Michael Brown Article Critique : RFischer 082516

Article Critique: “Michael Brown Spent Last Weeks Grappling With Problems and Promise”

The first thing that is objectively questionable about the article lies in its anecdotal lead, which at first leaves a misleadingly positive impression to be countered by the point “[Michael Brown] was no angel.” I think this sets the whole article up to function in a similar fashion, where a positive point about Brown and his choices is used to lead up to or conclude upon a negative counterpoint. Were this point not in the lede, the article may not reflect that same scheme so vividly. The power and buildup of the anecdote climaxes with that loaded phrase, and it leaves a big impression.

One place where this idea comes back around is when talking about the content of the rap music he produced (including a quote from Brown which states “My favorite part is when the bodies hit the ground,”), which introduces the idea of controversy before moving into the fact that his lyrics often condemned fathers who don’t pay child support. It seems like an attempt to be objective and fair, but leaves us with points too negative to be outweighed by the positive.

Objective perspective should also be brought into question due to the high amount of presumption that goes beyond the five senses. The author makes many generalizations that leave the reader to wonder how the information was really discerned. A prominent point on this error is when the author assumes that Michael Brown was a handful, which is supported by the factual information that follows. Making these kinds of assumptions concludes the audience’s inference for them before the information has been received or evaluated by the reader, leaving them with only the author’s opinion to start forming their own judgments from.

Other attribution issues occur when the author talks about Brown’s “early struggles in school,” or when he mentions that “[Brown] regularly flashed a broad smile.” These seem to be memories recanted to the author after hearing the family or reviewing some gathered material, however the audience doesn’t have a real thread to follow. In the same paragraph, the author can’t know that Brown’s parent’s “hoped” without attributing attributing the idea to them. Unless the entire paragraph can be considered attributed through the phrase “his parents hoped,” then it is entirely without attribution. If it is considered the attribution, then it is improper since the paragraph doesn’t contain the word “said” at any point.

Overall, the article is good as an example of flow and literary accuracy, however it falls short when it comes to creating an objective profile piece that gives the reader little room to make assumptions about the content and the subject of the article. I believe it would be easy to walk away from this piece with a bad taste in one’s mouth for Michael Brown, when the ideas presented here should give a more balanced view of an incredibly sensitive matter. Profiles don’t have to be positive and should not be, but fairness is easy to infringe upon in open court cases, even in individualized profiles.