The great gaffe by Charles Krauthammer
http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/charles-krauthammer-the-great-gaffe/2012/10/18/38ce0d18-1954-11e2-bd10-5ff056538b7c_story.html
In this editorial, conservative Charles Krauthammere discusses the 2012 presidential race, more specifically the second presidential debate between candidates Mitt Romney and Barack Obama. In this article Charles tries to persuade the readers that the way Romney answered the Libya question was an enormous gaffe, and that Obama has misled the country pertaining to the murder of the US Ambassador in Benghazi and gotten away with it as a result of Romney's gaffe. Krauthammere uses imagery, syntax, and diction to effectively portray her opinion.
Krauthammere uses imagery to paint the debate as a very hard fought and close debate. For example he says, "Fight night at Hofstra. The two boxers, confined within a ring of spectators - circling, feinting, taunting, staring eachother down - come several times, by my reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fisticuffs, of the kind that on occasion so delightfully break out in the Taiwanese parliament. Think of it: the Secret Service storming the ring, pinning Mitt Romney to the canvas as Candy Crowley administers the 10 count." Through this creative metaphor Charles is trying to show that that the debate was very close and that the successful cover-up of what truly happened in Benghazi resulted in Obama's win. This is represented by the secret service "pinning" Romney. This paints a picture in the mind of a boxing match. The civilians asking the questions are represented by the fans, and the boxers represent the two presidential candidates. The fact that the debate was related to boxing shows that there were a lot of verbal punches thrown amongst the candidates and high tensions. In this short paragraph there is also an allusion to the moment when the two candidates got in each other's faces and looked like they were going to fight when he says, "staring each other down - come several times, by reckoning, no more than one provocation away from actual fist cuffs.
The author also uses syntax to put emphasis on certain aspects of the editorial. When Krauthammere wants to show how little information there is discussed in major media or the show the thought processes of many americans on a topic he uses questions that make the reader think. This emphasizes the said way that the Obama administration "misled" the american people. An example of this is when he says, "No one misled? His U.N. ambassador went on not one but five morning shows to spin a confection that the sacking of the consulate and the murder of four Americans came from a video-motivated demonstration turned ugly: 'People gathered outside the embassy and then it grew very violent and those with extremist ties joined the fray and came with heavy weapons.'" Another way that the author emphasizes what he considers to be the most important details in the story is his use of paragraphs. If there is a main point he is trying to get across she will leave that sentence in a paragraph all by itself so that it seems more important. K.T. says, "Romney will be ready Monday." The author placed this short statement in a paragraph all by itself to show the importance and emphasize the contents of the sentence. When a short sentence is stuck in a paragraph by itself it gives the reader a short pause in the flow of the editorial to think about the statement. In this case it is almost seems as if this short statement is meant to intimidate Obama.
Krauthammere uses diction to show show the deceitfulness of the Obama Administration’s Benghazi cover up and to portray Romney in a positive light. He uses words such as “misled” to show how deceived the country and dodged difficult questions about the Benghazi assassination. The word misled makes the reader think that President Obama has planned out how to manipulate the American people to believe that the murder in Benghazi was not an act of terror but was cause by a video. Krauthammere even went so far as to call the Obama administration his "minions". Pejorative diction such as this is commonly associated with evil people. By using the word minions Charles clearly is trying to portray Obama as evil. On the other hand he also uses word such as "dazzling" to describe Romney's performance in the first debate. This word is incredibly complementary and makes Romney seem like a God. When he was describing Obama's "win" in the second debate he says that "the margin was small, paling in comparison to Romney's 52-point victory". Words such as paling are used to downplay the victory of Obama so it seems he wouldn't even compare to the greatness that he seems to think Romney is.
Krauthammere created a very convincing and persuasive editorial using many literary techniques that attempt’s to show the deceitfulness of Obama and his administration with respect to the Benghazi assassination, and downplay Obama's nationally declared "win" in the second debate compared to Romney's whopping "win" in the first debate.
I think you did a nice job with this close reading! I thought that the example of imagery that you used was perfect. I also liked how you said it was a metaphor as well. It was nice that you explained how this impacted the piece as a whole, and the message that the author was trying to get across by using that literary technique.
ReplyDeleteI did notice one minor thing that you should fix in the fourth paragraph. You repeated the word "show" in the first sentence. Also, I liked how you showed how the author used pejorative and honorific diction to express his feelings on the subject. I think it may be a good idea to maybe say how that word in particular has an effect on the article opposed to another word that would be weaker. That way the reader can really say what kind of impact the word has on the article or sentence. Same goes for the honorific diction, such as the word "dazzling" that you wrote about.
Overall though, you did a good job!
This analysis was very well done! Each of your paragraphs was very thorough; you gave examples, had claims, warrants and explained things well. I like how you talked about each element and how it helps convey that author's message.
ReplyDeleteTHere was just one thing that I thought you could fix. I think that you could try to use shorter passages when giving examples. The examples that you chose were good, but I think some of the them could have been shorter. Instead of quoting several sentences, I think it would be better to just describe what happens in the article and then choose some phrases to help with what you are trying to explain. This will help it flow better and will let the reader focus on what you are saying in your essay rather than trying to get through several lines of a quote.
Hi Danny! Sorry it's taken me so long to get back to you. Or, not, since it may have to do with the fact that I'm severely lacking in the Oreo department. . . Anyway, this is a very good close reading! I think you picked a very good, relevant topic and used good evidence to back up your thesis. One problem with your thesis, however, is that you say "her" instead of "his". . . You have some little grammatical mistakes in the whole thing, such as not capitalizing "American" and other things. I'd suggest re-reading your essay before you publish it. Besides that, in your first imagery paragraph, I think you did a really good job with your topic sentence and warrant - however, I think you could have added more about imagery, as you only put in one example. It was a good example, though, and you explained it thoroughly. Your second and third paragraph I had no complaints with, and thought they were very good. Your conclusion was also well-written. One thing, though, your paragraphs could have flown better together; your first sentences weren't related to the previous paragraph, which you should maybe reconsider. All in all, though, it was a very good essay, and I think you did a really good job!
ReplyDelete