On February 23, 2018, the article "Corporate America Second Guessing Association with Mass Murder" was published on the Vanity Fair website. This article was written by Bess Levin, a previous editor of Dealbreaker.com, which is somewhat like a tabloid but in the finance world . The article discusses the topic of businesses that started cutting ties with the National Rifle Association (NRA), inspired by all of the discussion about gun control after the Majory Stoneman Douglas High School shooting. The main theme of Levin's article is that change (regarding gun control) is not going to start in Washington with the politicians; change is going to have to start outside, starting with businesses. Levin's bias is very evident in the article; it is clear that Levin agrees with these corporate boycotts of the NRA, and disagrees with businesses that have decided to keep their ties with the NRA. Levin shows her bias by saying that it would make sense to cut gun sellers off by their financial aspects (banks, credit card companies, and credit card processors), which effectively makes it difficult for gun sellers to continue doing their business. Levin also shows her bias by making fun of a company that has chosen to defend their associations with the NRA. This is the quote: (Others have stood by the organization; “Our company provides discounted rooms to several large associations, including the N.R.A.,” Tim Hentschel, the co-founder of HotelPlanner.com, said in a statement, adding, “These associations greatly benefit our customers by buying discounted rooms from groups that might otherwise be charged a penalty by hotels for not using all of the rooms in their block,” which is apparently the worst thing that can happen to a person, short of not getting a chocolate on their pillow during turndown service.) Levin takes a jab at the HotelPlanner.com site by implying that the reason they keep their ties with the association is about as pointless as getting upset as "not getting a chocolate on their pillow during turndown service". Another piece of bias on Levin's end is shown at the end of the very first paragraph. Levin writes, "And because we’re living in the era of social media, they’re going to do it through the president’s favorite social-networking service". The mention of the president doesn't have a real purpose here; Levin does not mention Trump again in the article. So, if not to reference this later, Levin likely wrote this as a way to criticize Trump and his use of Twitter. The tone applied throughout the article at first is informative and analytical, but it shifts to be very sarcastic after Levin writes the first quote put up earlier, and stays consistent to the end, especially in the last paragraph, but she also makes a good point. Levin writes, "And from what we can tell, Bitcoin is just a little less dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle". It sounds sarcastic, but the italicization of the word "little" serves a purpose. In context, Levin writes about how credit card companies were banning users from being able to purchase cryptocurrency, implying that the same can and should be done for semiautomatic weapons because they are so much more dangerous; that's why Levin wrote that "Bitcoin is just a little less dangerous than a semiautomatic rifle".
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorCatalina is an art lover, including artwork, dance, and song. She is also an activist who supports a wide variety of issues, whether it be home in the United States or abroad, from Mexico to Uganda. Catalina has two pugs at home and spends her free time usually honing existing skills or learning something new. |