Close Reading numero tres

Editorial: Federal flood insurance subsidizes risks

http://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2012/11/13/flood-insurance-program-rebuilding/1703363/

     After the recent Super-storm Sandy, related news and stories went viral. Editor, Jason Towien, shared his views on the Federal flood insurance, which he found more "flaws" to the program (1968) rather than benefits. Towien has a well-focused strong voice; he uses appropriate diction that pertain to good flow, details with evidence that support his claims, and variety of syntax structures throughout his editorial. 

     In his editorial, Towien uses appropriate diction that flow with the informal language. The Conversational diction of his is evident when he fails to agree with the National Flood Insurance Program, "good luck with that", he says; Towien believes that the program is "foolish, even dangerous" for the future. The opposing force with the informal diction Towien portrays reaches out to those who are affected by this huge disaster. It's obvious to tell that he is strongly against the 1968 program and is pleading for a enhanced insurance. As he states the "flaws" of the program with the use of accurate word choice, it helps readers to focus on his main idea and take his side on the "misguided policy". 

     

     Towien's message is clearly focused when he provides statistics and well-rounded advice which is opinionated, but is strong enough to support his idea. He starts his argument with statistical facts of natural disasters from 2005, Katrina, "now the program faces more than 100,000, and payouts possible of $7 billion." the numerical detail in his claim outweighs the opposing factors. Towien also shows precise detail in writing from more than one viewpoint. He takes into account for the builders of coastal homes, estate agents, and the federal treasury. With the details already provided, the audience is introduced into a broader perspective, but continuously focused with Towien's opinion. Not only does Towien use facts as his detail, but he portrays a stronger opinion with concrete details to what the program should be replaced with. According to Towien, "step one is to decide what should, and shouldn't, be rebuilt," he emphasizes the changes that should be made with details specific to his opinion.

    

     Lastly, Towien's use of syntax is abundant in his editorial. The way he uses punctuation to place emphasis meets his goals of editorializing. A strong syntax structure found in his article is in the second paragraph, "those drowned last year by the Tropical Storm Irene and again by Sandy." This is not just a comparison of the two hurricanes, but a heavier emphasis on Sandy. His use of syntax sounds like Towien is superior to the insurance policy makers showing dissapointment that it happened "again" and no one was able to learn from Irene. Another syntactic structure provided by Towien is his use of colon. "The creators meant well, but here's the flaw: ..." is a great way to use a colon. His fourth paragraph introduces all the errors and misguides of the insurance program. It may have sounded less bold if Towien was to continue without this colon and preceded with a comma. The colon gets the readers to await what the federal flaw could possibly have been.  With his use of syntax, the editorial is more evoking. It helps the audience build up in emotion to place emphasis on what Towien intended to emphasise.

     

     Throughout the article, the mixture of diction, detail, and syntax provides the read with just enough interests. Towien's word choice is informal to the point where readers are persuaded to his side. His argument is well supported with other opinions and factual evidence. Lastly, his syntactic structure creates balance in emotional emphasis which is weaved throughout. With his use of literary elements, the editorial becomes much clear and precise.