written by: Eleanor Cwik
Hello folks,
This week I am in charge of the text analysis, and after a somewhat weird advice call with my professor, I’ve decided to do things a little differently this week. We talked about text analysis and what that means. In a traditional sense, we use tools of text analysis to pinpoint messages, flaws, bias, weaknesses, and so on within written pieces. There is normally a very distinct purpose behind this, but in our case of text analysis, we are doing things a little differently. Our goal is to use text analysis as a means of explaining, sharing, and decoding articles surrounding COVID-19, and with this intent in mind, we need to use the tools of analysis a little differently. As my teammates have done before, I would like to summarize the article a bit, and point out a couple important things I took away. However, I would also like to take one of the topics and really hone in on it; dig a little deeper. So without further to do…
My article for this week, The Price of the Coronavirus Pandemic, was taken from The New Yorker, written by Nick Paumgarten, and published on April 13th, 2020. Paumgarten gives us the inside look at the thinking and doings of an unnamed investor in Sydney, Australia, who goes by the alias (in this article) of the Australian. The Australian is one of the few who are profiting from the COVID-19 pandemic, and gives credit to his early thinking and fast acting. As the virus began to spread in Wuhan, he stocked up on gloves and masks, as well as, invested in a North-American company which produces the N95 masks. He goes on to define how the United States should start dealing with the virus, and says lock down is vital to the death of COVID-19. The article goes on to discuss the back and forth between supporting the economy and supporting the health care system. The Australian, as well as the author, stand strong in their opinion of biting the bullet now, and staying at home. Instead of opening businesses, and risking a possibly far worse disaster. This is, however, just the introduction to a much more detailed article of financialists vs. the health care sector. Paumgarten most obviously is a supporter of saving the people, rather than their economy, and also has quite a distaste for President Donald Trump. He goes on to explain the issues we may face later on, if the virus is not properly dealt with, and the wrongdoings of the rich in these times of crisis. All things considered, this article is not supposed to be facts-only, but I just wanted to make sure the bias of Paumgarten’s writing is clear. In saying that, I want to focus the main part of my analysis on the power of his writing style; more specifically: the power of bias in altering a mindset.
Listen, not to reiterate the seemingly obvious, but bias has power! The way in which we write can make a movement. I mean, if Paumgarten was writing purely about the people who are profiting from the pandemic, this article would be much more concise, but that is not his intention. We can see from his persuasive word choice, leading sentences, and metaphor usage, that he has a point to be made: people are profiting from COVID-19 and it is wrong! Let’s use the following paragraph as an example:
“In the months following the first tidings of COVID-19 from China, Trump played down its potential impact—attempting to jawbone a virus, or at least the perception of it. But a virus, unlike a President, doesn’t care how it’s perceived. It gets penetration, whether you believe in it or not. By the time, later in March, that he acknowledged the scale of the pandemic (and sought to convince those who hadn’t been paying attention that he’d been paying attention all along, except to the extent that he’d been distracted), it had long been abundantly clear that he cared more about the economic damage—even if it was only in relation to his re-election prospects, or to the fate of his hotel and golf-resort businesses—than about any particular threshold regarding loss of life or the greater good.”
Let’s start with clear bias or personal opinion (underlined), Paumgarten has his own opinions sprinkled throughout this entire piece, as you can see by my highlighting. Pretty much after the first few paragraphs, his position is clear to see, and you can notice his bias in almost every sentence. He notes his distrust in the U.S. President with parentheses, and has no problem calling out Trump’s wrongdoings and their relative cover-ups. These side comments alone get me fired up, they induce my anger and point the finger of blame at one cheeto-colored culprit. Without any further information, I am ready to blame the whole of the Coronavirus pandemic in North America on Trump’s incompetence. Keeping in mind, that I am fairly up-to-date on the happenings in America, as I am an American citizen with family who resides there, some off the incidents or wrongdoings that Paumgarten points out are already clear to me without further proof, but then again, maybe that is my own personal biases coming out. Additionally, if we look at his word choice (in green highlight) we can also notice exaggeration and, again, his bias. Using adverbs, such as; “abundantly (clear),” makes his points seem obvious, as if no other opinion would fit. This deters a reader from further research, because if something is “abundantly clear” then it must be true, right? Not always. Another way his bias shows through is in his metaphor usage. Metaphors (can be found in bold) are tools to explain a concept through other concepts, and they can carry powerful messages. For example, the phrase “first tidings of COVID-19 from China” refers to the beginning of the (recognition of) Coronavirus within China. Corona is not a liquid, and does not have a tide, but we understand the meaning of this phrase without thinking twice. While this phrase may not carry a huge underlying message, it is proof that we can skip over many metaphors in our daily life, sometimes not even noticing the magnitude their message holds. So be careful!
Lastly, we come to the italics, “But a virus, unlike a President, doesn’t care how it’s perceived.” This is a strong sentence, which includes bias but also fact, making it especially interesting. Paumgarten uses lots of these types of sentences, that I’d like to call: “Move-to-Action.” This is different from a traditional Call-to-Action, where an author motivates their reader to do something about the problem they outline. Whereas “Move-to-Action” can be better defined as a statement that holds so much power, it doesn’t need to tell the reader what it’s looking for, but rather shows. In this one sentence, Paumgarten identifies a universal truth about viruses: that they are not concerned with their appearance and have no mercy. This is known to the audience, we have seen the numbers of deaths, seen the toll COVID-19 has taken across the globe, we know the virus is ruthless. Additionally, he points out a great human flaw: caring about our looks. While this is not unique to President Trump, it is a flaw- a human flaw, which should be noted. Especially, when we must decide who's orders to follow, those of a human with other concerns than safety, or those of the numbers and unbiased scientists who’s number one concern is to spread the truth. While Paumgarten’s writing is also not free from bias, he makes an important point to his readers, that we need to depend on more than just our leadership, we must depend on our own knowledge and skills. We need to notice flaws in leadership, we need to fend a bit for ourselves, we must take charge in our own decisions and actions. Just as we must be aware of this, and notice bias, Paumgarten uses his own bias to motivate his readership. As I said before, the power of bias can create a movement, and his movement is to inform the public on the mishandlings of the government and the injustice of profiting from a pandemic as millions die, become homeless, lose their jobs, and so on…
The power of bias can be used for evil, as well as, good. I guess your view on that, though, stems from your own biases and opinions.
Link to this week's article: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/04/20/the-price-of-the-coronavirus-pandemic