This article caught my eye by containing both the words 'White House' and 'Bible' in the title. I was interested in reading a political article, still in the spirit after last night's State of the Union speech, and while it's not quite was I was looking for, this one stood out to me. The editorial is written no doubt in response to the recent creation of a "Conscience and Religious Freedom Division" in the Department of Health and Human Services, to enforce laws regarding health care provider's rights to remove themselves from a situation going against their religion; this the article states. From the start, the writing is painfully biased against both the new division and the Trump administration for even considering such a thing. However, because The New York Times is a more liberal news source altogether, this bias was not unexpected. The article serves to direct attention to a new concerning topic while pulling from the continuing controversy of another one: abortion. As previously stated, this editorial is extremely biased. While an editorial is essentially an opinionated article, the board hardly gives an effort to explain any views of the opposition. In the very first paragraph, the writers are sharing a sad anecdote about women who miscarried. The story is devastating, but the authors use this to point fingers at the Catholic health center, accusing them of being the reason for her painful miscarriage with little evidence of their religion's involvement. This is an admirable strategy, appealing to a person's sympathetic emotions, especially a woman's, but it lacks the the credibility and evidence that would have made it oh-so convincing.
The Board then goes on to explain the recent changes that they will be addressing and how the website for the new division depicts a Muslim doctor gracious for her new ability to opt out of procedures that don't agree with her Islamic faith. They use this image against the White House stating it is "a twist on the administration's usual attitude toward Muslims." What's interesting is the fact that the entire reference, to the Muslim doctor and the White House, is placed in parenthesis. This syntax decision makes the remark especially petty towards House conservatives as the parenthesis denote it as a sort of side remark. The piece has an overall cynical yet concerned tone. The writers provide sufficient evidence to prove that their concern is legitimate; at least once the history of similar laws is taken into account, and Louis Melling, the deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, is quoted on his opinion about the situation. However, the accusation toward the current White House administration is almost overbearing. By using the words 'threatened' and 'potential' to describe the complaints that the office can investigate under the new law, as opposed to the old law that was "based on actual complaints," the writing gives off a sense of sarcasm and superiority over the new law and its supporters. It then depicts the law as being downright unnecessary, and the administration, or "far-right", for over exaggerating the problem by "stirring up unfounded fears that religion is under assault." Diction is like a powerful sword, and they sung it the wrong way. They didn't go far enough to cut off their own argument, but they did when trying to dismantle the opposing argument. All they really did is fire insults. While the board did many things well like appealing to the reader's emotions through anecdote and establishing credibility throughout, the editorial would have been much more successful had there been increased appeals to logic and higher sophisticated word choices.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorAveri Childress; high school student, culture addict, softball player, artist Archives
February 2018
Categories |