Second Editorial Critique on a Blog

The editorial I chose is called “What Will We Tell Our Kids And Grandkids About Climate Change?” by Michael Smyer. Michael is a guest writer for the Huffington Post. In his piece, he generally intends for everyone who will listen to read it because he thinks they should all care about this issue. However specifically, his audience is people who have someone younger that should worry for their future.

In his article, he writes about his concern for climate change and how it will affect future generations. He specifically wonders what he would say to his little grandsons and their cousin one day if people now don’t do enough to help prevent the dangerous possibilities of climate change. He spends the rest of the article articulating different options of what he could tell his grandsons to explain everything that’s caused climate change and what people are and aren’t doing. He meaningfully ends his article saying that “when our kids and grandkids ask us what we did about climate change, we need to have a simple, true answer: Our best“ (Smyer).

Michael’s main argument is that climate change will without a doubt have negative consequences if people continue to push it aside and not take significant action. Michael seems to value the environment, but more importantly, how the environment can affect humans and what kind of impact a neglected environment could have on the people that will be around to see the repercussions. Regarding the government, he explains that in order for citizens to do their part, one of the main ways to help would be to elect officials that have these values and that would see these changes through.

Michael verbally cites several sources of evidence when explaining how bad climate change is getting. He provides the link to a chart from Yale Program on Climate Change Communication. He discusses a poll from the Pew Research Center. He gives results from Ikea’s Climate Change Behaviour Index. He also borrows ideas from several experts in the field, giving their name and even the title of their book, if applicable.

Personally, I think this was a very successful argument. The basic ideas are convincing with the sufficient evidence as well as his ability to make his opinions relatable and apply to everyone’s life. I don’t often consider the affects of climate change or how I can help, but now, I feel like I want to get involved and do what I can. I already had the basic belief of leaving the world better than you found it before reading this article, so Michael’s argument has not required me to rethink anything I believe.

Editorial Critique

The editorial I chose is titled “Make My Sexual Assault Matter” by Mara Gay. Mara is a member of the New York Times editorial board. In her article, she begins by addressing Christine Blasey Ford’s naming of Mark Judge as “an alleged witness and accomplice in her assault” (Gay). She then goes on to relay a few details of her own assault, and how until now, she had never felt the need to recount her story because she thought it was unimportant due to how frequent the occurrence was for women. Finally, she explains her opinion of how she thinks men (specifically the ones in our government) aren’t doing their part to end this or at least fight against it.

Ms. Gay’s target audience is obviously all women, first and foremost, to rally them together and relate to them. Even more specifically, she is reaching out to women who have some sort of connection to sexual assault. However, it’s also written for men to read and hear and contemplate. And finally, it seems like she intends to spread general awareness and for everyone to hear her message and support the cause.

At the core of the article, Ms. Gay’s basic argument is for people, men specifically, to believe women when they tell their sexual assault stories, because currently, not enough people do. Focusing in on the specific situation at hand, she gives several examples of groups or people that she thinks need to take responsibility and do better. Regarding the United States’ government, she includes Congress, U.S. senators, and lawmakers in her list. This points to her next argument that even the U.S. government isn’t doing their part, and that to make any sort of positive progress, the first step is to believe the women but it is not enough to stop there. She thinks that even if you believe the stories, you must also act on that belief. Gay’s deeper argument is that the U.S. government is prioritizing popularity over what morally should be done. The evidence she gives for this is how the senators that say they believe Dr. Blasey are voting or Kavanaugh anyway.

I think this is a successful argument. Although many of my own, previous beliefs lie in Mara Gay’s words, I had never really considered who was responsible or should be held accountable, other than who literally assaulted the victims. It is commonly known that sexual assault happens often and that not a whole lot is being done about the issue, so Gay already has those generally known statistics working in her favor which are a huge backbone in her argument. However, with the way she writes, she also does a good job of being relatable and calling upon many different sets of audiences to have a reason to listen and feel something in support of her arguments.

The political implication in this article is that the U.S. government, is still male-driven. And when it comes to who “wins” in the political process, what should seem to make a difference, unfortunately does not.