After taking a first look at the
first paragraph of the article by John Sinnott and Tom McGowan, Lance
Armstrong's demise: How an all-American hero fell to earth, one might feel
as though they are reading a text published during the English Renaissance
instead of October 2012. Rather than
warmly inviting the reader to learn about the developments surrounding Lance
Armstrong’s doping allegations, the authors compare Armstrong academically to
the mythical heroes of the Greeks. For
academic writing, this introduction would not be a problem, but in journalism
these references present a challenge.
One of the key parts to journalism is writing in the plain style, active
verbs, simple word-choice, clear subjects and objects, in order to create a
clear message. Also, there is a time
constraint on journalists. Because they
often have to publish different articles during the week, many pieces of
journalism are often short, to the point, and sometimes fail to report on the
complete context of the article.
Therefore, mainstream journalism tries to develop pieces writing that
can are entertaining, easily understood by many different readers in a quick
period time. This is one of many
problems seen throughout this article. In an attempt to write an academically
stimulating piece of journalism, Sinnott and McGowan risk alienating readers
and reporting an incomplete truth.
Let us take a closer look at the
first paragraph:
Lance Armstrong bestrode the sport
of cycling like a colossus between 1999 and 2005. His feat of winning seven
consecutive titles at the Tour de France -- arguably the world's toughest
sporting event -- was like the demigod Hercules completing his "Twelve
Labors."
When I read the first sentence, one word struck me as out of
place, “bestrode.” According to
Thefreedictionary.com, the word “bestrode” is defined as “to tower over” or a
synonym for the verb “to straddle.” The
problem with these definitions is that they do not correlate with one another
very well, leaving the reader with a possibly ambiguous definition. In order to justify the author's word choice,
first, we have to ask if the reader who reading this article has a vocabulary
that includes “bestrode.” Second,
assuming that the reader does know the definition of “bestrode,” we have to ask
which of the many, slightly different definitions they would associate with
this word. Although the authors of this
article were most likely trying to show their ability to write in an educated
manner, they did so by using a word that is too ambiguous. This is a problem because the plain style
should try to minimize the ambiguity of language by using words with more
concrete meanings, such as “towered over” or “dominated” instead of
“bestrode.” The authors might rebuttal
by saying this word aptly captures the action of riding a bicycle better than
many others, but “bestrode” acts more to create a visual image than it does to
communicate a concrete message.
The
problems with the opening paragraph do not stop after the first sentence. The Sinnott and McGowan continue to show off
their educations by making a distinct reference to classical, Greek
writing. Although this reference might
be understood and appreciated by the limited number of readers who understand
it, it presents a clear problem to those without the required knowledge. Sinnott and McGowan are assuming that every
reader who comes across this article will have a basic understanding of
mythology. This assumption could be a
major downfall of the article. Because
the classical reference appears so early in the article, certain readers might
misinterpret the article stop reading it altogether.
So who is
this article written for? Well presumably, it was written for everyone, and there
is evidence of this. The article
contains quite a bit of background on both Armstrong’s career and his doping
allegations. By building up the reader’s
base knowledge of the subject, Sinnott and McGowan show their intent to create
an audience with a similar background of knowledge. Additionally, the authors include plenty of
dialog in the article. Being that the
spoken word is often phrased more colloquially than the written, this allows readers
of all different reading levels to find and identify passages that they can
read comfortably. This dialog also helps
to clarify some of the terms used earlier in the article, such as “doping,” a
slang term for using performance enhancing drugs and creates a sense of
credibility for the authors by allowing different audiences to associate with
their writing. An example of this comes
from when the authors quote Emma O’Reilly, a former associate of Armstrong, who
states that Armstrong told her, “a small, plastic-wrapped package... ‘contained
some things he was uneasy traveling with and had not wanted to throw away at
the team hotel.’" This quote helps
to clarify that the doping agents, which were possibly used by Armstrong, were
possibly illegal to possess under the rules and regulations of professional
cycling and also shows that instead of simply making claims, the authors have
researched this topic. Consequently, no
matter how educated the reader is on Armstrong's crisis, he or she is able to infer
the potential legal disaster that Armstrong was knowingly putting himself in
rather than the authors stating that explicitly.
