Trying to hone up a bit on my ‘media literacy’ skills, I was looking at pieces written by major news outlets labeled as ‘opinion’ pieces. Knowing that throughout the mainstream media world there are pieces written of sheer objective fact, as well as opinion pieces that are usually centered around a set event or idea relevant in today’s world, but incorporating the writers opinion. I wanted to see exactly what key differences separate normal reporting from opinion pieces. I came across a New York Times article called “Why are We Still Slaughtering the American Bison?”. What struck me about this article is that, although it had the small note ‘opinion’ just above the headline, If I hadn’t seen that I would not have categorized it as an opinion piece at all. so based on this piece what are the subtleties that give it the sub-heading ‘opinion’?
The article centers around an agreement between the Sioux and Assiniboine Tribal Nations and the Yellowstone National Park service that requires the surplus of Bison Yellowstone has each year be sent to the Fort Peck Reservation and released back into its natural habitat rather than being sent to a slaughterhouse.
The concern over this agreement stems from a disease that plagues the cattle industry called bucellosis, which is believed to be carried heavily in the American Bison population. the writer points out that although the Fork Peck Reservation has built a quarantine facility for the bison four times the size of any built in Yellowstone, it has still taken park officials four years to start actually releasing Bison to the Tribal Nations, during which all surplus of bison in the park were sent for slaughter.
The article initially reads like any other objective article. there is no specific paragraph or interlude between facts where the writer seems to present his own argument. I think what sets this piece apart from other reporting is the tone of the piece as a whole. the headline works as almost a thesis; “Why are we still slaughtering the American Bison”. It’s clear immediately where the author stands on the issue, and the following text is his way of presenting fact an information to back up his original point. All of the facts presented in this article, although they are facts, are moving in the direction of establishing the National Park service as another U.S. institution adamant on keeping indigenous communities repressed. I’m not arguing that this may or may not be the case, I simply feel that this distinction is very important in journalism. Passing off opinionated articles as objective truth can be very dangerous, and although the article is very well written and certainly holds alot of weigh in current events, the distinction that it is an ‘opinion’ piece is crucial for how it is read and interpreted.
Diary of a Fourth Year Junior 