nov/dec pundit 2
Charles M. Blow
"Trump's Black College Spectacle"
The New York Times
Oct. 27, 2019
Charles Blow examines Trump's history with criminal justice reform after he is awarded the Bipartisan Justice Award by the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center. The Justice Center is a group of black activists who organized the 2019 Second Step Presidential Forum at Benedict College in South Carolina. The group gave Trump its Bipartisan Justice Award for his signing of the First Step Act, which allowed for the release of a few nonviolent federal inmates. Blow introduces his bigger purpose by bringing up Trump's unfortunate record regarding the intersections of people of color and criminal justice.
Blow supports his claim that Trump is the enemy of progressive criminal justice reform with solid evidence. He brings up how Trump advocated for New York to adopt the death penalty in response to the Central Park Five. He supports the Stop-and-Frisk program in New York City after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional because of racial profiling. When using such well known and shocking examples, Charles Blow proves his claim by gaining the reader's trust since they can relate to hearing about these famous things. Blow takes this a step further with maybe the most appealing example: Trump telling cops to rough people up more when arresting them.
"Trump's Black College Spectacle"
The New York Times
Oct. 27, 2019
Charles Blow examines Trump's history with criminal justice reform after he is awarded the Bipartisan Justice Award by the 20/20 Bipartisan Justice Center. The Justice Center is a group of black activists who organized the 2019 Second Step Presidential Forum at Benedict College in South Carolina. The group gave Trump its Bipartisan Justice Award for his signing of the First Step Act, which allowed for the release of a few nonviolent federal inmates. Blow introduces his bigger purpose by bringing up Trump's unfortunate record regarding the intersections of people of color and criminal justice.
Blow supports his claim that Trump is the enemy of progressive criminal justice reform with solid evidence. He brings up how Trump advocated for New York to adopt the death penalty in response to the Central Park Five. He supports the Stop-and-Frisk program in New York City after a federal judge ruled it unconstitutional because of racial profiling. When using such well known and shocking examples, Charles Blow proves his claim by gaining the reader's trust since they can relate to hearing about these famous things. Blow takes this a step further with maybe the most appealing example: Trump telling cops to rough people up more when arresting them.
Mr. Blow,
ReplyDeleteAfter seeing how regressive Trump seems to be going with criminal justice reform, why would a group full of minorities give him a criminal justice award? Do you think Trump is trying to move away from his unfortunate past with criminal justice and move toward a more progressive approach?
I think Blow is very persuasive in his column because of his tone as well. His formal and informative tone makes him more credible to the readers. Also, since he is talking about very solemn and significant issues, his tone matches the readers' emotions while reading the piece. This column is well crafted to evoke emotion, but also provide lots of logical evidence as well.
ReplyDeleteI have seem several articles like this in the past few years regarding the president. Authors, like Blow, think that by providing evidence from the past that supports their narrative they are convincing their audience. However, they blatantly ignore present examples that show the exact opposite of what they are arguing. This back fires and leads to their loss of credibility.
ReplyDeleteBlow certainly makes bold claims about the president’s opinions and core values in this article. While Blow provides convincing evidence that supports some of these claims, he does not account for any counterarguments and ignores all possible nuance in the situation. Unfortunately, instead of appearing credible and level-headed, Blow merely comes across as overly invested in this subject matter and unable to provide an unbiased view of the circumstances surrounding this legislation and the president’s choices. Although, I appreciate how Blow’s tone reflects is genuine concern for the state of the nation and its broken justice system. While a bit inflammatory, his language effectively informs the reader of this plight.
ReplyDeleteBlow provides very shocking and emotional arguments against President Trump, however, he does not include the positive things that Trump has accomplished regarding criminal justice. Therefore, bias is present in the article and leads to a loss of credibility for Blow's audience.
ReplyDeleteWhile I agree with Blow, I must admit, like everyone else here, that he is leaving out some of the positive actions by the President in favor of criminal justice. Blow has some pretty damaging evidence, but it would have been valuable to add a counterargument – any complexity at all, really. While his tone and the evidence he includes are nice, his bias ends up being in the way of a well-rounded piece.
ReplyDeleteIn this article, Blow takes a positive award and examines the deeper darker meaning behind it. This is somewhat of a "calling out" of Trump because Blow reveals the president's past to undermine him and the award he has received.
ReplyDeleteAlthough Blow gives adequate evidence about Trump and the negative things he has done regarding criminal justice, he fails to see the other side of the argument. Nevertheless, the tone he establishes in this piece is persuasive and solemn.
ReplyDelete