The Washington Post: Land of The Grudge
In this article written by Dan Zak, a feature writer for The Washington Post, he liters this feature with subjective commentary and thoughts. He starts by self-dubbing America the land of the grudgeocracy.
"Instead, he berated them for months-old coverage he deemed unfair." - Dan Zak
I believe the use of language such as "berated" is such descriptive word, that it leads the reader to align their perspective on the subject along with the writer. I can believe that President Trump berated these television journalists about what he's deemed unfair for past coverage, but the context in which words are used can be persuasive for a reader.
"Grudge karma! It seems to be on the president-elect’s mind the moment he wakes up." - Dan Zak
Continuing his argument of the grudgeocracy we live in, Zak blatantly starts a point with a totally personal opinion that has loaded language meant to win those over to his side (and a funny one at that). He even inserts an opinion that Christie was, "laughing at," the plan to to close toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge.
I'm not saying he's right or wrong on his opinion of America being a grudgeocracy (in fact I probably agree), but for something published in such a prominent news source such as the Washington Post, objectivity should be a priority aim. Most people take the sole word of a single news source or opinion and run with it. If his article had been more objective by merely stating what his warrants for his claims were and providing evidence without traces of his clearly personal opinion, it would've made the argument more fair and informative for the audience to form their own opinions.
"Instead, he berated them for months-old coverage he deemed unfair." - Dan Zak
I believe the use of language such as "berated" is such descriptive word, that it leads the reader to align their perspective on the subject along with the writer. I can believe that President Trump berated these television journalists about what he's deemed unfair for past coverage, but the context in which words are used can be persuasive for a reader.
"Grudge karma! It seems to be on the president-elect’s mind the moment he wakes up." - Dan Zak
Continuing his argument of the grudgeocracy we live in, Zak blatantly starts a point with a totally personal opinion that has loaded language meant to win those over to his side (and a funny one at that). He even inserts an opinion that Christie was, "laughing at," the plan to to close toll lanes on the George Washington Bridge.
 |
| Photo by Samuel Schneider |
I'm not saying he's right or wrong on his opinion of America being a grudgeocracy (in fact I probably agree), but for something published in such a prominent news source such as the Washington Post, objectivity should be a priority aim. Most people take the sole word of a single news source or opinion and run with it. If his article had been more objective by merely stating what his warrants for his claims were and providing evidence without traces of his clearly personal opinion, it would've made the argument more fair and informative for the audience to form their own opinions.
Comments
Post a Comment