Finding a Life Line

| | Comments (3)

The editorial that I found dealt with the death penalty from the Los Angeles Times. "Over the course of two hours, nurses attempted 18 times last month to find a vein in Romell Broom in which to inject the convicted murderer with a lethal combination of drugs...Ted Strickland called off the execution -- for the day, at least." Basically, the editorial continues to explain that this isn't the first time it's happened, nor will it probably be the last. It then follows it up with specific examples of past experiences and facts about the death penalty.

The stance the author takes is clearly against the death penalty and cites specific examples of why it would be more important to leave a person in prison for the rest of his/her life before execution. The author did not even get into the argument of which side he/she was on until half through the editorial. The main part focused on the damage that missing veins and the number of times this particular thing has occurred in the past before an opinion is even presented.

Finally, when the author gets to his/her opinion, the reader already has some idea of one's own stance on the topic, whether or not the reader is in favor of the death penalty or not. The editorial attempts to sway the reader, but does not outwardly make any horrible demands towards the reader to believe his/her way. The author simply states the opinion and moves on by showing evidence and facts for why he/she feels this way.

I think, overall, that the editorial was done well considering such a heavy topic. Both sides are not completely painted for the reader, but enough is given for the reader to form one's own opinion about the topic without being overly pushy about it.


Gladys Mares said:

I am not surprised you found a person who is against the death penalty in the LA Times lol. That was the newspaper I used as well because I read it almost everyday. The editorial I used sounds like yours. The author wasn't totally shoving his opinion down your throat, however, I think if it did I wouldn't be surprised. Its an opinion piece. I read other people's blogs and they were surprised at how biased their pieces were... Isn't it someone's opinion? Am I wrong assuming its alright to be advocating one side?

Melissa Schwenk said:

You're not wrong. You are supposed to give your opinion, but I think other people had editorials that were very brutal with their opinions and not giving the other side a clear view. However, I didn't really read too many of the other editorials yet, so maybe it wasn't that bad. Either way, the opinion is supposed to at least try and sway the reader, which I think the author did very well in my piece without being overly biased.

Josie Rush said:

In response to both of the comments, I think the reason those people were surprised is because if a piece is too biased from the begining, people sort of turn off early. It was a strategically sound move to hold off on picking a side until the information was explained. It's not like a regular academic paper, where we need our thesis at the begining to let everyone know what we're proving and how. Here, the author can set up the event in a light that will even make the other side think, "Wow, I never thought of it that way." But, Gladys, you're right. If there's no opinion, there's really no point.

Leave a comment

Type the characters you see in the picture above.


Recent Comments

Josie Rush on Finding a Life Line: In response to both of the com
Melissa Schwenk on Finding a Life Line: You're not wrong. You are supp
Gladys Mares on Finding a Life Line: I am not surprised you found a