Crimea and Punishment-
Speaker: The speaker is once again Charles Blow. In this article he gives a clear sense that he support the democratic party. His style is very serious, which creates a greater sense of his opinion. He is almost critical of the republicans (especially Mitt Romney).
Occasion: The larger occasion of this article would be the Russian invasion of Crimea. This seems to bring on Blow's defense of the president. He seems to want to address how things are being dealt with. In addition, the immediate occasion might be to defend the President and his foreign diplomacy.
Audience: I think the writing is directed towards the republicans. He seems angry towards how they are pinning the Russian invasion on Obama, when he clearly could not have done anything. He seems to want to defend the president and express how his tactics will work to the republicans.
Purpose: The purpose is definitely drawn towards the audience as Blow seems to want tear their arguments apart. I think he wants the audience to see how ridiculous their claims are, and to leave the president alone in these foreign actions, as they are very tight situations.
Subject: The topic of this article is very clearly the actions of the president towards the foreign issues in Russia. He wants to describe what the president has done towards the invasion of Crimea, and defend it.
Tone: The tone of this article is critical and disdainful. He seems to want to criticize the republicans, and in small ways he scorns them for how they blame Obama for his foreign policies.
After having the chance to read Charles Blow's article, it has given me a clear sense of his writing. The first thing I can state is that he is very opinionated. Not that this is bad, because most journalist do express their own opinion, but he does seem to express his clearly and significantly. In addition, his writing is based off of making his certain audience feel guilty. This is highly evident, especially since every week I described his tone as being scornful, and critical in a sense. Most of his evidence is based off of quotations from highly credible people, and he uses these quotes to express his personal view. Though Blow seems to like to use logic with some statistics and quotations, he mainly demonstrates his views through his emotional appeals. In addition, Blow seems to have a pattern of topics. Many of his articles are based off of prejudice or discrimination. A lot of his articles contain topics over women's rights, or, and this is especially evident, racial issues between African Americans and White Americans. Blow also spends much of his time writing over topics about the president. Two of the articles I chose to analyze are over the president. In most of these articles he is a constant critic. He seems to despise certain American issues, and he expresses a strong attitude over them. I believe that Charles Blow is mainly an idealist. He seems to like to write over his views (which most of the time seem like correct views, and I agree with them) and how he sees these ideals/views fit into the American Society. After reading many of Charles Blow's articles, I am a fan of his writing. I agree with many of his ideologies, and I will keep reading his articles in the future.
Speaker: The speaker is once again Charles Blow. In this article he gives a clear sense that he support the democratic party. His style is very serious, which creates a greater sense of his opinion. He is almost critical of the republicans (especially Mitt Romney).
Occasion: The larger occasion of this article would be the Russian invasion of Crimea. This seems to bring on Blow's defense of the president. He seems to want to address how things are being dealt with. In addition, the immediate occasion might be to defend the President and his foreign diplomacy.
Audience: I think the writing is directed towards the republicans. He seems angry towards how they are pinning the Russian invasion on Obama, when he clearly could not have done anything. He seems to want to defend the president and express how his tactics will work to the republicans.
Purpose: The purpose is definitely drawn towards the audience as Blow seems to want tear their arguments apart. I think he wants the audience to see how ridiculous their claims are, and to leave the president alone in these foreign actions, as they are very tight situations.
Subject: The topic of this article is very clearly the actions of the president towards the foreign issues in Russia. He wants to describe what the president has done towards the invasion of Crimea, and defend it.
Tone: The tone of this article is critical and disdainful. He seems to want to criticize the republicans, and in small ways he scorns them for how they blame Obama for his foreign policies.
After having the chance to read Charles Blow's article, it has given me a clear sense of his writing. The first thing I can state is that he is very opinionated. Not that this is bad, because most journalist do express their own opinion, but he does seem to express his clearly and significantly. In addition, his writing is based off of making his certain audience feel guilty. This is highly evident, especially since every week I described his tone as being scornful, and critical in a sense. Most of his evidence is based off of quotations from highly credible people, and he uses these quotes to express his personal view. Though Blow seems to like to use logic with some statistics and quotations, he mainly demonstrates his views through his emotional appeals. In addition, Blow seems to have a pattern of topics. Many of his articles are based off of prejudice or discrimination. A lot of his articles contain topics over women's rights, or, and this is especially evident, racial issues between African Americans and White Americans. Blow also spends much of his time writing over topics about the president. Two of the articles I chose to analyze are over the president. In most of these articles he is a constant critic. He seems to despise certain American issues, and he expresses a strong attitude over them. I believe that Charles Blow is mainly an idealist. He seems to like to write over his views (which most of the time seem like correct views, and I agree with them) and how he sees these ideals/views fit into the American Society. After reading many of Charles Blow's articles, I am a fan of his writing. I agree with many of his ideologies, and I will keep reading his articles in the future.