There is more to reading than understanding its literal sense. At times, authors may articulate terminologies that are not meant to be taken carelessly or literally. At times, authors would intentionally use certain words at certain point in the article to evoke a reader’s perspective. Although it might seem as if the author is accurate about his work, a little research on the author can help understand the author’s stance. It can also help to know if the author is liable. To better clarify my proposition, I’ll give you an example as I scrutinize this article called “Dreaming of the Other Side of the Wire.”
As its principle, this article highlights points about the American immigration and the problem it faces. It was written by the Economist, and was published in the Special Report section of the paper in March 12, 2005.( The Economist Newspaper Ltd) The author includes subheadings within the article in order to emphasize his points. Some of these issues are about immigration policy, the issue of passport and visa, and also the patrol border. The point the article stresses is that the opposition of politic and economy is not working. The author implies that compromising at a common ground would be the best possible way to work this problem. Afterward, he proposes a solution to the problem. At the same time, the author keeps a liberal stance, while in favor of the topic.
To begin with, the Economist Newspaper was founded by James Wilson. This paper is a reputable weekly paper which was first published in London in September of 1843. (Gunn, Neal) It covers analysis and commentary, business and global political economy issues. It has an independent and intercontinental viewpoint. The Economist Newspaper is, rather, a collective of thoughts of different people called the Economist Group. (The Economists) It is written and published anonymously because the article can have at least four to five different authors or editors who contribute in it.
Although, the article did not specify a particular author or editor, Bill Emmott was the current head editor of the Economist Newspaper at that time. (Emmott) He is an international author and writer, who mostly focus on international affairs. Although it is quite impossible to tell whether the author is credible or not, the sources, from which that information derived, were accurate. At the end of the article the author includes a survey of Mexican migrants in the US, 2005. This is effective because the source is liable and plausible.
On the other hand, the article had some major limitations. Because the Economist newspaper supposed to have a certain stance which all its editors have to follow, it is hard to know how each individual co-author of this article really feel about certain things concerning the contents. They have some kind of restraint and limitation to their opinions. Plus, the Economist Newspaper has a more liberal view in political affairs. Therefore, it clearly show that the outcome of the article will be very biased and one sided.
In depth, the author constructs a scheme to help the audience follow his points. The author asks direct questions in order to address specific points to the audience. It also keeps the audience aware of what point the author is trying to make. As far as word choice, anyone with a minor high school degree could read and understand this article. The readability level of the text is comprehensible. It seems straight forward and most of the author’s points are clear and understandable.
In spite of vocabulary and grammar, the author seems negligent about his word usage. The author did not take time to translate quotes from their original language to English. The author assumes that the reader would be able to familiarize these words with those of the English vocabulary. Despite that, the author’s argumentative strategies are convincing. In order to identify key argument, the author stated direct questions in the article such as; “What is the solution to the immigration problem?” “What would be a more plausible figure for the growth in illegal immigration?” “To what overall effect?” (Gunn) These questions were answered directly within the paragraphs.
Comprehensively, readers of this article would have a better understanding of the article if they have common grounds and interests. For this reason, this article appears to pertain to politicians and also immigrants, who are able to read English. As far as politicians, their interest in this matter would depend on their stance, whether they are liberal, conservative, or communitarian. For instance, a liberal politician would have a complete opposite view of that matter than a communitarian. The liberal one would think that it is acceptable to let illegal immigrants come to the US, while the communitarian would have thought that order should be restored at the borderline and keep illegal immigrants from crossing it.
As the author mentions, the group that could be alienated with this article would be Americans that feels like the increase of immigrations is limiting their job availability. They would deem that it is unacceptable for others from across the nation to come in and take their jobs. At the same time, those immigrants, illegal or not, would feel otherwise. The argument they would use in order to support their opinion is that partial of the American people refuse to do certain job for a low pay.
The purpose of the article was to draw attention to the advantage and disadvantage of immigration on both politics and economy. Fundamentally, the author tries to reach a point where he can retrieve common ground within the problem. Then, the author proposes a solution to the problem. Although the writing was not expository, it did include some information in order to attain reasons for his stance.
Primarily, I don’t think the author is credible himself due to the fact that the article is a collection of different uniformed perspective. It seemed as if the paper was written by one person. But the truth is that there was more than one author, which means each one was to agree with the thesis that was set forth for them. Even if one of the authors had a different view of the matter, it would have not been expressed because it would have messed up the prototype of the article. This creates a negative perspective on the article. I believe if some people who read the Economist knew about the limitation of the writers of this article, they would have a different feeling about it.
Secondly, I believe that the author called attention to good points in the article. The author was up-to-date about the sources he provided. The sources were credible, and were easy to find. The argumentative strategies were very good. The language the author used was not too advance, which made the article readable by anyone one who grasp the basic of the English language. Although the sources may have been credible, it does not change the fact that there was some kind of boundaries set for the authors and editors who wrote this article.
In all, this article focuses on both the problem of immigration while connecting it to political issues. The author uses subheadings in order to explore certain points within the article. But because of the publisher’s standpoint, it made some of the author’s claims in the article a bit prejudiced. In addition, the author suggests a solution to the problems he mentioned. This solution includes loosening the rules and regulations on immigrations. The author feels that, although it might hurt Americans in some way, it would be in their best economic interest to be liberal about this matter. The author also kept in mind that he may face opposition for his suggested solution.
By:
Jonathan Celestin (Like Me on FB)
Follow me on Twitter @SubliminalPoet
[This is a essay I wrote, ref is available upon request]
