JAMES COMEY'S CONSPICUOUS INDEPENDENCE
May 11, 2017
Another unsettling choice by the Trump Administration? Whaaaat?!?!
Peter Elkind author of TNY article "James Comey's Conspicuous Independence" uses an elevated diction within his article to give his audience a sense of authority and investigative intentions. This article tackles the controversial firing of FBI director James Comey. While information is slowly trickling out of the White House detailing the reasons for his firing, many still feel that the real reasons are being hidden from the public eye. Elkind's diction helps give him a sense of direction in the article as he seems to know what he's talking about. The largest theory behind his firing is that the Trump administration fears his spearheading of the investigation of the Trump Administrations ties to Russia, and their possible influence on the 2016 election. As journalism is an investigative art, Elkind uses an extremely investigative style of diction and tone within the article as to allude to the shadowy and mysteriousness of the entire situation.
Elkind uses allusions to Comey's past investigations as a way to construct this article. Of course the article starts by going over his most recent one into the Trump Administrations ties with Russia, but as the article goes on, he talks about Comey's past investigations which help reveal the criticisms he received from both parties. This also helps bring to light his career as a whole, so that those readers without prior knowledge of Comey can understand the impact he's had in recent years.
It's hard to tell which side of the political drama Elkind seems to sit himself so his attitude is a mystery, and his investigation remains at the heart of this piece. As a liberal, he would use this chance to attack the Trump administration for its somewhat un-timely and suspicious act. As a conservative he would take to Trump's defense, arguing against Comey's actions and his "waisting of taxpayers money." But he does neither of these throughout the article. Elkind does a good job at keeping his personal opinions irrelevant and simply tells the facts. He acknowledges Comey's grievances with both Political Parties and seems to dodge revealing which one he aligns with. This is something that more Journalists in this age need to attempt.
The overall purpose of this article is again to investigate and discuss how in a way, Comey's firing was due to his own independence and conspicuousness. Had he been more open to the public of his actions in the investigation, firing him would've been impossible. The intentions of the Trump administration, whether true (highly unlikely) or not would've been irrelevant, as there would've been a huge public backlash from Comey's Termination. Had he been more open, he'd still be the director of the FBI. This position is pretty valuable I think, as it takes an approach to the story I haven't heard yet, and I can easily agree with.
Elkind tackles this piece by starting at the end of the story, and unravelling its mystery all the way to the beginning. He focusses on the circumstances of Comey's termination and then goes back giving information on Comey's actions in the past.
Elkind uses allusions to Comey's past investigations as a way to construct this article. Of course the article starts by going over his most recent one into the Trump Administrations ties with Russia, but as the article goes on, he talks about Comey's past investigations which help reveal the criticisms he received from both parties. This also helps bring to light his career as a whole, so that those readers without prior knowledge of Comey can understand the impact he's had in recent years.
It's hard to tell which side of the political drama Elkind seems to sit himself so his attitude is a mystery, and his investigation remains at the heart of this piece. As a liberal, he would use this chance to attack the Trump administration for its somewhat un-timely and suspicious act. As a conservative he would take to Trump's defense, arguing against Comey's actions and his "waisting of taxpayers money." But he does neither of these throughout the article. Elkind does a good job at keeping his personal opinions irrelevant and simply tells the facts. He acknowledges Comey's grievances with both Political Parties and seems to dodge revealing which one he aligns with. This is something that more Journalists in this age need to attempt.
The overall purpose of this article is again to investigate and discuss how in a way, Comey's firing was due to his own independence and conspicuousness. Had he been more open to the public of his actions in the investigation, firing him would've been impossible. The intentions of the Trump administration, whether true (highly unlikely) or not would've been irrelevant, as there would've been a huge public backlash from Comey's Termination. Had he been more open, he'd still be the director of the FBI. This position is pretty valuable I think, as it takes an approach to the story I haven't heard yet, and I can easily agree with.
Elkind tackles this piece by starting at the end of the story, and unravelling its mystery all the way to the beginning. He focusses on the circumstances of Comey's termination and then goes back giving information on Comey's actions in the past.