Close Readings 11/18/2012

http://www.cnn.com/2012/11/18/opinion/opinion-roundup-petraeus/index.html?hpt=hp_c1

            The article "Must one lose a job over infidelity"  speaks on the fact that the media is increasingly involving the personal lives of politicians into the news. It addresses the question of whether or not this should be allowed since "active libido" has nothing to do with how a politician performs in office. It speaks ill of the double standard that exists for people outside of office and politicians. It uses rhetorical techniques of details, diction, and language to convey the message that the amount of media involving itself into the personal lives of politicians is unacceptable and crossing the line.
            Throughout the article, the use of words that are somewhat elevated tends to speak to an audience that is much more involved and informed in politics. This directs his message towards those who are most likely to be involved in politics and aware of the issue at hand. Words such as archaic, flagrant, replete, and arbiters are not common or colloquial. Most people are unaware of these meaning at first glance, losing the effectiveness of the piece toward the average, uninformed citizen, but increasing the effectiveness toward more educated readers.
             The details that the writers chose specifically points at Americans as hypocritical and unsuccessful in their judgements. They are viewed as quick to judge and in a way very aggressive in their judgements. By using such details like the divorce rates in the United States and other recent scandals similar to this one, it shows that population should be more thoughtful before judging other scandals. This reinforces the idea that the american people are clearly creating a double standard for politicians.
            The language throughout the article seemed more elevated and appealing towards audiences of a higher intellect. Similar to the diction throughout the article, the language seemed to try to appeal to people who are quick to judge and are informed in politics. There are a lot of political figures mentioned throughout the article that are not as well known and take away the effect that the article could have potentially  had with people of a lower understanding of politics.
            The article effectively uses diction, details, and language to appeal to the readers of a higher intellect and political understanding. By using an issue that is current and regarding politics, they have essentially eliminated those who are not politically aware or up to date. The use of diction, details, and language push the idea that the American people are hypocritical and quick to judge, when they too have issues of their own. The writer of this article pushes the fact that before Americans judge politicians, they should first assess their own situations.