THE WATCH DOGS KEEPING WALL STREET IN CHECK
MAY 11, 2017
Gosh! Sure do love Wall Street!
In Sheelah Kolhatkar's piece "The Watch Dogs Keeping Wall Street in Check" she tells the story of compliance officer's on Wall Street concerned with the current regulation's legitimacy. Kolhatkar uses a casual form of diction in an attempt to better explain everything she's saying so that the financially and business-jargon illiterate can understand. She fails at this. As someone who knows a good bit about the ways of Wallstreet I think she does a poor job explaining what compliance officers are, and what their duties are exactly. She describes enough for the average person to follow her piece, but not enough for them to care what it really means.
She uses a casual and almost conversational tone as to keep her audience's attention. Business is boring. No one really cares about the details of how a company's stock rose $2.40 so when talking about Wall Street you've got to keep it simple. Even though it only focuses on the topic of regulations and not necessarily the specifics, people just generally steer clear of reading on financial matters unless specifically tied to them. From her gripping clickbait title she does a fine job bouncing back and forth between the meetings of compliance officers on a beach, to what it actually means for Wall Street.
She does a good job at keeping her political beliefs out of the article so its hard to tell how she feels about the issue. This piece serves to inform on an issue, not convince you which side to take. She only very briefly mentions anything political by conveying compliance officers concerns with how they think regulations will change due the the new administration. For the reader, its more a wake up call, asking you to keep an eye on Wall Streets moves over the next couple of months, and see if that their regulations do change, how that effects their business.
The article starts with a sort of "picture this scenario," as stated before this is to hook the reader into her article before she eventually gets down to the little more nitty gritty of her piece. Then it bounces back and fourth, stating how the compliance offers feel, then what effect it would potentially have if something did change. Overall I think she does a good at raising the potential issue, and sets herself up well for a follow up piece in the months to come.
She uses a casual and almost conversational tone as to keep her audience's attention. Business is boring. No one really cares about the details of how a company's stock rose $2.40 so when talking about Wall Street you've got to keep it simple. Even though it only focuses on the topic of regulations and not necessarily the specifics, people just generally steer clear of reading on financial matters unless specifically tied to them. From her gripping clickbait title she does a fine job bouncing back and forth between the meetings of compliance officers on a beach, to what it actually means for Wall Street.
She does a good job at keeping her political beliefs out of the article so its hard to tell how she feels about the issue. This piece serves to inform on an issue, not convince you which side to take. She only very briefly mentions anything political by conveying compliance officers concerns with how they think regulations will change due the the new administration. For the reader, its more a wake up call, asking you to keep an eye on Wall Streets moves over the next couple of months, and see if that their regulations do change, how that effects their business.
The article starts with a sort of "picture this scenario," as stated before this is to hook the reader into her article before she eventually gets down to the little more nitty gritty of her piece. Then it bounces back and fourth, stating how the compliance offers feel, then what effect it would potentially have if something did change. Overall I think she does a good at raising the potential issue, and sets herself up well for a follow up piece in the months to come.