Opinion critique #4: False Claims, Families In Danger: This Isn't A First For The Trump Administration
Upon reading this article, the theme is clear and is constantly reinforced in the article: the Trump Administration made false claims to cover up claims in regard to the zero tolerance policy. While I don't necessarily agree with the topic of the article, the authors do have a clear angle/theme.
Additionally, I feel as if there aren't enough statistics and evidence to support their claim. Throughout the article, I only noticed two quotes (if that) in the entire piece and would have like to have seen more evidence; for example, the article states, "This report also warns that long after the zero tolerance policy ended, the Border Patrol may still not be keeping accurate records of families who arrive on the Southwest Border." In my opinion, I wish there was a hyperlink for this report, so I could read it myself.
Similarly, in another paragraph, it reads, "Earlier this month, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report finding that HHS was not warned by DHS that thousands of children would be separated from their families under the zero tolerance policy." However, there's no direct reference to the report. In order to make this article stronger, I think the report should have been directly referenced. Based on my aforementioned statements, I feel like there was a lack of diverse sources, especially since I only noticed one quote in the entirety of the article. While there was one quote from Secretary Chad Wolf, I believe the author should have used more direct quotations.
In my opinion, I think the lead is somewhat strong, but it could have been better. As it states, "The Trump Administration has made false and contradictory claims in an effort to obscure its failure to plan for and manage a crisis, putting children and families at great risk." I don't think this lead was particularly colorful, but it is somewhat shocking. I think it could have been more powerful if the authors used a quote from the Trump Administration, or possibly some other quote that reinforced the theme of this article.
As for the kicker, I felt like it ended abruptly. The kicker states, "Acting Secretary Wolf should immediately provide our committees all of the documents we have asked for so we can understand the full consequences of the zero tolerance policy. If the acting secretary is sure that no separated children have been lost, there is no excuse for DHS to continue to hide the consequences of its actions." While I'm not sure how I would end the article, I definitely think it could have ended stronger. I found it quite hard to keep my focus while reading it.
The flow of the piece was satisfactory. There was an adequate use of transitions to help the flow as well; however, I just felt like the piece really lacked color or emotion - it felt very bland when reading. Perhaps it's just me, but I was confused when the article stated, "You might think we're talking about its response to the coronavirus pandemic." I felt like this was unnecessary and rather confusing. Additionally, maybe my lack of interest was because of my disliking toward Buzzfeed.
In brief, I felt like the piece was more of just spewing facts without using colorful language.
As for elements of audience interest, I think because of the lack of color, it was hard to keep my interest. I felt like the piece was just description after description. I would have liked to be able to hear the authors' voices.
There were also no fallacies that I found.
Additionally, I feel as if there aren't enough statistics and evidence to support their claim. Throughout the article, I only noticed two quotes (if that) in the entire piece and would have like to have seen more evidence; for example, the article states, "This report also warns that long after the zero tolerance policy ended, the Border Patrol may still not be keeping accurate records of families who arrive on the Southwest Border." In my opinion, I wish there was a hyperlink for this report, so I could read it myself.
Similarly, in another paragraph, it reads, "Earlier this month, the Inspector General of the Department of Health and Human Services issued a report finding that HHS was not warned by DHS that thousands of children would be separated from their families under the zero tolerance policy." However, there's no direct reference to the report. In order to make this article stronger, I think the report should have been directly referenced. Based on my aforementioned statements, I feel like there was a lack of diverse sources, especially since I only noticed one quote in the entirety of the article. While there was one quote from Secretary Chad Wolf, I believe the author should have used more direct quotations.
In my opinion, I think the lead is somewhat strong, but it could have been better. As it states, "The Trump Administration has made false and contradictory claims in an effort to obscure its failure to plan for and manage a crisis, putting children and families at great risk." I don't think this lead was particularly colorful, but it is somewhat shocking. I think it could have been more powerful if the authors used a quote from the Trump Administration, or possibly some other quote that reinforced the theme of this article.
As for the kicker, I felt like it ended abruptly. The kicker states, "Acting Secretary Wolf should immediately provide our committees all of the documents we have asked for so we can understand the full consequences of the zero tolerance policy. If the acting secretary is sure that no separated children have been lost, there is no excuse for DHS to continue to hide the consequences of its actions." While I'm not sure how I would end the article, I definitely think it could have ended stronger. I found it quite hard to keep my focus while reading it.
The flow of the piece was satisfactory. There was an adequate use of transitions to help the flow as well; however, I just felt like the piece really lacked color or emotion - it felt very bland when reading. Perhaps it's just me, but I was confused when the article stated, "You might think we're talking about its response to the coronavirus pandemic." I felt like this was unnecessary and rather confusing. Additionally, maybe my lack of interest was because of my disliking toward Buzzfeed.
In brief, I felt like the piece was more of just spewing facts without using colorful language.
As for elements of audience interest, I think because of the lack of color, it was hard to keep my interest. I felt like the piece was just description after description. I would have liked to be able to hear the authors' voices.
There were also no fallacies that I found.
Comments
Post a Comment