I've never read an op-ed or JSTOR article but really hoping they are easy to read cause this is the last thing I wanna be doing on this beautiful Sunday afternoon. Here goes nothing....
 |
| Me every time I write these blogs |
The first op-ed I read was Emma Rollers, "Why This Election Feels NeverEnding." The next op-ed I read was Paul Waldman's "Trump's history of corruption is mind-boggling. So why is Clinton the supposedly corrupt one?" Despite my little interest in politics, for my third op-ed I kept the election topic going and read "Donald Trump's bet: We are all chumps." All three writings was easy to follow yet they still manage to have a formal and profession feel to it. Op-eds do exactly as one would expect: voice the author's opinion on a particular subject. I found reading these to way easier than Devitt's writing. It almost seemed like the op-ed pieces we blogs in a way. I feel the author of op-ed connects more to its audience because it is filled with so many emotional appeals. The only downside to writing op-eds is that they are geared toward an audience that shares the same opinion as the author. Okay there might be a few people who read op-ed they don't agree with but I think the majority of people will read the title and decide if they agree and want to keep reading or look for another piece.
Having just watched the first episode of Stranger Things yesterday, when I saw a JSTOR article about that I had to read it: Liz Tracey's "'Stranger Things' and the Psychic Nosebleed." The other two I read were Kimberly Fain's "Viral Black Death: Why we must watch citizen videos of police violence" and Livia Gershon's "Where American Public Schools Came From." While still preaching a main opinion like the op-eds, the JSTOR article varied quite differently in structure and format. These articles left out most of the pathos that dominated the other opinion writings and instead were packed full of facts from history, references to other writings, and a logically formatted argument. It could have just been the content matter but I enjoyed reading the JSTOR article more than the op-eds. I usually don't care for reading academic pieces but the JSTOR article have a good balance of having a informal feel but still coming off as scholarly and knowledgeable authors.
I agree with you in regards to the fact that the JSTOR flow with more professionalism. The Op-ends concentrate more on a specific audience. Appealing to a very specific group of people is a goal of the op-ends in that even the title itself would only appeal to the indented audience, i.e. townhall editorial about liberals.
ReplyDeleteYour fellow blogger,
Kina Bramlette
Hello Nick!
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that Op-Eds are more easier to follow than actual articles because they mainly go to one side of the argument and it is more opinion based. In a way it makes it easier to choose an audience and an argument. It is funny on how you picked political Op-Eds when you have no interest in politics. I have never seen "Stranger Things" even though I read that article as well and the JSTOR article made it seem like the show is just like any other show. The whole nosebleed thing made it seem like the show is build on cliches but that is just my opinion so far with just reading the article. Hopefully the actual show proves me wrong because I have heard so many good things about it.
-Lisset Perales