My dad and his brother were journalists, but on extremely opposing sides – which made this article easier for me to understand. There are certain aspects of journalism, especially spoken about in this article, that now click. It felt like solving a simple math equation. The biggest element seems like the public sphere. You have to know the audience you are writing for or the audience you wish to attract. It’s not so much types of people, but ultimately a collection of citizens in that area. It is more than just “the people” and it dives deeper into the “society” of that area. When we talk about the society as a whole, we think about the entire globe, or perhaps just America, but societies differ within each geographical location as well. As journalists you have to understand the people, the area in which you are writing, and the societal norms of that specific location. Sure, you can differ from the main viewpoints of that area, but as a journalist you have to remember that it is a free society. There can be differing opinions or even backlash towards your writing, but that is also how journalism is protected, all under one amendment: the freedom of speech located in the first. Another element is the creation of “the imaginary community of the nation” (pg. 12). It is so intriguing on how writing can create smaller communities, even journalism. For me, it is hard to comprehend that because of the last decade where news and media have become entirely focused on politics and the division between opposing sides. Sometimes I feel like journalism just promotes this division and makes it stronger, ultimately creating a negative environment in society, but perhaps I am wrong. What if it’s doing the opposite, but our brains don’t want to comprehend that possibility?
Day: January 24, 2022
I read this short story last year in my creative writing class with Jesse and I remembered it vividly when I first saw the title. There was something so intriguing about the characters. They truly sell the whole story, without them it would be rather lackluster. The narrator is arrogant and cocky. He is unsettled by the thought of Robert being in his house, like the thought of an unknown, disabled man appalls him. He was such a sharp contrast compared to his wife and Robert, yet the blind man never snaps nor holds him accountable for his standoffish attitude. There’s something about the mysteriousness behind the narrator and his life that isn’t explained compared to the others that makes you question his attitude in the beginning and the end. It keeps the short story intriguing and the reader interested until the end, well at least for me anyway. Then the use of the cathedral as the bonding moment between the narrator and Robert while the wife is sleeping. It gives the theme that things are not as they appear as they blindly draw the cathedral. The narrator’s lack of using descriptive words to describe something he has the ability to see is quite concerning. It’s almost as if Raymond wanted to bring attention to the ability of seeing without actual sight. The most interesting part about this piece is there are so many hidden easter eggs and potential themes throughout that you have to dig a little deeper when reading.
Recent Comments