This is a closed reading of a CNN article about the Jerry Sandusky scandal. by Wayne Drash and Ann O'niel www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/us/sandusky-memoir-profile/index.html?hpt=hp_c4
I chose this piece because being a CNN news article, it has a very formal, simplistic style. While it is not used in a traditional style, the Authors have a very distinguishable style.
The syntax of this article is very important because it is used to make their information seem more factual and make the allegations against Jerry Sandusky seem even more shocking. The Author's use shorter but descriptive sentences which usually include sources for their information in order to maintain a serious, factual piece. sentences like "He called one boy more than 100 times after the boy started avoiding him, according to phone records examined by authorities." are tuned for quick reading in which the Author's provide as much information as they can in short sentences. The overall Syntax forms short, formal sentences that are ideal for quick skimming of an article. This reflects the quick update way of our society.
Diction is a key part of this article. The Author's use diction in order to pad the allegations against Jerry Sandusky and make the material less graphic for the reader. For instance, instead of listing his allegations as what they were literally, they use terms like "sex acts" and "assaults" in order to make the piece less disturbing, less graphic, and more easy on the reader. This type of self censoring is frequent throughout the piece and in my opinion makes it convoluted and makes the article misleading with regards to Sandusky's alleged crimes. The diction the Author's chose to used makes the whole piece seem less serious and ultimately a weak piece all together.
Where the Author's use diction to shield the reader from the graphic nature of Jerry Sandusky's crimes, they used details in order to persuade the reader of Sandusky's guilt. Or at least present ample information against him. Throughout the piece, the Author's use small details like "But he also said he enjoys being around kids, always has." in order to provide evidence against Sandusky. In my opinion, it seems that the Authors use these small details to convey their own verdict on Sandusky's allegations. It also seems that this style is used to make the article appear more factual and serious. It seems to me that all this use of details does is make the authors seem biased.
Though the article does a decent job presenting the facts of the Sandusky scandal, it seems to me that the Authors were more focused on creating an un-offensive article than they were a factual un-biased one.
In your close-reading post, you did a very good job picking out the literary techniques that were used and discussing them with a high level of sophistication. My suggestion, however, is make sure your piece flows and each part fits together in order to describe the overall meaning. Right now, I think you could take each paragraph separately from the others and have three very good posts. However, when put together, you give contradictory information and thus, the effects and meaning that the article is creating becomes unclear. For example, it is hard to tell whether the article is trying to be serious and sophisticated or weak. Make sure when writing essays and close-reading posts that each point you make reflects back to the same overall idea.
ReplyDeleteI know I do this all the time, but one thing to try to avoid is mentioning the actual DIDL you're talking about in your writing, people have commented to me saying it detracts from the writing, though I don't personally agree. Overall flow could be improved, possibly by connecting words. Great word choice overall.
ReplyDeleteI think you did an excellent job in your analysis and picking out examples of DIDLS that the author used. The only things I could pick out are writing aspects/organizational stuff. for example, you might want to put your final conclusion in a separate paragraph so it's easier for the reader to pick out what you got from the piece. But that's pretty picky, so overall really nice job!
ReplyDelete