This article is about the recent “Occupy Wall Street” campaign done to open the eyes of our political leaders. Its bias is in favor of the protestors and against the wealthy and corporate classes, and this definitely affects its tone.
Diction: This editorial utilizes strong diction in an attempt to reinforce the discontent present in the Occupy Wall Street protests. The author begins with describing the movement “spreading” from New York to Washington D.C., and this makes the protests seem like a plague, slowly making their way to shed light on this country’s faults. When discussing the reasons for protesting in the first place, he cites the “grinding down of the middle class,” the recession that “socks” them, and the “toxic combination” that is Wall Street’s lobbying of Congress. All of these quotes embody his strong word choice in connection with the actions of Wall Street, showing his support for the movement. He aligns himself with their cause through this diction, especially when he personifies the economy as something slowly whittling away at those who drew the short stick and ended up as part of the poor class.
Detail: Statistics are a big part of the article. The author discusses the employment rate of college grades under 25 that is currently at “9.6 percent” and that of high school graduates that rests at “21.6 percent”. These figures reinforce his point that the Occupy Wall Street protesters have every reason to continue their movement. He argues that extreme inequality is the “hallmark of a dysfunctional economy”, and that this inequality is proven by fact: the top one percent of households holds 23.5 percent of the wealth. I think these numbers allow him to really connect with many NY Times readers, who will appreciate his backing of argument with real stats. This gains him more supporters than dissenters, an obvious goal when writing an editorial.
Language: The author’s language is negative towards politicians in Washington and sympathetic to the Occupy Wall Street movement. He concludes his article by saying, “It’s not the job of the protesters to draft legislation. That’s the job of the nation’s leaders, and if they had been doing it all along there might not be need for these marches and rallies.” These two sentences sum up his attitude in the entire piece, because they confirm his opinion on politicians vs. protesters. After showing the maladies that result from large societal income differences, he says that it’s “no wonder” that the protests are occurring. His language acts as though it should be obvious, and this resonates with most Americans who feel the same way. They can connect with him because he sympathizes with their position, despite likely being a member of the wealthy himself. “The public airing of grievances is a legitimate and important end in itself,” he says, becoming one more sideline supporter of the class warfare that continues to plague this country.
This is a great close reading. The bias in your post makes me think of AP Gov't, which I brought up in my post. The use of quotations is great. It helpd me know exactly what you are talking about. Your analysis is quite in depth and shows a complete understanind of what you are looking for. I think you could have focus a bit more on the non-bias relate effects, but other wise, quite excellent.
ReplyDelete