In my IB English Lang + Lit class, we analyzed an Op-Ed New York Times Columnist, I decided to read Michelle Goldberg's work. After reading many of her articles, I have noticed that she has definitely had certain techniques that repeat themselves. For example the use of quotes to describe many perspectives that are all evaluated in her work, directed, and then when she doesn't agree with them challenged. I personally love how much information she provided the reader with, and with even more information she debunks those same claims made by the opposition. I think that when it comes to the first article on critical race theory there are certain issues that you need to teach the young generation, and censoring issues like white privilege because they make people “uncomfortable: is not the best way to handle the situation. When it comes to the authoritarian abortion ban that pro-lifers are trying to implement I believe that the attempts that were discussed seemed faulty, and overall agree that in reality, they do not have any chance of being implemented into our constitution. Overall I think that this could definitely be a text type I discuss in my English IO seeing that the first relates to race and the next to women's reproductive rights.
Michelle Goldberg, American journalist and author, words this Op-Ed — “Trump’s Inevitable End (January 15th, 2021)” — that after years of a reign of terror, Donald Trump and his administration will have to face the consequences of their thoughtless acts. Goldberg starts the article by listing some of the many reasons why the former US president should have been stopped earlier, by writing about all the brands/people that are now refusing to work with him, and finally explaining Raskin’s plan to send the MAGA representative to prison. Her purpose is to make the case for Trump’s awful actions and ruling in order to convince the audience that the infamous republican deserved (and still does) not only being vacated but also taken to trial. Despite her clear despise for Trump, the amount of factual information present in the article allows the reader to formulate their own opinion and be well-informed on the subject.
Michelle Goldberg, in her opinion article “We Are Finally Getting Rid of Him (November 7th, 2020)”, argues that “Trump’s malignant presidency” has finally come to an end and even though the US future is tough, this terrible era is finally over. She starts by outlining some of the vote differences in certain states that Biden and Trump got and which minorities tended to cause this, finishing by explaining that, even though Trump will still “vandalize” America, he will no longer do it in office. Goldberg aims to highlight the political demographics and their variations during the last election and the imminent win of Biden in order to convince the readers that Trump’s reign is over. Democrats, who may be the main intended audience of such article, are then able to take pride in their job of defeating Trump yet being wary of what the future may hold for the USA — politically speaking.
Michelle Goldberg, American journalist and New York Times Columnist, suggests with this Op-Ed — “Impeachment’s Over. Bring On the Criminal Investigations (February 15th, 2021)” — that former United States President Donald J Trump’s second impeachment trial for abuse of power and obstruction of congress is and should not be the end of his prosecution. She explains Jamin Raskin’s (American lawyer and politician) attempts and hopes for the MAGA politician to be fairly trialed for his crimes and the suspicious things Trump did while on trial that suggest injustice while naming people who did do their job in trialing him. Goldberg’s purpose, therefore, is to list some of the countless reasons why the former US President should be in jail and how the criminal justice system worked (illegitimately) in his favor in order to enlighten the audience as to why this controversial individual should be behind the bars (and why it isn’t surprising that he’s not). The audience made up of both Democrats and likely angry Republicans is then able to see the facts spread out on the column while at the same time read them from the point of view of an evidently Democratic writer.