The Washington Post
March 17, 2008; Page A16
In a much anticipated upcoming decision, the Supreme Court will decide whether to claim the legitimacy or the unconstitutionality of a D.C. law forbidding certain types of guns, such as machine guns, from the general public. This article examines the different sides of the upcoming decision. Although remaining fairly unbiased throughout the body of the article and giving good citations, the final paragraph is so biased that your last impression is that the total article was biased. Due to this, I did not find it very convincing and questioned the legitimacy of the author's quotes and different facts he had provided. In the last paragraph as well he kept referring to "we", as in the American people. I found this very ineffective too; since obviously not all American's feel that it is so obvious that the Second Amendment applies to all guns. Although the facts are there, the author's ethos is destroyed due to the last paragraph. If he would have left his opinion out, I think the article would have been much for effective.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
This is an interesting debate, and I will like to see what the verdict will be. This is a hot-button issue and many people don't see the grey area. As it did for you, his bias got in my way. The article seemed good until the bias came in, and then I discredited him somewhat.
I think this article covers an important hard hitting issue that needs to be discussed. However, it is hard to get the full effect of the article because of the rash bias given by the author. Because of his hard bias he in turn became less credible and uniteresting. I think if the author were to leave his bias out and give both sides of the issue, he could have written a fantastic article.
Post a Comment