On March
25, 2015, CNN published an article online addressing the current controversy
between Jeremy Clarkson and the BBC. Clarkson
was the host of the incredibly popular show, “Top Gear”. Clarkson had been involved in an altercation
with a show producer and was suspended and later dropped from the show. Although his actions were absolutely
unacceptable, Clarkson is notorious for his overtly aggressive and vulgar
personality bringing to question whether the BBC should have taken the action
they did by firing Clarkson. With the
immense following Clarkson has, it has become a big debate calling the
attention of people all around the world.
Although
the article does contain aspects of the official style, there are obvious
structural and fundamental signs of the plain style. With one or two
sentence paragraphs, and a simple, clear, and concise message, I can identify
the plain style and the purpose of the plain style. With the average
readability grade level score around 10th grade, I would argue that the number
of quotations and names of people and places contribute to the height of the
number. To reach the intended audience, I assume those who are/were fans
of the show and Jeremy Clarkson, this article needed to be written in a style
that would be accessible. Naturally, the plain style seems to fit the
bill.
Recognizing
the fact that BBC’s “Top Gear” reaches nearly 350 million viewers, it is safe
to say there is the interest of the audience to consider. Deep within the
article, there was an obvious bias in favor of Clarkson. This report
could have been objective or completely ignored the overarching opinion of the
public, but it did not. Why would an author choose this? To please
the audience, that’s why. Through a small amount of research, it was
apparent to me that the general public and viewers were siding with Clarkson.
As for appeal, the authors of the article decided on elements of the
plain style to subtly takes sides.
The
first sentence/paragraph of the article was glaring. Stated simply,
“Jeremy Clarkson won't have his contract renewed as host of "Top
Gear" after he apparently busted his producer's lip and verbally abused
him, the BBC announced Wednesday.” I would conclude that this statement
is clear-cut and understandable initially. Taking a closer look at the
diction used, I was able to identify a word that changed my interpretation of
this statement. Apparently. Looking at the word apparently and the
impact it had on the sentence, it made me question whether this story about
Clarkson being involved in a physical and verbal altercation actually even
happened. The word also conveys that this contract renewal decision by
the BBC is based on an allegation, not pure, hard evidence. It shifted
the blame from Clarkson to the BBC, which heads the trail of bias.
The following sentence begins with,
“Clarkson, who hosted one of the most-watched television shows in the world…” How
is this biased? Well, there are countless ways that the authors could
have used a qualifier in addressing Clarkson. They could have made a
statement regarding his bluntness and controversial commentary, but they chose
not to. When an audience member considers a phrase like, “hosted one of
the most-watched television shows in the world,” no matter who is being
described, there is power and credibility placed within them.
This article also stated that
“Clarkson made a number of attempts to apologize” which was directly followed
by “BBC Director General Tony Hall issued a statement announcing Clarkson was
being dropped.” This order and lack of
transition cause the audience to view the situation differently. There is information missing between
Clarkson’s numerous apologies and the reasoning behind the BBC’s decision to
fire him. Because this information is
missing, it makes it easier for the audience to side with Clarkson, assuming
that he apologized, and the BBC simply would not accept his apologies. The way these two simple sentences were
crafted created a clear and concise message, but were ambiguous when it came to
the perspective of the BBC.
Another very important aspect of
this article that clearly demonstrated bias in favor of Clarkson were featured
Tweets from various powerful sources.
There was a series of three tweets from Richard Hammond, Rupert Murdoch,
and Jeremy Clarkson himself. Richard
Hammond continues as a member of Top Gear, and worked closely with Clarkson
building a strong friendship. Rupert
Murdoch is a huge name in the media world, and incredibly successful in the
field. Hammond tweeted, “Gutted as such
a sad end to an era. We’re all three of
us idiots in our different ways but it’s been an incredible ride
together.” The emotional connection and
appeal furthers the questioning about whether the BBC made the right decision
or not. Murdoch tweeted, “How stupid can
BBC be in firing Jeremy Clarkson? Funny
man with great expertise and huge following.”
If that doesn’t persuade an audience to think a certain way, having a
man in the business with experience and great insight question the BBC, then
I’m not sure what would convince the audience otherwise. The final tweet is from Clarkson
himself. He said, “Many many thanks to
all of the people who have called for my reinstatement. I’m very touched. We shall all learn next week what will
happen.” Clarkson sounds gracious and
genuine addressing the concerns of his followers. Not one tweet featured an opinion in
opposition to Clarkson. The use of
exemplum in this case created an article in favor of Clarkson, especially with
the insight of Murdoch. The informality
of the Twitter medium also contributed to the creation of the plain style, using
it to discretely take the side of Clarkson and place the blame on the BBC.
Initially, this article is an easy
read explaining the situation. Looking
deeper, it’s apparent that there is bias throughout that sways the audience in
the favor of Clarkson. This specific
example of the plain style demonstrated simple sentences and seemed clear cut
and concise to appeal to the audience.
Without overtly stating that the BBC had made a huge mistake, the
authors seemed to leave holes where the perspective of the BBC belonged. The constant use of exemplum throughout, in
which the authors provided justification for Clarkson’s actions, provides a
better sense of Clarkson’s character which showed that he did participate in
anything all too unexpected. The
informality of including Tweets also showed the plainness, yet the Tweets
chosen were only in favor of Clarkson.
All of these aspects point to the use of the plain style to sway the
audience to side with Clarkson, or to appeal to the expansive following
Clarkson has. One might ask for what
other reasons CNN would publish an article with such bias? This is something to think about when
processing the context and spheres surrounding the issue.
KW
No comments:
Post a Comment