My next Collegian article
Sep. 28th, 2004 01:09 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
greybetaWhen I said anyone reading my journal would help me become a better writer, I wasn't joking. I'm going to start posting my college newspaper articles a few days in advance. In order for me to become a better writer, please comment on any grammatical mistakes or rewording you think I should do. I'd also like to know of any disagreements you have with what I write. I'd like to improve my writing in both style and content.
Also, as a big favor for me, please comment by late Wednesday night (I'd say around ten or eleven oclock CST). I usually send off my articles late that night.
I know everyone's tired about hearing about the election, but it's a hot topic right now. I apologize for the mediocrity of my writing. I also apologize that I don't say anything new, for I believe in trying to restate the situation in my own words.
The Problem with Mudslinging
Daniel Tu
When you seriously consider Bush’s platform, you will notice one constant. A date from three years ago keeps popping up in Bush’s rhetoric. He will tell you how well he’s managed the nation since that traumatic event. Terrorists threaten America’s freedom everywhere, yet America stands proud and strong. And it’s because the Republicans have been at the helm.
That’s some bull. Let’s dissect President Bush’s policies, starting with his domestic policies. Specifically, let’s talk about No Child Left Behind, an educational program quantifying education through tests. A school must continually improve its test scores to move up in the program. However, standardized tests are notorious for inaccurately predicting a child’s success. They may be right ninety percent of the time, but that still leaves the other ten percent to suffer.
On economic policies, Bush advocates tax cuts. He notably pushes for these tax cuts when America is fighting a war in two countries. That’s like maxing out your credit card on a plasma screen TV and then borrowing money to go out on a Caribbean cruise. Unlike most average Americans, however, the U.S. government can borrow all the money it wants to pay for its programs. Our national debt balloons while Bush wages his anti-terror campaign.
Bush hopes that the upcoming presidential election will be a referendum on foreign policy. In his political speeches, he hammers home the point that America got a rid of an evil named Saddam Hussein. While I fully support our endeavors to free people from tyranny, I remember the reason we sent troops to Iraq was because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. As soon as the possibility of not finding those weapons surfaced, Bush began to reason that we did so out of humanitarian reasons. Those reasons would include giving contracts to Haliburton. If America truly considered tyranny a problem in today’s world, we would mobilize troops in Africa. We do not do so because we will not monetarily profit from it.
Bush’s strong Christian overtones draw the support of social conservatives across the nation. For example, the GOP admits to printing pamphlets in Arkansas warning that liberals would ban the Bible. Bush comes out strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage where a drastic measure like an amendment is not required. He could be rational and support civil unions, but he’s too afraid of alienating the far right.
Having considered this, the Democrats should have run away with this election. They have not because their presidential candidate Kerry has refused to sway from his anti-Bush plan. Take the hint, Senator, and stop mudslinging with Bush. The more negative ads appear on television, the more voters will avoid the election. This falls into the Republicans’ hands because people will then think there’s no difference between the candidates.
Many swing voters would be interested in Kerry’s policies if he focused on them more. More specifically, if the media paid attention more to Kerry’s policies rather than his responses to Bush, we might actually get to know the man. Instead, we get all sorts of political experts painting a picture of the man. Once Senator Kerry stands up for himself, Bush is doomed.
The Bush campaign banks on the fact that Kerry won’t make such a bold move. The Republicans attack Kerry knowing they will invoke a response, one that will further the negativity of this election season. The Democrats defend Kerry believing they must return fire, following the adage that turnabout is fair play. In the end, many conservatives will feel the same pain voting for Bush that many liberals will feel when voting for Kerry.
Also, as a big favor for me, please comment by late Wednesday night (I'd say around ten or eleven oclock CST). I usually send off my articles late that night.
I know everyone's tired about hearing about the election, but it's a hot topic right now. I apologize for the mediocrity of my writing. I also apologize that I don't say anything new, for I believe in trying to restate the situation in my own words.
The Problem with Mudslinging
Daniel Tu
When you seriously consider Bush’s platform, you will notice one constant. A date from three years ago keeps popping up in Bush’s rhetoric. He will tell you how well he’s managed the nation since that traumatic event. Terrorists threaten America’s freedom everywhere, yet America stands proud and strong. And it’s because the Republicans have been at the helm.
That’s some bull. Let’s dissect President Bush’s policies, starting with his domestic policies. Specifically, let’s talk about No Child Left Behind, an educational program quantifying education through tests. A school must continually improve its test scores to move up in the program. However, standardized tests are notorious for inaccurately predicting a child’s success. They may be right ninety percent of the time, but that still leaves the other ten percent to suffer.
