This article is an opinion piece by Eduardo Porter that details the current economic standoff between the self-proclaimed “99 percent” and the “1 percent” in America.
In the opening paragraph the reader gets a taste of Porter’s lack of support for the current income distribution gap in this country when he says that there is a “widening chasm” between rich and poor. He goes further to say that the GOP is protecting those at the “summit of the income scale”. This word choice creates interesting imagery that forces the reader, for better or worse, to associate the current income situation with the massive size of a mountain. By the end of the article, after citing numerous studies done to prove his point, Porter creates the image that Wall Street is a “casino,” which likely resonates with many of the Times’ readers (whereas The Wall Street Journal, on the other hand, would probably not see such reader identification due to having less of a liberal bias). Finally, the last line of the article describes the recent government bailout of Wall Street as a bailout of “fallen plutocrats,” in reference to the mountain image he conveyed in the beginning.
Porter’s diction in this piece is telling (as though the title didn’t already make his stance clear: “The 1 Percent Club’s Misguided Protectors”). Porter chooses quotes that perfectly support his stance, such as citing Rick Perry who apparently avoided a question about inequality and taxes by saying “I don’t care about that.” Despite my unfavorable opinion on Perry’s brainpower, I simply can’t fathom any candidate saying this to reporters; thus I imagine Porter is taking the quote out of context to reinforce his article. On the whole, his diction is largely harsh and negative; for instance, when he fortifies his argument by saying that inequality “breeds resentment” throughout the lower socioeconomic bracket.
Language in this piece is largely influenced by its expected audience and the topic of discussion. Porter, in writing for the Times, must appeal to a largely liberal audience and thus is expected to write in a manner that can be read by “the masses,” so to speak. He is obviously against the GOP position, making the piece appeal even further to liberals. Economics is not always easy to explain, especially in a time of such economic turmoil, and this is reflected by the fairly simplistic language that Porter employs. Even when introducing data, he discusses it only briefly, highlighting the points that support his position and moving along.
No comments:
Post a Comment