Here are a couple of questions to guide you as you comment:
1: Who is the audience that Egan is trying to capture with this article?
2: Do the examples Egan give make the article more credible or more interesting?
3: Are the protesters really analyzing the situation, or are they jumping to conclusions based on prior opinions?
4: What writing strategies does the author use in this article?
5: Does Egan takes any sides, against or in support of the OWS, or does he remain unbiased throughout the article?
I feel that Egan is trying to sway the people who are on the fence with their thoughts on Wall street being responsible for the economic downfall. The examples that he talks about I think make the article more interesting since we really don't know with out a shadow of doubt if Soros did indeed provide funding for the Adbusters. And we all know that if Rush Limbaugh says it true than it must be !!!!!
ReplyDeleteI think that Egan is trying to capture the average, working American in this article. I do not feel that the protestors are jumping to conclusion to prior opinions, because each person has their own reasoning to protesting and to take part in this. I believe if you protest there are always room for more analyzing, but when you strongly feel something and it is effecting the way you live then I think they have the right to make that choice. Egan to me is a little biased towards Soros tactics because the whole article basically has to do with him and his ways.
ReplyDeleteEgan definitely makes it clear that he is in 100% support of the protests occurring on wall street. He suggests several times that Soros could be the man that is the brain child and sole provider for the funding for this protest. He offers no alternative options as to how they could be receiving funding and doesn't encourage his readers to question it. He does however offer several points in support of the fact that Soros is the financial provider.
ReplyDeleteIts likely that the protesters spent the past several years analyzing the situation, and after the Adbusters campaign, decided to ignite a protest. It seems to have a heavy following and a serious amount of interest, which doesn't sprout overnight.
Egan is attempting to capture the people that have yet to take a side on the Wall Street debate. His examples in the article give his story a solid backing, and credibility to the claims that Soros is behind it all, only referencing events that link Soros to the fundings. The protestors seem to have analyzed the situation, especially when Egan says the protestors were not fans of the 2008 banks bailout or the government buyouts. Egan attempts to persuade the audience to take the side of the protestors by only talking about the protestor's viewpoint and not the Wall Street viewpoint.
ReplyDeleteThis article is very informative and useful for me to realize what is going on in the financial field. Moreover, this article is targeting the audience group of people who are interested in the on-going situation at Wall-Street in New York. Thus, I think, for those who are interests in field of economy or finance would have better understanding than others.
ReplyDeleteHowever, for me it was very hard to catch what messages Egan wants to give. I could understand what Egan trying to tell to viewers, however, I couldn’t find out why he writes this article. It would have been better if Egan explain or give some information about why giving fund to OWS is controversial. In addition to that I think Egan stayed at neutral position when he write the article about who is behind the OWS since he puts some evidences and interviews about if the Soro really the one who funds the OWS or not.
I didn't feel that Egan displayed a strong opinion one way or another. Even if Egan is confident that Soros is the man funding the protests, I don't see how this suggests that Egan himself is in support of the protests. In fact, he goes as far as recognizing the London news calling the protests "Passionate but Pointless", and he does nothing to refute this sentiment. As for the protestors themselves, it's hard to say whether they are "analyzing the situation", but that doesn't seen entirely relevant. They are protestors, not analysts.
ReplyDeleteI feel that Egan wasn't trying to take a side. When I was reading the article, I felt that Egan was blaming Soros for the protest that is happening in New York. The first sentence of the article, "...but the group that started it all may have benefited indirectly from the largesse of one of the world's richest men," already implied that someone was the cause of the incident. Then the article continued to go on about Soros, providing "evidence" on why he could be the person behind the protests.
ReplyDeleteI strongly disagree with the statement Egan makes to begin his article. He says that only the rich can make money on wall street nowadays, while the average American can't. You just need to know what you're doing in regards to the stock market. Personally, I have even made money on wall street, so his statement just doesn't sit well with me. I did agree with Soros' point about how there needed to be bolder action by the Obama administration. They really butchered that whole banking thing up. The banks really aren't a whole lot better off than they a were a few years back. I will agree that it is easier to make money on wall street, if you are smart enough with your money, anyone can be successful!
