Outside Reading: Editorial/Newspaper Article

Why Firemen Let That House Burn Down
Anonymous
The New York Times

The author gives a clear voice by bluntly supporting the Cranicks family and believes that in this situation, the role of government should be to help whoever is in need, no matter the financial tensions. The author also incorporates of conservative commentator of Glenn beck who insists that this whole issue is more about “paying the $75” rather than just having “compassion”. If the firefighters would have put out the fire, then others who saw this event would believe that they wouldn’t have to pay their dues for such labor. Then what were the dues really for? But the author bounces back by giving a solution. He believes this issue was caused by the government and is in discontent about how they are handling it. The firefighters need to examine their conscience and that if the government can’t trust the people (in financial terms), they should do something about it, even if it means raising taxes
He also gives a last punch to his argument and opinion stating that the founding fathers would have objected the way this situation came out and the actions of the firefighter. They would not have supported the government “make an object lesson of a neglectful citizen” by letting the Cranicks’ house burn down. He also states that Cranicks “deserve an apology” from (probably) the firefighters. So he is clearly critical of the firefighters and what they did.
The intro is crafted to support the opinions of the author of the editorial because he starts off with a strong point. He states that even with all of this political arguing and fighting, nothing will bring back or fix the house that burnt down just because the owners did not pay the annual surcharge. The author also believes that it was not a good idea to just let the home burn down; assuming he also believes that it was not morally right.
In another sense, instead of just writing that the house burned down, he wrote that Mr. Cranicks, owner of the home, actually “watched” his home burn down. This added a personal touch. Instead of just stating the house burned down, it gave the statement a personal touch that sympathized with Mr. Cranicks and put the firefighters in a negative light. In addition, the family is described as being “helpless”, while the firefighters are described as being “idle”. The two contrasting words really impact the tone of this editorial, creating a good guy and bad guy effect. The author obviously believes that the family is the victim while the workers were the ones at fault. Such use and choice of descriptive words really help carry out the purpose of the editorial.
This editorial would be appropriate for an AP exam because it gives a very clear stance. Points are very nicely organized and the voice of the author is very easy to follow and understand. In addition, the impression that the whole piece of writing creates is simple, apparent, and structured well. But it would also be very inappropriate because it provides no concrete evidence for claims, which would not be useful on an AP exam.