Brian Fischer: The President Sins on National Television
http://www.afa.net/Blogs/BlogPost.aspx?id=2147529292Brian Fischer: The President Sins on National Television points out the obvious reasons why Obama has sinned on national television. After all, he must be the root of all evil for wanting to raise taxes on the rich. Through its use of diction, detail and syntax this article shows the evil that is Obama.
Brian Fischer: The President Sins on National Television uses strong pejorative connotation to knock-down all that is Obama. He uses words like "ugly", "sin", "hurt", "lust", "slavering" and "slobbering" all to describe Obama, his party and their policies. If that's not strong connotation, I don't know what is. All of these words are given to drive home the idea that Obama is leading 'Merica down the road of sin and corruption.
Fischer also uses a lot of detail to make his awesome, and obviously correct, opinion. By throwing in details like "...he is compelled to take more money from the rich. This is a direct, public and disgraceful violation of the 10th Commandment." Wow. Really, just wow. I never knew the president made public statements. Also, I didn't know he was all for stealing from another man's wife, possessions, or anything that is his (achem... the 10th commandment... essentially). That added detail made me really think twice about our president and his duty to the country to be a good christian...
Lastly, Fischer gets creative with his use of syntax. He mixes it up quite often, and it always seems to have a purpose. Superb syntax usage, Fisher. Well done. Often, there is a strong statement that is a single sentence, acting alone as a paragraph. Yes, that is journalistic technique my friends, short paragraphs. However, that single sentence paragraph is usually followed by a longer paragraph to support his single sentence. What is in these longer paragraphs? More information about Obama and all of the rules he is breaking. This structure supports the general theme of his article: Obama is a crazed sinner that is terribly leading our country.
The use of diction, detail and imagery in Brian Fischer: The President Sins on National Television is all there for the purpose to show readers just how horrible president Obama is. So horrible, in fact, he got elected to a second term. Maybe that means we're all going to hell now.
* In case you haven't noticed, my extreme liberal and democratic views are kind of shown here in my commentary. If anything offends you, I do apologize. The American Family Values Association tends to stir up the worst in me, which is why I find them so easy to write about on close reading days. There is no way to argue that they aren't extremely biased, which is the kind of article we need for the assignment.
As a fellow liberal, I am also incensed at the existence of such articles. With that said, I think your close reading would benefit from a bit more objectiveness, as you tend to stray away from the techniques used in the article in favor of editorializing. You identify three DIDLS categories to use in this essay, but it would be nice to see an introductory paragraph that at least slightly elaborates on them for the benefit of the reader. This would allow you to craft topic sentences around what you say in the intro. (eg describe the pejorative diction in the intro and then use a topic sentence about pejorative diction. You also leave yourself room to further comment on the meaning the author is trying to create. You might be overreaching just a bit with the "going to hell" thing, however, I would say he his definitely trying to incite protest over the recent election.
ReplyDeleteYour analysis on this article is quite thorough and interesting. When I was reading the article, I definitely sensed bias, too. All those word choices you have mentioned, such as "ugly", "sin", "hurt", "lust", "slavering" and "slobbering" are pretty negative toward Obama. All those words give us an image that Obama is dragging the whole country to corruption. The diction played a major role on expressing the author's side in this article.
ReplyDeleteI found it really interesting that you used journalistic techniques to analyze the article. I've never realized how powerful the short sentences or paragraphs are till this moment. They're stronger and more effective on expressing the point. Nice job!
Alexis, you made me laugh, and I do agree, but I also think a more objective view may allow you to get more out of the article itself (although I know how hard an objective view may be on a subject like this....yikes..!) I also like that you have your own voice in writing, but this assignment may require a more strict style, and cut out the sarcasm even though it makes me laugh..(; stick to analyzing his techniques as a writer, not his opinion as a person. Otherwise good ideas and good job with the DIDLS!
ReplyDelete