John Aravosis from Americablog intensely criticizes Washington Post's claim concerning errors made about "American soldiers are dying from Iranian-supplied roadside bombs... " Aravosis uses an extremely harsh tone through the editorial, demonstrating the frustration with the incorrect information that was published. I think Aravosis's reaction is justified based on the magnitude of importance of the information that was wrongfully portrayed. If the Washington Post published a few minor errors in stories that were not significant, Aravosis would have most certainly reacted too fiercely, but since it was false information regarding the war in Iraq, the harsh tone is justified.
Aravosis uses short, blunt sentences that cut deep to the point:"Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true." Sentences like these show little sympathy for the writers of Washington Post. Apparently, this isn't the first time erroneous posts were published on Washington Post. This may have caused Aravosis to go overboard this final post may have been the last straw before unleashing his emotional frustration with the inaccuracies of the Post. Aravosis organizes his argument very clearly and presents his information in a very clear and concise manner. By listing the "acts that the Washington Post just couldn't seem to handle," Aravosis plainly lists evidence of the falsehood of the Washington Post's article. This allows for readers to easily agree with the facts that are presented. Embedded links are also provided for quick and easy access to links that are referred to in the given reasons. The links help to convince readers of the accuracy of the proof that Avarosis is referring to in his editorial. Towards the end of his criticism, he concludes his argument towards the unacceptable inaccuracy's of the Washington Post by using even stronger diction like "journalism at its worst" and even takes a step further to degrade "FOX News and the Washington Times" by setting Washington Post equal those supposedly careless sources. Aravosis' condescending tone continues to increase as he calls the writers of Washington Post "children" and accuses them of "whoring for the Bush administration in order to get us into another lie of a war." This increasing disprovement finally reaches a point of even referring to Katherine Graham herself "turning over in her grave at what [they] have done to her newspaper."
Aravosis even ends on a humorous note by stating a PS note about the British covering the same story and proving it to be a hoax.
I find this commentary by Aravosis very engaging and convincing. It was presented in a clear and concise way that was to the point and very supportable by links and other news sites. He used humors remarks to insult the Washington Post that kept the reader interested and held the attention as well.
Aravosis uses short, blunt sentences that cut deep to the point:"Powerful sentence. Only problem? It's not true." Sentences like these show little sympathy for the writers of Washington Post. Apparently, this isn't the first time erroneous posts were published on Washington Post. This may have caused Aravosis to go overboard this final post may have been the last straw before unleashing his emotional frustration with the inaccuracies of the Post. Aravosis organizes his argument very clearly and presents his information in a very clear and concise manner. By listing the "acts that the Washington Post just couldn't seem to handle," Aravosis plainly lists evidence of the falsehood of the Washington Post's article. This allows for readers to easily agree with the facts that are presented. Embedded links are also provided for quick and easy access to links that are referred to in the given reasons. The links help to convince readers of the accuracy of the proof that Avarosis is referring to in his editorial. Towards the end of his criticism, he concludes his argument towards the unacceptable inaccuracy's of the Washington Post by using even stronger diction like "journalism at its worst" and even takes a step further to degrade "FOX News and the Washington Times" by setting Washington Post equal those supposedly careless sources. Aravosis' condescending tone continues to increase as he calls the writers of Washington Post "children" and accuses them of "whoring for the Bush administration in order to get us into another lie of a war." This increasing disprovement finally reaches a point of even referring to Katherine Graham herself "turning over in her grave at what [they] have done to her newspaper."
Aravosis even ends on a humorous note by stating a PS note about the British covering the same story and proving it to be a hoax.
I find this commentary by Aravosis very engaging and convincing. It was presented in a clear and concise way that was to the point and very supportable by links and other news sites. He used humors remarks to insult the Washington Post that kept the reader interested and held the attention as well.
1 comment:
If possible You will more info about AMERICAblog-Washington Post editorial inaccurate. I am waiting to see the next posting. plant based diet meal plan
Post a Comment