The article's title, sarcastically pointing out the irony of a peace prize being awarded for going to war, instantly reveals the writer's cynicism towards the authenticity of such a prize. Without any direct criticism of the award, the article seemed to allow an independent diagnosis by the reader. However, through its structuring, the writer was in fact seeking to coerce the reader into a position that fell in line with the bemusement displayed by the title. Any possible persuasion to the contrary would be circumvented by information which vilified Putin. For example, whilst the reasons behind the committee's award to Putin were revealed, this was soon rebuffed by a single sentence "exposing" Russian human rights abuses in Chechnya. Despite starting off with the words "In fact", evidences were not put forth to substantiate the statement. To further discredit the award, the writer then chooses to reveal its insignificance, even amongst its recipients, even going as far as to cite problems amongst its founding members. In summary, the article is in fact a discrediting, damning rebuke of the peace prize, intended to persuade its audience of the prize's political roots.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/16/world/asia/chinas-confucius-prize-awarded-to-vladimir-putin.html
Eloquent, focused and succinct: this is a well-written reflection. Good!
ReplyDelete