SWA #5

John Mohrmann
English 101:056
September 13, 2007
SWA

The article “Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil”, by Gregg Easterbrook, was written for The New Republic. The main idea of the article is about the problems with using politically correct terms to describe the massacre at Virginia Tech. The author stresses that the descriptive phrases used by the media were too light. The article is a good form for stating an opinion logically, and in a succinct fashion.
Easterbrook’s audience is mainly the subscribers of the newspaper the article appeared in. More specifically, the author is writing to those who might not have considered the view that the events a Virginia Tech were taken too lightly. I feel, as I’m sure that Easterbrook felt, that this article does a very good job a making a convincing argument. Most people that read this article would, at least, seriously consider this viewpoint; if not be in completely convinced. I myself cannot identify with that crowd. I share much common ground with the author on this situation. I already feel that the media beats around the bush a little too much.
The author of the article is Gregg Easterbrook. He is contributing editor at The New Republic. The fact that he works as an editor for a newspaper shows that he is a fairly adapt writer. The author is also a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution. The point shows that he is a well educated individual. Easterbrook present a well organized argument. He maintains his passion about the subject yet it does not interfere with his conveyance of ideas. Easterbrook’s main motivation in writing this article is the belief that there needs to be a bold reform in today’s media.
The main constraint involved with this article is political correctness. The author feels that today’s media is too politically correct in the terminology they use. He thinks that the media need to be more direct and call it like it is. Easterbrook points out that the Virginia Tech murders were just that, murder. The media, in its reporting, simply referred to it as a “tragedy” and the killer as merely the “shooter”. Easterbrook feels the media should have used the term murder and killer more frequently, solely because that’s exactly what happened. On the opposite end, some readers might feel that the media was justified in using the terms.
The argument presented was caused by the murders at Virginia Tech. The author’s main argument against soft media terms is that it does not completely identify the issue. Easterbrook uses a wonderful George Orwell quote to distinguish the problem. “Unless we call a thing what it is, we can neither think about it clearly nor oppose it.” This is a recurring problem in today’s media. How are we supposed to fight a problem if the country cannot fully identify and understand it? This is exactly the reason Easterbrook wrote this article: to get the people thinking about how to accurately define a problem.