Close Reading No. 1

For this post, the article I chose was "Caught in the Crossfire" by David Weigel, which can be found at http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2013/09/crossfire_returns_to_cnn_the_new_debate_show_isn_t_bad.single.html.

The article, "Caught in the Crossfire," looks at the recently revived C.N.N. show, Crossfire, and how it relates to its earlier version as well as political trends.  Though Weigel both attacks and praises the show, he also points out the fundamental issues that plague politics-based television programs.  He achieves these effects using mostly informal diction, providing details that relate strongly to his arguments, and some unconventional syntax that provides emphasis on certain points.

Weigel uses a mix of mostly colloquial and some formal (technical) diction, which reveals a derisive tone through sarcasm.  For example, when describing the atmosphere surrounding the first episode of the show, he uses the word "fete" to describe the public's reactions, implying they were actually excited about seeing the show.  However, in the very next sentence he describes the show as "din," which refers to unpleasant sounds.  Through this positive-negative description, Weigel puts forth his opinion that, even if the program shows the potential to offer some new insights into the political world, Crossfire will fall back into the trend of divisive, biased politics that has come to be expected of all political shows.  However, Weigel uses political jargon to maintain a serious tone amid his poking fun at the show.  For example, he describes Stephanie Cutter, one of the hosts, as in "campaign mode" and "Obama-boosting," which though rather comical sounding, still point interest on the major issue of taking sides on the show.  Finally, his use of colloquial diction makes the passage seem almost like Weigel is having a conversation with the reader.  For example, he describes Newt Gingrich as "delightfully high on himself."  Weigel could easily have used the word egoistic, but by using this phrase, he breaks the author-reader barrier of typical journalism, which usually has a much more formal tone.

The details that Weigel includes and references in the article also help articulate his message to the reader.  For example, in his description of the downfall of the original Crossfire, Weigel includes the fact that comedian Jon Stewart recognized it as only another bias-based debate show, as well as the fact that C.N.N.'s president agreed with that statement.  This really points out the absurdity of the show in that a comedian (ironically) turned out to be a better pundit than the experts that ran Crossfire, including the network's president himself.  Also, Weigel provides a majority of his details on the debates that take place on the show, but he barely squeezes in one paragraph to talk about the more effective host, S.E. Cupp, whom he describes as a positive element.  This left me with the impression that his positive comments were minor concessions or counterpoints that did not offer much of an argument against, and instead highlighted, the substantial amount of flaws that he pointed out in the show.  On the other hand, Weigel did include details on the biases present in the arguments of both parties, which leave the reader with a nonbiased image of the story.  He provides the example of Cutter (a Democrat) contending her views against a Republican congresswoman as well as that of Bob Menendez (a Republican) arguing against Syrian intervention.  This is vital because the article is not focused on either Republican or Democrat political views, but rather on the effect that their debate has on the show and its viewers.

Weigel's creative use of syntax also emphasizes his points and helps him return to his argument throughout the piece.  When he describes Cutter's interesting speaking style in response to outrageous arguments as intentionally choppy to bring out her point, he masterfully couples that to a series of sentence fragments to give the reader a direct example of this method ("...pausing. At odd. Intervals to make. A point").  Weigel also uses plenty of interrupters in his sentences, which add in descriptive details as well as build emphasis on certain ideas.  In the same paragraph where he describes Cutter's TV style, Weigel describes her rise to prominence through media success: "...TV hits, hard-won TV hits, TV hits that other advisers wanted so badly..."  This series of interrupters adds a strong emphasis on her successes on TV, which set the stage for Weigel's description of her communication methods on TV.  This technique also lends itself to the conversational element of his writing because it makes it sound as if he is speaking directly to the reader.  Another technique that Weigel employs is the use of short sentences, which are especially noticeable since most of his sentences are rather long.  For example, he writes, "Those are the ingredients for good TV.  Nobody on the screen used it."  These sentences bring out a strong critical voice from Weigel and depict some frustration from his perspective.

Though David Weigel's article, "Caught in the Crossfire" is definitely not an example of conventional journalism, his writing makes use of a variety of interesting rhetorical techniques.  His blended diction, effective use of details, and creative syntax combine to enhance his critique of the revived news program and emphasize his notion that political programs are too easily merged with bias and debates.