ReplyDeleteAs I read this article, I didnt see the part where Egan was taking a side. What I got out of it was He was acussing Soros for being behind wall street protests because Soros gave up money towards it. Agreeing with Samantha, the implications that someone was the cause of the incident, could clearly be inferred in the first paragraph.
ReplyDeleteI personally didn't like the article very much. I just found it poorly written for my tastes. However, I feel Egan was trying to reach out to an audience of your typical working class Americans and people who are interested in what is going on in the United States. The article was very informative, but just not what I would typically end up reading all the way through.
ReplyDeleteEgan is very biased throughout the whole article; he makes it quite obvious which side he agrees more with. Despite my thoughts on the article as a whole, I did enjoy the paragraphs where Egan explains how the protests started and described the poster.
I think the fact that Egan is speculating that Soros is supporting the protests financially taints Egan's credibility. This makes the tone of the article more biased. I don't think writing strategies were utilized very well, the article was kind of hard to follow. I don't think the protesters are analyzing the situation very well. From what I have observed, people who feel strongly enough about something to protest will be driven by mostly opinion.
ReplyDeleteEgan uses an analytical approach to the article. However in his approach his is biased, by only supporting a single side. Egan's argument would have had more credit if he offered an unbiased argument, and supported both sides.
ReplyDeleteEgan gears his article to the middle class americans. A major point to the 99% movement is that the protest is being held lower and middle class americans who are being taxed more than the wealthy. His examples are a bit unorganized in my opinion. While reading, I found his arguments to jump from one piece of random testimony from a source to another. From what I have read, the protesters started this movement because of the major hardships america faces. The major demand I think they proclaim is to increase the taxes on the wealthy, so that the rich do not get wealthier and the poor continue to stay poor. The author continues to show other peoples opinions on who is funding the movement, however, it is suggested that the author also uses these opinions to make out a leader of the mass mob. Like the man said at the end of the article, every movement needs a leader and demands. All the of the greatest movements have had a figurehead who speaks on behalf of the people. The group is just starting to grow, but perhaps overtime it will become organized and get something accomplished.
ReplyDeleteThe article definitely seems biased in my opinion. By being sympathetic with Soros and painting him as a good guy, it indicates a general agreement with the protesters. While Soros may not be directly involved, glorifying him glorifies the protests since he agrees with the protesters.
ReplyDeletePersonally, I think the article would have been better if was looking at the specifics behind the protests, and how credible those complaints may or may not be.
The audience the author is trying to reach is the average american who did not know much about the Wall Street protests. The article was very factual and wanted to inform people. It also had a slight bias towards the protesters. Even though the author says it is possible for a billionaire to fund the protest he tries to paint a good picture of the protesters. The article is more just stating information about the protest and what people have said about who is backing the protests, not really analyzing what they mean or trying to find out who is actually behind them. Some rhetoric the author uses are links in the article and headers grouping certain paragraphs together. I think it is a very interesting article but the subject is depressing and I don't know how much I can read about it.
ReplyDeleteI think Egan intended for this article to be read by average middle class Americans. I thought this article was more argumentative because it seemed like Egan agreed with the protesters, making the article a little biased. I feel like the examples make the article more interesting. I think that the protesters analyzed the situation well.
ReplyDeleteEgan's article seems to be aimed at people who don't know who to support regarding the protests. Based on Egan's comments, it looks like he supports the protesters. Egan's style of writing is effective, but using an unbiased view would have enhanced the article even more.
ReplyDeleteIt is pretty evident in Egan's writing that he is biased towards the protesters. His writing and examples were very interesting and kept be engaged because I am a bit uninformed when it comes to politics and/or the economy. There could have been less quotes and a more unbiased view, but overall, I would say this was a successful article.
ReplyDelete