Blog Post #5 (due by Sun, 7/22)

1. Find an opinion piece on your topic (or within the same general universe as your topic). Consider looking in the archives section of various publications if you aren't finding what you're looking for: quite a few publications have an easy-to-find "Archives" section that allows you to search through past issues (sometimes through years of past issues).


***Try to find something recent, of course, but finding something very current for this post isn't nearly as imperative as your writing your paper about something current. Ideally, find something that resonates with you in some way (even if you disagree with the author's stance).  Perhaps you find the language lyrical or the images particularly imaginative. Maybe you think the writer does a competent job addressing the opposition. Doesn't matter. A mature reader and critic can often find something valid, admirable and/or effective in an opponent's argument.


2. What strikes you about this piece? The most important questions are bolded below. You should answer five to six of them, bolded or not, for this blog entry. ***Do answer at least a few of the bolded questions, and be sure to link to the opinion piece about which you're writing here.


What does the writer do well to:

• catch the reader's attention?
• hold it once caught?
• organize the piece in a way that establishes an easy-to-follow trajectory and allows the reader to quickly parse together pieces of information?
• organize the trifecta made of claim/concession/rebuttal?
• make the piece memorable as a whole?
• provoke or generally antagonize the reader?
• establish his/her claim? 
• situate his/her claim within some sort of current cultural context?  (where the connection to newsworthy current events and issues comes)
• make the current context/actual news item/event important to the reader (for instance, why/how should the average San Diegan care about the 805 Freeway guy? Why should anyone, for that matter, care about Daniel Tosh's rape jokes/audience reaction to them?)
• connect to his/her audience? (appeals to ethos, pathos, logos)
• back up/support his/her position (does the writer employ "facts", stats, judgments, testimony, historical precedent, status quo, etc.)?
• demonstrate a fair amount of knowledge about the topic/surrounding issues?  (for instance, recall the "onesie" writer making implicit connections to much larger issues)
• logically develop stance (do you find some sort of linear or chronological progression of ideas? Does the writer use a flashback or flashforward or move from "meta" to "micro"? Do you see a particular organizational pattern in the evidence?)
• craft the piece at the sentence level (diction, syntax, punctuation)?
• keep "fence-sitting" readers or those likely to vehemently disagree? (this most often happens through a/series of concessions)
• demonstrate knowledge of the publication's target readership? (To answer this, you might look up this readership as some publications literally describe said audience)
• use links to implicitly establish points/raise other issues/demonstrate his/her credibility? (For instance, some writers will link to their own writing, relying on what they've said in previous articles; some implicitly recommend other writers/publications by linking to their pieces

***I think this is a thorough enough list with which to vet -- thoroughly -- an opinion piece.