of faith to be less extreme now than it was in John Adam's day.
Greene syntax draws the eyes to certain sentences to highlight his important supporting details. The detail about John Adams follows three repeated sentence parallelisms. The John Adams detail is presented a two sentence question format, completely different from the subject verb predicate form used in the three details prior. The second sentence of the article consists of one word, "Again". This short sentence surrounded by lengthy sentences creates a less formal mood, perhaps even an air of superfluousness. This quickly grabs the attention of non-academic readers, and shows how well acquainted the public is with the candidates.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete**note to Holmes: I was sick from 11/29-12/1, so that's why this comment (and all others from this set of blog responses) are late.**
ReplyDeleteI think you chose a great article, very informative and opinionated. Lots of good quotes, well placed, and very specific to your point. It shows that you read the article in-depth and formulated your argument accordingly. I also think you did a great job of analyzing the author's motives and making assumptions as to what was intended with the piece.
Just some minor typos here and there (affect ≠ effect, etc.), but overall I thought it was a very insightful response.