On economic policies, Bush advocates tax cuts. He notably pushes for these tax cuts when America is fighting a war in two countries. That’s like maxing out your credit card on a plasma screen TV and then borrowing money to go out on a Caribbean cruise. Unlike most average Americans, however, the U.S. government can borrow all the money it wants to pay for its programs. Our national debt balloons while Bush wages his anti-terror campaign.
Bush hopes that the upcoming presidential election will be a referendum on foreign policy. In his political speeches, he hammers home the point that America got a rid of an evil named Saddam Hussein. While I fully support our endeavors to free people from tyranny, I remember the reason we sent troops to Iraq was because we thought they had weapons of mass destruction. As soon as the possibility of not finding those weapons surfaced, Bush began to reason that we did so out of humanitarian reasons. Those reasons would include giving contracts to Haliburton. If America truly considered tyranny a problem in today’s world, we would mobilize troops in Africa. We do not do so because we will not monetarily profit from it.
Bush’s strong Christian overtones draw the support of social conservatives across the nation. For example, the GOP admits to printing pamphlets in Arkansas warning that liberals would ban the Bible. Bush comes out strongly in favor of a constitutional amendment against gay marriage where a drastic measure like an amendment is not required. He could be rational and support civil unions, but he’s too afraid of alienating the far right.
Having considered this, the Democrats should have run away with this election. They have not because their presidential candidate Kerry has refused to sway from his anti-Bush plan. Take the hint, Senator, and stop mudslinging with Bush. The more negative ads appear on television, the more voters will avoid the election. This falls into the Republicans’ hands because people will then think there’s no difference between the candidates.
Many swing voters would be interested in Kerry’s policies if he focused on them more. More specifically, if the media paid attention more to Kerry’s policies rather than his responses to Bush, we might actually get to know the man. Instead, we get all sorts of political experts painting a picture of the man. Once Senator Kerry stands up for himself, Bush is doomed.
The Bush campaign banks on the fact that Kerry won’t make such a bold move. The Republicans attack Kerry knowing they will invoke a response, one that will further the negativity of this election season. The Democrats defend Kerry believing they must return fire, following the adage that turnabout is fair play. In the end, many conservatives will feel the same pain voting for Bush that many liberals will feel when voting for Kerry.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 04:28 am (UTC)Thank you for mentioning that piece of trash bill, No Child Left Behind.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 11:49 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 05:27 am (UTC)First of all, this is an editorial, right? Since it is pretty editorialized, I'll assume so. If it isn't, then I'll have a hell of a lot more to say =P
General statements:
Your sentence structure. You use very short sentences, many beginning with a short introductory clause ("if," "however"... I'm going to call them introductory clasuses because I'm not sure what the official grammatical term is). That structure "Word, word word word word." is something I usually reserve for transitions into a new paragraph, because the first, one-word-and-then-comma segment will pull a reader cleanly from one topic to the next and can be followed by a clean, simple, and easily grasped idea. "Having considered this, the Democrats should have run away with this election." is a really good example of this, but I think you need to employ better transitions in other parts of your story. And once you get in the paragraph, I suggest abandoning that structure as much as possible and working in longer, elaborate sentences.
Sentence structure is especially good to consider with this topic, because short sentences always imply a strong, emphatic message and longer ones thought and consideration. You need them both to sound intelligent when you're discussing politics. Many of your shorter sentences, however, don't have a strong message, persay, and don't come across as strong and emphatic... but just flat. That's the danger with shorter sentences... the risk with longer ones is becoming confusing and verbose. I encounter the latter far more often, as you can probably already tell.
With all of this said, shorter sentences are typically a masculine style and longer a feminine, so if this is your natural tendency that is very explainable. Really good writing uses both forms and most people have to go back and coerce the words into a varied structure in order to reflect a more accurate tone.
"You," "I," and "Let's." First and second person usually just isn't a good idea in non-personal narrative writing. Especially second person- it just comes across as corny and unproffesional. If this is an editorial the rules might be a little different, but even if you can do that, I wouldn't advise it. You need to have stronger sentences, and eliminating first and second person can really help with that.
I'd work on your headline, too, but I really can't offer any suggestions since I've only been on Newspaper staff for about... a month now? Did school really only start a month ago? Damn, it feels so much longer than that >< It's going to be a long year. Anyways, your headline could be a little more exciting.
And... I think my work is done here. Pretty much anything else I'd have to say falls back on the general statements I made. Sorry if I was saying a bunch of stuff you already know, because I'm sure some of it at least you've heard in an English class before... I just feel uncomfortable offering critique without an explanation/justification/suggestion for improvement.
I had fun with that, and I hope you feel like it helps.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 11:56 am (UTC)Actually, after looking at it again, it seems pretty unfocused. Then again, I wrote this in an hour and a half and it shows. I will work on the transitions. The short sentence-long sentence thing makes perfect sense to me.
