The author, Peter Baker, uses diction throughout the entire article to invalidate those who oppose Obama, and praise the President and his actions. In the twelfth paragraph, the author describes how the president was viewed at a dinner on Monday night. He uses the words "calm", "confident", and "well versed", in relation to the President. This gives the impression that Obama is not anxious or concerned about the issue with ISIL, because he is confident in his strategies, so the public should be as well. By using "well versed", Baker shows that Obama is knowledgeable about the subject, and therefore is trustworthy. Baker also makes the decision to include positive quotes from people, and Obama himself, while not including many opposing views. In a quote from Jane Harmen, the word "focused" is used, and Zbigniew Brzezinski says Obama is "not a softy". By including all of these words with positive connotations, Baker gives the impression that Obama is making all the right moves and that the majority of people agree with his decisions. He is made to seem collected, in control, and strong.
The detail in this article is mostly many peoples names and descriptions of who they are. This is used to get the authors point across because its adds legitimacy to the quotes they give, and makes the piece sound more professional. This is extremely noticeable because in the first few paragraphs when Baker is referring to what Obama said before his speech about his plan of action, he uses the words "group of visitors". This is very vague and contrasts with the details in paragraphs twelve, fifteen and sixteen. Richard N. Hass talks about how Obama has been forced to take action about ISIL, and is then described as "President on the Council of Foreign Relations and a former Bush administration official". All of this detail is used to show the reader that this person has experience, and knows what they are talking about. This is also strategic detail because Hass was part of the Bush administration, so he would be expected to disagree with Obama, and yet he is not.
Syntax was also used in this article to emphasize certain points, and show what the author wants the reader to take from this piece. In the third paragraph, there are two long, flowing sentences contrasted with two short choppy sentences. The last two sentences are "He would not rush to war. He would be deliberate.". These sentences make a large impact, and it is obviously something Baker agreed with, and wanted to show. Baker wants to make it very clear that Obama will not rush into anything, he will make an informed decision when the time is right. The rest of the article is mainly long sentences, with many commas which give it an academic feel. This is not meant to be a story, but an informative piece of writing and the similar sentence lengths show this. Passive voice is not used at all in this article, Obama is given full responsibility for his actions and for all statements he has given.
Paths to War, Then and Now, Haunt Obama , is an article with a definite opinion which is shown through diction, syntax and detail. Although the author's view on Obama is never directly stated, it is possible to make the assumption that he supports the President's plan for ISIL, and wants the reader to do the same.
Alice,
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty hard to analyze texts like newspaper articles, because the authors try their best to stay objective and not have a bias because they're reporting the news. Admittedly, each newspaper has a bias because they choose which stories to report and the authors of each article can decide what perspective to take when reporting the story. However, news will always be news, and at the very core, the plain facts are the plain facts and they're about as objective as it gets. Your analysis of the reading was well done because it's hard to analyze news, but you still managed to see how word choice, syntax, and detail influenced the author's perspective. I especially liked how you looked at diction closely. These reporters have a story to tell, and no matter the facts, they can choose how to tell it. Nice job!
Alice,
ReplyDeleteI like that you chose to analyze an article that is really relevant right now. You made a great point when you were commenting on the author’ s use of positive quotes. It’s obvious to most readers that an author will you use quotes to support their argument, but don’t make the connection to how that impacts the reader. It’s a lot like the ‘bandwagon’ idea – everyone’s doing it, so why aren’t you? It gives the appearance that most people support President Obama’s approach to ISIL.
Do you think that it is a bad thing that the author only includes positive quotes? A lot of times this can be a downfall. Including the opposing argument and then refuting it makes your view seem even more appealing.
On the topic of syntax, do you think the author meant to disguise bias by using long sentences to create a more academic feel? This certainly would get his opinion across while still having the article be an informative report.
Great analysis, especially the part about syntax. Overall, you did a great job of linking DIDLS to the author’s purpose.
Alice,
ReplyDeleteAdmittedly, I don’t follow politics. I don’t know who’s who in Washington besides a few big names everyone seems to have heard of, and I certainly don’t know who’s on whose side in things like this. However, I have to agree with you. This article does pain Obama in a positive light. News reports are supposed to be neutral, yet this author took a side. There is always negative things to be said about any president, and the author did not include any that he could not refute one way or another. His syntax, as you pointed out, does seem to approve of the President's actions. The only thing I'd have to disagree with is your view on the section featuring Mr. Haass. It does not really state any of Haass' personal opinions on the President, only a short comment he had said. Overall though, I'd have to say well done on this close reading.
Also, on a side note, isn't it ISIS? The article said the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.
Hi Alice!
ReplyDeleteGreat job on your analysis! I like how you chose a article that is actually happening right now and how it's not fiction so we can actually realize that this is the real world and DIDLS still is used. I really liked all of your quotes and examples because they definitely emphasized the point that you were making and also proved it. You might want to put some more quotes and examples for syntax just because i don't really know that syntax is much of a presence in this article. I feel like author may have been just not really paying to syntax but more of the context of the writing but i guess that syntax could be also part of it. But just in case you might want to include more evidence. Other than that i thought you did great!