http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/08/19/niall-ferguson-on-why-barack-obama-needs-to-go.html
In this article in The Daily Beast (also in Newsweek) Niall Ferguson argued why he believed Romney to be a better candidate than Obama. He uses diction, details and syntax to convey this message, something I have found to be a recurring theme in the political articles I have read closely.
Ferguson uses diction and syntax to directly and indirectly characterize Obama from beginning to end of the article. He first quotes himself from 2008, reaffirming that Obama's election was "a cause for great rejoicing" and relating it to the assassination of MLK in terms of historical importance. He continues praise Obama, saying that his "remarkable qualities" include "soaring oratory" and "near faultless campaign organization." He begins the article by lavishing all of this praise on Obama, painting a picture of Obama as a great figure but not mentioning his qualities as a president or any of his actions. Through this good-spirited acknowledgement of some positive qualities of Obama, there is an attempt to draw readers in who agree that Obama's qualities as a candidate were good, but might not be convinced that he was the greatest president. This seems to be intended to target an audience of undecided voters and moderates who might be persuaded away from voting for Obama.
In a short third paragraph, however, there is a shift in tone with the use of the word "Yet" to begin it and ending with the claim that "[Obama] has not... delivered on his promises." This is a segue into the meat of the article, filled with endless claims and characterizations of Obama as an incompetent, incapable leader who has lied to the American people.
Through pointing out the promises of Obama that have been broken, especially those regarding the economy, Ferguson attempts to discredit Obama and his supporters' arguments on how he has succeeded. After assembling an "economics dream team" to advise him, Obama "'[didn't] know what he was deciding'" in regards to the economic disaster that he faced. This is an excellent example of the way Ferguson uses details to attack Obama, as he takes a negative view towards Obama but fails to take a great opportunity to emphasize the positives of the candidate that he supports, Mitt Romney, a veteran of the business world. In fact, near closing the article, Ferguson states that "by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader," hardly a convincing endorsement of the candidate.
Indeed, Ferguson seems to be attempting to discredit Obama on nearly all fronts, claiming that "a much more accurate term [for the Affordable Care Act] would be 'Pelosicare,'" attributing one of the biggest pieces of legislation that Obama supported to the former House majority leader. The reform of the financial sector didn't go far enough, as "10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets" in the US, seemingly advocating banking reform immediately after he called the Democrats' banking reforms "a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation." The inclusion of these details while not acknowledging the extremely limited control Obama has over legislation helps Ferguson to send the message that Obama is merely a poor candidate for the job of US President.
The ending of the article tops it all off in dramatic fashion; in the second to last sentence, readers are told they have "a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn," implying that Obama is a socialist (association of Obama with France and socialism) while Romney and Ryan are best represented by the symbolic American anthem. By placing this at the very end of the article, Ferguson leaves the reader with the impression that not only is Obama a poor leader, but that he is un-American and his competitors are easily beat him in that regard, using this organization of the article to influence the readers' impression of Obama even further without attempting to use the logic used throughout the rest of the piece.
By cleverly using details, diction, and syntax, Ferguson creates an argument that could influence many who share similar sentiments regarding Obama's tenure as president.
In this article in The Daily Beast (also in Newsweek) Niall Ferguson argued why he believed Romney to be a better candidate than Obama. He uses diction, details and syntax to convey this message, something I have found to be a recurring theme in the political articles I have read closely.
Ferguson uses diction and syntax to directly and indirectly characterize Obama from beginning to end of the article. He first quotes himself from 2008, reaffirming that Obama's election was "a cause for great rejoicing" and relating it to the assassination of MLK in terms of historical importance. He continues praise Obama, saying that his "remarkable qualities" include "soaring oratory" and "near faultless campaign organization." He begins the article by lavishing all of this praise on Obama, painting a picture of Obama as a great figure but not mentioning his qualities as a president or any of his actions. Through this good-spirited acknowledgement of some positive qualities of Obama, there is an attempt to draw readers in who agree that Obama's qualities as a candidate were good, but might not be convinced that he was the greatest president. This seems to be intended to target an audience of undecided voters and moderates who might be persuaded away from voting for Obama.
In a short third paragraph, however, there is a shift in tone with the use of the word "Yet" to begin it and ending with the claim that "[Obama] has not... delivered on his promises." This is a segue into the meat of the article, filled with endless claims and characterizations of Obama as an incompetent, incapable leader who has lied to the American people.
Through pointing out the promises of Obama that have been broken, especially those regarding the economy, Ferguson attempts to discredit Obama and his supporters' arguments on how he has succeeded. After assembling an "economics dream team" to advise him, Obama "'[didn't] know what he was deciding'" in regards to the economic disaster that he faced. This is an excellent example of the way Ferguson uses details to attack Obama, as he takes a negative view towards Obama but fails to take a great opportunity to emphasize the positives of the candidate that he supports, Mitt Romney, a veteran of the business world. In fact, near closing the article, Ferguson states that "by picking Ryan as his running mate, Romney has given the first sign that—unlike Obama—he is a courageous leader," hardly a convincing endorsement of the candidate.
Indeed, Ferguson seems to be attempting to discredit Obama on nearly all fronts, claiming that "a much more accurate term [for the Affordable Care Act] would be 'Pelosicare,'" attributing one of the biggest pieces of legislation that Obama supported to the former House majority leader. The reform of the financial sector didn't go far enough, as "10 too-big-to-fail financial institutions are responsible for three quarters of total financial assets" in the US, seemingly advocating banking reform immediately after he called the Democrats' banking reforms "a near-perfect example of excessive complexity in regulation." The inclusion of these details while not acknowledging the extremely limited control Obama has over legislation helps Ferguson to send the message that Obama is merely a poor candidate for the job of US President.
The ending of the article tops it all off in dramatic fashion; in the second to last sentence, readers are told they have "a choice between les États Unis and the Republic of the Battle Hymn," implying that Obama is a socialist (association of Obama with France and socialism) while Romney and Ryan are best represented by the symbolic American anthem. By placing this at the very end of the article, Ferguson leaves the reader with the impression that not only is Obama a poor leader, but that he is un-American and his competitors are easily beat him in that regard, using this organization of the article to influence the readers' impression of Obama even further without attempting to use the logic used throughout the rest of the piece.
By cleverly using details, diction, and syntax, Ferguson creates an argument that could influence many who share similar sentiments regarding Obama's tenure as president.
your close reading is very well structured and organized. I do think that the article was pretty biased though. I like how you pointed out the shifts in tone for diction; it's something a lot of people miss. I agree that Ferguson uses great detail to back up his arguments, and you did well using these to support your evidence. Something I noticed in a lot of your writings are your conclusions. they seem very short and simple for such a lengthy writing. It's nothing important, but I just thought that the writing may appear much stronger with an even stronger conclusion.
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well organized essay, and it does include a lot of bias towards Romney, well voting against Obama. This is easily shown in your writing too, I didn't really have to read the article to get the main points about the article, because you mentioned them really well in your essay. Along with what Gloria said about having short conclusions, I also think that your intro paragraphs are kind of short. They deliver the points well though, so I don't know if its something to worry about, but if you made your intro a little bit more catchy, I think readers would be a lot more intrigued by your writing.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with the others on organization. It flows well and is written well but I would prefer it if diction, syntax, and details were separated more clearly. I agree with Julia that you did a good job of incorporating enough information that your essay was understood without reading the article. As far as the conclusion goes I think it's fine at the length it is. There isn't much else to say that you haven't already said. Overall, great job!
ReplyDelete