Article Analysis

The title of Hannah-Jones’s article is eye-catching, mostly because it addresses a long-debated topic.

3. After that are examples or quotes from the article that prove your point.

“The End of the Post Racial Myth” provides a variety of meaning and prediction to the content of the article. The article discuses a topic based in race relations in the United States, which is a very sensitive subject for many Americans.

4. Finally, the paragraph ends in a conclusion sentence that reiterates what you just said or further explains what you just said.

Further, the title itself dissipates what many Americans perceive as true.

Each of your body paragraphs needs to be written in this same format, though the explanation and examples for some of your paragraphs may be longer than others, depending on the content. For example, here is another body paragraph from the same essay:

The opposition is the other side of an argument. It is the views and opinions that disagree with the claim that an author is making. In order to change an opinion, both sides of a subject should be presented or else the argument will appear biased. The article begins by reliving the moments when traditionally conservative states elected President Obama as the president of the United States in 2008 and again in 2012. This is the author’s way of addressing the other side of her argument. While discussing the analyses of Donald Trump’s presidential win, Jones says, “It was, it seemed to me, a relief to many white Americans that Trump’s victory encompasses so many of the heavily white places that voted for a black man just years before.” Many critics have suggested that if the same cities voted for Obama, racism could not be behind Trump’s election. The author’s use of this helps to address those that believe the aforementioned, while helping to prove her claim. Suggesting that voting for a black man erases racism, shows that white Americans view Obama’s election as a tool to argue racism, and in doing so, these same Americans can feel safe in their own views. However, the author did not do much past these two paragraphs before discrediting these notions. This is problematic, as while it is necessary that she make her claim, she should not completely invalidate the claims and opinions of nearly half of the country all at once. This weakens her argument because it ignores why people voted differently and paints them all as irrational and racist.

Write: Keeping all of the above in mind, it is now time to construct all of the body paragraphs for your article analysis as according to the format I have supplied. You are going to take your freewriting analysis from the prior assignment, and you are going to use it to help you create five to six body paragraphs on the following parts of the article, in the following order: title, claim, opposition, common ground, supporting evidence, and experts/credibility, just as is laid out in the folder “Format for Article Analysis.”

Each of your body paragraphs should have all of the requisite parts: They begin with a topic sentence that mentions what is about to be analyzed, as well as why (in order to set up the importance of what you are about to assess). What follows is a statement about whether the article does indeed have an effective title, claim, statistics, etc.. After that are examples or quotes from the article that prove your point. Finally, the paragraph ends in a conclusion sentence that reiterates what you just said or further explains what you just said.

Remember that you are not yet creating your introduction or conclusion. You are simply writing the body paragraphs for your article analysis.

Your end result should look like the following:

A title is a preview into what an article or story will tell you. A successful title will grab the attention of the reader and should provide some preview into what the article is about. The title of Hannah-Jones’s article is eye-catching, mostly because it addresses a long-debated topic. “The End of the Post Racial Myth” provides a variety of meaning and prediction to the content of the article. The article discuses a topic based in race relations in the United States, which is a very sensitive subject for many Americans. Further, the title itself dissipates what many Americans perceive as true.

A claim is what an author is arguing and what they wish the reader to take away from an article. It is important to analyze a claim because the claim will determine whether the arguments are suitable for the article. In her article, Jones’s claim is made clear when she states, “This analysis reveals less about the electorate than it does about the consistent inability of many white Americans to think about and understand the complex and often contradictory workings of race in this country.” The writer’s claim implies that racial blindness is not yet a reality in American society and definitely not in American politics. The claim is a very strong assertion, and with a divided audience, a lot of support is necessary to sway the other side.

The opposition is the other side of an argument. It is the views and opinions that disagree with the claim that an author is making. In order to change an opinion, both sides of a subject should be presented or else the argument will appear biased. The article begins by reliving the moments when traditionally conservative states elected President Obama as the president of the United States in 2008 and again in 2012. This is the author’s way of addressing the other side of her argument. While discussing the analyses of Donald Trump’s presidential win, Jones says, “It was, it seemed to me, a relief to many white Americans that Trump’s victory encompasses so many of the heavily white places that voted for a black man just years before.” Many critics have suggested that if the same cities voted for Obama, racism could not be behind Trump’s election. The author’s use of this helps to address those that believe the aforementioned, while helping to prove her claim. Suggesting that voting for a black man erases racism, shows that white Americans view Obama’s election as a tool to argue racism, and in doing so, these same Americans can feel safe in their own views. However, the author did not do much past these two paragraphs before discrediting these notions. This is problematic, as while it is necessary that she make her claim, she should not completely invalidate the claims and opinions of nearly half of the country all at once. This weakens her argument because it ignores why people voted differently and paints them all as irrational and racist.

The common ground of an article states something that both sides can agree to. Similar to the opposing viewpoint, it is important to analyze the common ground to determine whether an author is biased. Hannah-Jones does indeed address common ground in her article when she states, “While we tend to talk about racism in absolute terms — you’re either racist or you’re not — racism and racial anxiety have always existed on a spectrum.” This quote was necessary to address American views on racism and why people are divided on the subject. The culture of the United States has caused many people to have an extreme view on racism. No one wants to be called racist because many people associate racism with lynching and slavery, but racism exists in many less aggressive ways, like in college admissions or stereotypes a person has about a group of people. In addressing how Americans speak on the topic of racism, the author successfully provides a level playing field by changing how terrible racism is.

The author supports her claim throughout the article using many different types of information. One source of support comes from the personal opinions of voters in states like Iowa. Hannah-Jones says, “But in recent years, they had come to feel at odds with their party; it no longer reflected their own cultural norms. Where once they were the backbone of the party, now they were outsiders.” This is very important because it highlights something that many people forget: people vote for the party that will help them the most. The argument continues that many of these people believe that the Democratic Party no longer has their best interest in mind. They believe that the Democratic Party now places the needs of minorities in front of their own. This is great support for her argument; however, a question remains. Are these people’s opinions inherently racist? The answer to this question is not clearly addressed in the article and harms her argument. As the author addressed, the American view of racism is very flawed, so to avoid stating whether or not these opinions are rooted in racism, justified, or simply based in natural human self-interest does not give the reader clarification into the author’s realm of thought. She fails to convince the reader that the voters are racist. An argument based in the racism without proving the racism of the voters can easily be argued to be proved invalid. Other than personal anecdotes, the author lacks any other evidence to support her claim. Statistics would have been great support as they show clear evidence for the argument at hand. She failed, however, to use these or any other forms of evidence that could have helped support her claim. This weakens her argument because personal anecdotes are not enough to provide the evidence of the mass majority of Trump supporters.

While Jones uses many specific people’s opinions in the article, she uses no truly credible experts. She did not speak to political analyzers, nor did she speak to news anchors. Had she spoken with these people, she could have received evidence to support her claim. All of the people she spoke to were Donald Trump supporters. One woman she spoke to was Gretchen Douglas of Iowa. She identifies as a lifelong social democrat, but voted republican in the last two elections. Gretchen acknowledged her social views and said that the Democratic Party was the party that supported her views, yet claimed that the party no longer helped her. While Gretchen may not be the most credible, the use of her views is enough to make some Trump supporters seem misinformed. Voting for the candidate of the party that only supports the minority of a person’s personal views is illogical. Having a few opinions and drawing very bold assertions from them, however, is unfair to the other people that supported Donald Trump who may have different reasons.