Looking at Political Blogs

This is an article on Rabble.ca on last week’s Canadian Senate approval of Bill C-10: http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mgregus/2012/03/disastrous-consequences-omnibus-crime-bill

Although the topic itself is very interesting because it discusses Bill C-10 on criminal justice, the style of writing is unattractive. The author starts the blog post with a clear statement of her opinion on how the Bill makes Canada a regressive democracy. While it allows the reader to predict what the rest of the article will be about, it is not interesting enough. The first sentence should “hook” the reader, and author Paula Mallea simply provides a generic sentence about Bill C-10 making Canada a worse democracy. Perhaps she could have made a more explicit and concise statement to accord with her strong stance.

Furthermore, most of her sentences seem to be short and choppy. Throughout the entire article, I felt no general flow. From beginning to end, the sentences were similar lengths and stopped abruptly. Some of the sentences are very straightforward, like her statement that “Bill C-10 will result in serious inconsistencies and distortions of the justice system.” Nonetheless there is an overall lack of transitions between paragraphs and conjunctions between sentences.

I especially dislike Paragraph 5, where she attempts to vary her tone of writing. She fills the paragraph with rhetorical questions, and follows them with a “Why?”. If she asks why, she should at least attempt to explain in her own terms. The “Why?” is nothing but a cliffhanger that leaves the reader very unsatisfied moving onto the next paragraph.

While she brings the reader back to her main argument by repeating her stance in the conclusion, her voice seems very detached from the content. It is detached in that it feels as though she wrote multiple sentences on her idea and just put them in order. The lack of flow in her article leaves the reader feeling uncomfortable and unconvinced about her statements – and that just affects her attempt to make a big point.

 

Here is a blog post from TIME’s Ideas section on the gendered division in sexual responsibility and rights in America:

http://ideas.time.com/2012/03/05/men-have-sex-too/

Erika Christakis does not start the article with her own statement, but a context of what her article will be about. The short sentence in the beginning definitely makes the reader wonder what exactly her stance will be, and captures the reader’s attention. “Male guardians of the female body” is Christakis’ own term to describe the group that she attacks in her article, and this term immediately informs the reader that she will discuss men who think they can decide women’s sexual issues.

Christakis uses a variety of sentences and words. There is a clearly smooth transition between her sentences and her paragraphs, because I do not feel as though I’m jumping from one stepping stone to another on water. Her subtle undertone of sarcasm also keeps the article fun and exciting. Like Mallea, she makes attacks on others, but she does it more effectively. Using words like “outrage” and “folks”, she builds a personal connection to the reader. Describing some American men’s ideas on birth control as “blood boiling” reveals her very own emotions on the issue. She also devotes a paragraph to asking rhetorical questions, but her questions actually makes the reader to ponder about her questions, rather than to feel disconnected and unfulfilled anticipation.

She brings the reader through a wave of attacks and argument against certain men, like Rush Limbaugh, and then finishes her criticism concisely, to-the-point. “Gentlemen, you’re up at bat.” is all she needed to conclude the article because her content was interesting and informative enough. I’m personally a fan of simple conclusions without windy repetitions of the author’s arguments. Christakis successfully conveys her opinion to the reader and engages the reader effectively to her writing.