I do have trouble eliminating first and second voice from my articles. It's definitely something I have a bad habit of doing.
I'll try to think of a better title by Wednesday night.
I admit that I've heard this before, but I don't know I'm making the mistakes until someone tells me. I like to see honest constructive criticism, especially with specific examples (because what I write makes sense to me, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to other people).
Glad you had fun :). I'll be providing a lot more down the road ;).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 07:04 am (UTC)I mean, I guess a list is ok, but I really doubt that's what you had in mind. To make you writing more powerful you must narrow the focus. It's like a flashlight. The wider the beam the weaker the illuminating ray. Just pick one of the topics.
Secondly, and I noticed this before, you seem to have a difficulty making it clear what your own opinion is. Don't be afraid to make a pointed statement about what you believe.
The thing you are doing well, is writing a lot. Like anything else, practice makes perfect.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 08:55 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 12:03 pm (UTC)You're right, I tend to ramble. Like any good history major, I tend to digress from the topic at hand. Next time, I will zero in on a topic (unfortunately, I've got a 1500 word essay due tomorrow plus two tests at the end of the week so I won't be able to signficantly change my article).
I think you guys are write. I should actually have an opinion in the opinion section. I'll get off my confusing moderate high horse and choose one side. This happens to be very difficult for me since I like to play devil's advocate a lot. However, I do think I'm missing an edge to my writing and that's because I've been hiding my true opinions.
Experience is the best teacher. I can only get better by writing more :).
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 09:35 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-29 03:55 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 09:48 am (UTC)If you write about politics you have to write like your a politician which in this case I think means to talk about ideas in which Bush has failed in execution. The Tax cuts vs spending works well. Gay marriage on the other hand is a hot button issue where you'll be hard pressed to sway anyone. Those with you are already there. For those against it, well, you're just going to shut them off to everything else. And the ticket with Bush is to avoid hot button issues and talk about how he's failing in the middle of the road objectives. The true disparity in "spend and cut". How no child means well but has not path of execution except to open the doors to education profiteering by corporations. With the war you avoid talking about the reasons and talk about the failed execution.
And the failure of Bush still doesn't equate with a vote for Kerry. If that is what you want its a tougher sell and you even further narrowed to talking about a specific item. The sell for fiscal conservatives isn't that hard if you point to Bush being the real fiscal irresponsible that he is and tie that with the Dems recent move to being the budget balancing party.
Will
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 11:32 am (UTC)Ann Coulter, Bill O'Reilly, Rush Limbaugh, Al Franken, or Jon Steward didn't get their vast audiences by changing anyone's mind, but by charging directly into the issues that nobody ever changes their minds about, because those issues are precisely the most emotional.
Your motive in blogging is entirely different from
Let me give you an example of an opinion piece that nearly got me to pulling my hair out. It's the latest by Christopher Hitchens (http://slate.com/id/2107193).
What will it take to convince these people that this is not a year, or a time, to be dicking around? Americans are patrolling a front line in Afghanistan, where it would be impossible with 10 times the troop strength to protect all potential voters on Oct. 9 from Taliban/al-Qaida murder and sabotage. We are invited to believe that these hard-pressed soldiers of ours take time off to keep Osama Bin Laden in a secret cave, ready to uncork him when they get a call from Karl Rove? For shame.
As a political pursuader it does zero. Calling democrats "depraved" and "paranoid" will not help you get the undecideds, maybe it will stiffen your base a little, but it will equally turn off those that are card carrying democrats it doesn't nothing, it just is inflamed rhetoric.
But . . . as an opinion piece it's a fucking touchdown.
That, sir, is the sort of shit you want to write as an opinion editor. Because that is what will get you more readers. People complaining against it, people complaining for it, protests at how fair or unfair of a portrait it is, it's a masterpiece, and exactly what
The trick to a really good opinion is to go as "over-the-top" as you possibly can, without turning into a hysterical shrieking shrew.
Now, you might say to me that reasoned discourse is the way that we should hold political debates, the back and forth monotones of endless discussions, blah blah blah, fuck that. Have you seen the ratings for Fox, the Daily Show and the Bill O'Reilly show? CNN is dead. Put the dirt on that network. CBS? Oh it's done, it's been done for a few decades. The fact is, people don't want to read your shit unless you make a concerted effort to entertain them, and part of that entertainment is to hit the hot-button issues as hard as possible.
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 11:56 am (UTC)My thinking is always too much in the middle. Sort of right, but then sort of wrong because, well, I guess I give too many too much credit.
Nuke The Baby Whales for Christ!
Will
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 09:52 pm (UTC)LOL
no subject
Date: 2004-09-28 12:15 pm (UTC)This has a struck a chord with me. If I had to sum up what I want people to get from my writing, it's that I want to make people think. But now I realize writing opinion articles should make people feel something as well.