The purpose
of writing this article might not seem so clear, but it can be derived. It appears Sinnott and McGowan are writing
this article to act as a narrative of the events surrounding Armstrong, but a
closer look shows this article to be more of a condemnation of Armstrong’s
actions than simply to report. This can
be seen through the tone of the writing in the article. The first six paragraphs contain the majority
of the background of the article. These
paragraphs are written in a surprisingly unbiased yet uplifting way, describing
Armstrong’s battle with testicular cancer and the creation of the Livestrong
foundation. But starting with “but then
came the fall from grace,” the tone takes a dramatic twist in the following
paragraphs. The article seems to take an
aggressive stance on Armstrong’s investigation, forgetting about his status in
the philanthropic and non-athletic realms and focusing on his past. The excerpts and short interviews that follow
the brief introduction construct the majority of the article that follows and
create a text that subjects the reader to an unbalanced use of personal
testimonies.
Sinnott and
McGowan use sources that show an intense bias against Armstrong including Emma
O’Reilly, a former Armstrong associate, and Floyd Landis, a former teammate and
steroid user. The authors even allow
Armstrong to remain the only named steroid users and omitting the names of
other potential users. Because the
authors include only sources that seem to incriminate Armstrong, a distinct,
biased tone is created. This tone can
subliminally sway the readers of the article against Armstrong without giving
them an equal and unbiased description of his situation.
The
appearance of a tone in professional writing would generally not a problem, but
this piece of writing is meant to be read by a wide range of people. Therefore, by creating a possibly negative
tone in the article, Sinnott and McGowan risk offending possible readers. However, There is a flip-side to the
article's bias.
Journalists
are motivated to generate readers and one simple way to develop readers is to
make their article interesting and fun to read.
This is the strength of the bias in this article. With the bias, the Sinnott and McGowan create
a readership for themselves that might not otherwise exist. Many people reading this article might
already know a bit about Armstrong and his possible steroid use. He has been in the media since the early
2000’s and due to his notoriety as as a professional athlete, Armstrong has
drawn many critics. This creates a few
specific readerships, those who oppose Armstrong and those looking to learn a
bit about him. However, this one group
does not make up all the readers of the article, nor do they represent the
entire body of educated readers.
There are
readers who do have a thorough knowledge of the context surrounding Armstrong
and his racing career, as well as bicycling history. Those in this group understand that before
the recent era of medical testing for steroids, steroid use was common in the
sport, as it was in baseball and track and field. These readers have an advantage that others
do not. These readers can understand the
article in a more complete context and understand the bias contained within
it.
Alternatively,
the authors could have chosen to include more sources from Armstrong’s
supporters and possibly attract readers that way. However, by including a well written
introduction that allows people to quickly understand the background
surrounding the article, the authors are also able to give themselves the
credibility needed to make their argument against Armstrong. Also, this article is well structured and
flows nicely, because of the tone, and allows many different audiences to read
and enjoy the arguments posed by the authors and develop their own questions
and opinions surround the Armstrong developments. This creates a greater “marketplace of ideas”
in which all audiences are able to discuss their opinions in a civil and adult
manner.
Ultimately,
through the use of tone, classical references, and purposeful sources, Sinnott
McGowan have constructed a highly entertaining article. However, they have sacrificed something in
the process. By failing to include sources
from both Armstrong and his critics, this article fails to depict a full truth
and context surrounding the article. The
authors did not give enough context on the history of doping culture in cycling
and quickly acknowledged the extensive charity work Armstrong and his peers
have done. Because of this, the readers
who did not have a background before reading the article attain only a
satisfactory background and an incomplete truth.
Special thanks to Divinecarolina.com for the delightful
image.
--Sam Hackworth
No comments:
Post a Comment