 |
| Untested Rape Kits |
Nicholas Kristof is an American journalist, who
has been writing for The New York Times since 2001. He is widely known for transforming opinion
journalism due to his unique emphasis focusing on human rights abuses and social
injustices.
In one of his many articles
published in the Sunday Column, Kristof makes the argument that if we’re to be
outraged by recent political candidates’ offensive comments made about rape, we
should be even more disgusted by the offensive policies. How can policies concerning rape be
offensive? The fact that there are hundreds of thousands of rape kits — DNA
evidence from rapes — that have never
been tested, is a pretty good place to start. They just pile up in evidence
rooms, often untouched and neglected.
If Kristof were to
tackle this important issue by writing in the Official Style, it is highly
likely the New York Times would throw
his work straight into the trash. The Official Style tends to be as objective
as possible, which often confuses readers and results in lack of voice. In my
opinion, a successful journalist must
have a voice; it is the only way to persuade readers into believing what you
have to say. In his article, Kristof successfully uses the plain style to
develop voice as well as clarity, as an attempt to relate to his
readers. He even uses humor in his writing to even further connect with his
audience:
“Partly
to save money, those rape kits often sit untested for years on the shelves of
police storage rooms, particularly if the victim didn't come outfitted with a
halo”
In addition to his usage of dark humor, this sentence also
uses the rhetorical device exemplum to
provide specific examples to the reader about why and how these things are
happening. He clearly states that the neglect of multiple rape kits can be traced
back to desire to cut costs. There is absolutely no ambiguity. He plainly
argues that rape kits are unjustly being left untested in storage rooms,
leaving rape victims petrified, and rapists thinking they’re off the hook. By ‘getting to the point’ Kristof is using the
plain style effectively. He also is effective in breaking down the barrier
between the author and the reader by being able
to keep his overall reading ease grade level to around a 10. He adeptly
balances his own credibility and reader accessibility throughout the piece. For
example, he doesn't shy away from using simple phrases like, “verbal stupidity”
and “stupid policies” but he is also quick to cite his sources, and provide
detailed descriptions of where he is acquiring his information from. It doesn't hurt his credibility either that he is one of the most acclaimed journalists in
the world.
Kristof also poses multiple
different rhetorical questions throughout his article. For example, he states:
“If
we’re offended by insensitive words about rape, for example, shouldn't we be
incomparably more upset that rape kits are routinely left untested in the
United States?”
He is asking a question but not answering it because
the answer is obviously implied. By using rhetorical questions in his article,
Kristof effectively uses plain style. By comparing these two different
concepts, he makes the answer to this question simple to the reader. He is making a sharp contrast (by using
antithesis) to show us how absurd it is that we direct all our energy and anger
toward stupid comments made about rape. Distracted by words, we unfortunately
turn a blind eye to the unjust policies happening every single day. By using
rhetorical devices, Kristof makes a simple but compelling argument that our priorities
are, to put it plainly, a little out of whack.
It is also important to identify
the activity systems at work in this article:
“So I’m glad that
Democrats are jumping on Republican candidates’ words about rape, but I’d also
like to see those Democrats contribute something more than sound bites”
By reading this statement made by Kristof, we can better
understand how this text functions in American society, specifically concerning
the nature of politics. It is well known that The New York Times is a newspaper containing a liberal bias. It can be
assumed too from the above statement that Kristof identifies with the
Democratic Party, more than he would the Republican Party. However, it is
almost impossible not to recognize Kristof’s tone in this statement. He is
accusing the Democratic Party of being all words and no action. What Kristof is
doing as a writer is rare and effective; he is separating himself from the
politics by trying to reach the broader problem. He is breaking the norms of
the activity system functioning within the political world to reach his own
desired outcome of changing the policies and procedures of testing rape kits.
Democrats are often portrayed as
the good guys, especially in liberal news media such as the New York Times. To be honest, I admit it’s
hard not to view them as purely angelic when you have Republican candidates
running around saying that rape is “something God
intended to happen.” However, Kristoff
knows the problem is more complex than extreme right-wingers running their
mouths on things they don’t understand. He digs deeper to the real root of the
problem by addressing the indifference that leads our own criminal justice
system to allow all of these rape kits to go untested. Republicans and Democrats are continually allowing
this to happen, which is the real scandal regarding this issue.
Kristof also calls out
individual health insurance companies in his article. This further increases
the complexity of the activity system by creating tension:
“The lackadaisical attitude toward much sexual violence is
seen in another astonishing fact: Sometimes, women or their health insurance companies must pay to have their rape kits collected”
It’s no secret. Kristof is appalled
at our country’s inability to bring justice to victims of rape. The activities
system functioning in this text allows readers to see how hierarchies of power
function. Kristof sheds light on how power and money can result in outrageous
policies. By using the plain style, he effectively calls attention to the
problem, and asks for direct action:
“One way to start turning around this backward approach to
sex crimes would be to support the Sexual Assault Forensic Evidence Registry (Safer) Act, a
bipartisan bill in Congress that would help local jurisdictions count and test
their rape kits”
Emily Stacken
No comments:
Post a Comment