In this article discussing Anonymous's responses to the Westboro Baptist Church, the author uses selective details, strong diction and clever language to encourage an already popular anti-Westboro bias.
Bias in this article is most evident in its use of details. The details selected are extremely one-sided. Not only do Anonymous and its supporters get more quotes than the church, three to the church's two, but they also get far more attention in the article; Westboro defense and reasoning gets a total of two short paragraphs, while the entire rest of the article is directed against the group. Some details are downright deliberate, such as that Anonymous released info that "can be easily accessed on sites like armywtfmoments.com." Unbiased articles rarely directly link readers to sites where incriminating information can be found. In addition, quotes from the church are not necessarily used to counter bias. The placement of the reported tweet "Westboro will picket Sandy Hook Elementary School to sing praise to God for the glory of his work in executing his judgment," it was directly preceded by a reminder that this was released ''hours after the tragedy." Not only was the placement indicative of strong bias, but the diction was telling as well.
Diction plays a large role in the bias of this article. Before any facts are given, the church is called a "hate group" and is later called "vicious."All language used to describe them is negative, with no effort given to hiding clear bias. The poll attached to the article is similarly telling. There are only three choices, one deeming the group "Total lunatics" and the other, the only positive choice, "They have a point on some issues." There is no choice to support the church in any way beyond marginal agreement. However, the article is short and to the point; the word count runs out and the diction runs dry quite early, but the language is clear.
In general, news articles have a set, scholarly language. Coming off as overly biased through their language can make a story illegitimate, no matter how good the information. The article in question pulls this off fairly well, and despite questionable diction, as the language tends to stay simple and detached. This use of language lends itself to bias well. Had it been written with an emotional air, the representation of both sides would be instantly brought into question to a far greater extent, despite the fact that representation is already unequal. Facts could be suspected to be exaggerated. With the simpler style, information is given at face value, leaving it up to the reader to decide who they support.
In general, news articles have a set, scholarly language. Coming off as overly biased through their language can make a story illegitimate, no matter how good the information. The article in question pulls this off fairly well, and despite questionable diction, as the language tends to stay simple and detached. This use of language lends itself to bias well. Had it been written with an emotional air, the representation of both sides would be instantly brought into question to a far greater extent, despite the fact that representation is already unequal. Facts could be suspected to be exaggerated. With the simpler style, information is given at face value, leaving it up to the reader to decide who they support.
I would consider adding a conclusion to make one last clear analysis of the article. In the third paragraph about diction you mention that there are three choices of classifying the church but you only list two choices. I might be missing the third so if I am just disregard my comment. Overall your organization is good and the piece flows.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, I don't think that language here is what you think it is. I thought that language in DIDLS was figurative language, meaning you would show where the author used figurative language. Otherwise, language would be MUCH too broad of a category.
ReplyDeleteAdd in a conclusion! It will synthesize your ideas and clearly display your main point to the reader. It can tie together your whole essay.
I don't really agree with you on the incriminating websites part, because websites have information. If that information implies one thing or another, it doesn't make the website incriminating. It makes the reader's ANALYSIS of the information incriminating.
About there not being much support for the WBC, I think that's because, well, there's not much TO support. The WBC is widely hated and I feel like the author wanted to cash in on that sentiment, and therefore make his article more relateable to the reader.
It is difficult to determine whether or not this article is biased or not. The WBC is universally considered a hate group. And by definition, a hate group "practices hatred, hostility, or violence towards members of a race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation or other designated sector of society" (Wikipedia).
ReplyDeletePerhaps it might have been better to choose a different article with a more obvious point of view.
Like what Sam was saying, it is very difficult to defend the Westboro Baptist Church unless you're going to bring up "freedom of speech". Otherwise, what kind of sane person can ACTUALLY defend a hate group?
Add a conclusion to help close your close reading.