http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/23/opinion/23tue1.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=editorial&st=cse&oref=slogin
The editorial I read was entitled: "Trust Me," and it discussed the recent government bailouts of major companies and the author's opposition to the Bush administration's proposed takeover policy.
Though this piece was found under the "opinion" category, I felt that it lacked the passion needed to solely be deemed an "opinion" piece. With its many facts and statistics, this piece was more of a news and/or opinion piece. Furthermore, I expect an editorial to be heavily opinionated and passionately written with its primary objective being conveying the views of the author. This piece's tone was just too business-like for me; it lacked persuasive language and charm. Rather than being inspired by the author's argument, I was left with the same impression I would've gotten from a monotonous professor.
On the plus side, this article did establish a clear view point on the issue, which was an opposition to the government's rapid rush to save the financial market from turmoil. The argument itself was very valid, using facts and past experience for support. Overall, the article was very well-written and professional despite its clearly stated opinion. However, in my opinion, an editorial should use the advantages of taking a side to ignite the fire (interest) of others, and the voice of this editorial brought nothing but a wet match.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
i agree with you that a tone of an article can make or break it. For example the editorial in today's class, the english one, didnt provide a solid "oh this has to be an editorial!"...like usual. the tone can also make or break your interest in the article as well. good job!
i love your response to the editorial especially your "monotonous professor" comment. I also hate when articles are all business. You lose your writing voice when you focus too much on the facts. And also your readers lose interest quicker. great job!
Post a Comment