This post, written by Deqa Ahmed as a critique of the article Romney Deflates the President, by Peggy Noonan for the Wall Street Journal, is one I agree with. The original article, regarding the first 2012 presidential debate, dove too far into the Romney –or, Republican- point of view, revealing the author’s intention and political opinion.
That said, I agree with my classmate concerning Noonan’s writing style. I too found it easily read, thought provoking, clear and concise. I also appreciated the natural feel of her writing style; not truly formal, and with enough personal comments that indicated that it was not necessarily a subjective piece concerning the presidential election. I found it refreshing. The article made sense of topics that the audience may not be familiar with; the audience is not guaranteed to be fluent in politics.
I also agree that the way the argument was presented was effective. Noonan gave plenty of evidence to support Mitt Romney’s victory over President Obama, as was mentioned in the critique, and gave a very convincing argument. That being said, I disagree that there “seemed to be a slight bias”. In fact, I found the bias of the piece almost painfully blatant the entire way through. Noonan seemed to abandon all objectivity throughout the piece and instead use the piece as an opportunity to share her conservative views. Regarding the critique, I agree with most of Deqa’s argument, as her opinion is well represented and explained. However, I would disagree with the opinion that the use of picture and videos was a positive addition; based on the prominence of both politicians discussed –Obama and Romney- I felt it was an unnecessary addition to the article. Everyone knows what Obama and Romney look like, and this only allows Noonan to provide photos that support her argument against Obama. It adds another level of subjectivity to an article that should be striving to be more objective, and only adds to the bias. That said Deqa provided a clear, thorough critique of the article, and I agree with her opinions of Noonan’s original article, particularly concerning the issue of bias.