In
Washington Monthly’s blog “Would-be Judge’s on a Mission From God” by Steve
Benen, Steve discusses how certain judges, if elected, in California would use religious morals as a
basis for their judgment. Benen makes his claim to Californian voting adults. The
author somewhat builds his credibility by referencing “the Taliban in
Afghanistan” but he doesn’t build on the reference so that his readers
understand it. When reading this you can
easily tell that Steve has strong opinion about this idea of judge’s ruling
based on religious beliefs.
The
author could have done many things to improve his credibility which is
relatively low. By referencing the Taliban he starts to build his credibility but
when he doesn’t explain the reference, assuming we’ll understand, brings his credibility back down. Benen does gain some credibility back
when he uses quotes from Craig Candelore who is an attorney as well as a
supporter for these judges.
The
argument is one sided. Steve makes his feelings very strong about how he feels
about judges that will “promise to be biased, partial jurists, basing their
decisions on a religious agenda.” From reading this sentence the reader develops
a negative feeling towards these judge’s because of the author’s choice of
words. At the end of the blog Steve
states that “organizers of this effort believe they have a reasonably good
chance at pulling it off -- and they may very well be right” this statement
seems contradicting to the blog. At the beginning he talks about how horrible
it would be to have these judge’s elected and at the end he states that they
will most likely win creates doubt towards the author.
Steve
Benen’s blog is packed with emotion, yet it lacks the credibility to really
bring the blog full circle. Benen’s word choice and overwhelming emotion easily
leads you in the direction he wanted. Using more sources and explaining the references
will create an even stronger blog that the reader will have no doubt believing
and understanding.
No comments:
Post a Comment