Here's the link:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23999437/
The brief:
According to Ken Strickland, this week's Senate hearings could prove to be defining appearances for the three presidential hopefuls. Strickland begins by identifying the committees to which each candidate belongs and interprets how seniority will affect the influence of each. He provides a multitude of reasons for McCain's dominance throughout the entire process and little evidence of Hillary or Obama's implied weaknesses. The article as a whole seems to favor conservative ideals, especially as a result of the predictions made regarding each candidate's ability to participate.
From the beginning, it seems that Ken Strickland endeavors to elicit a kind of emotional response from readers when he uses the phrase "And it happens on Tuesday." Despite this initial attempt, the result he most likely receives does not seem favorable. He uses many colloquial phrases that not only detract from the ultimate purpose of his article but also his credibility as a reporter and writer. He does provide an acceptable outline of how the hearings will proceed in terms of when each candidate will speak, but even this strength is weakened by references to the superhero also know for his bat-like qualities. Indeed, while trying to emphasize the advantages McCain has procured for the hearings, Strickland compares him and his colleague, Senator Lindsey Graham to the likenesses of Batman and Robin. While this may cause many to smile and reflect on times of superhero prowess, it it doubtful that any politically serious individual did anything more. In addition to inappropriate comparisons, Strickland also provides predictions of each candidate's stance that seem implausible if not disappointing. The greatest flaw of this article arises from Strickland's lack of purpose within his arguments. He does not seem to reach a conclusion that provides insight about the possible effect of the hearings, and nor does he give any reason for further inquiry regarding his thoughts on the subject. He ends his article with a reminder that Iraq will remain "overarching," as will his prose.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is a nicely written summary and rhetorical analysis. I like how you spend a good amount of time discussing the writer's prose and professionality. You do a very nice job explaining how this distracts from the writer's actual purpose. One thing that I might argue is that it might not be his place to come to a conclusion, more to present the facts and allow the reader to arrive at their own conclusion.
You have done a really great job crafting a summary and rhetorical analysis.
The one addition I would suggest is a better usage of quotes from the actual article. For example, you tell the reader that the author uses colloquial phrases, but you do not go on to provide an instance of such from the article. Your overall analysis would be even stronger if you provided examples from the text after you make an assertion.
Post a Comment