A few articles are interesting in their makeup and their arguments when put into conversation with each other. The articles in question, each with their own sources of publication and various topics, seem to have widely different degrees of value and worth. While all of these Op-Eds are credible and have different goals in mind, it is clear that these three stand in different regards to each other due to the effort and quality that is marginally dissimilar.
The first Op-Ed is an article from the Los Angeles Times that discusses a research project undertaken by UC Berkeley to develop a robotic emulation of a common cockroach. While the focus and concept of the Op-Ed is interesting, the content of the article itself is lacking in any call to action or awareness to any problem. Rather, it wastes diction, one that is less than constant and not often as serious as it should be, to simply describe a new technological feat that doesn’t meet the expectations to either the core reader or the steps to creating an Op-Ed. The only satisfying part of this article is its employment of knowledgeable experts throughout the piece, accurately evidencing the focus with little trouble. This piece, one that I find lacking in professional etiquette and appropriate language, is obviously an inferior Op-Ed that fails to properly convey what it wants to about the topic in question.
The next Op-Ed is one of a higher caliber: a piece regarding a developing problem in Apple’s “iPhone” and how third party repairs are being attacked by the smartphone conglomerate. The article dictates that many iPhone users are dealing with a malicious error due to an update targeting repairs made by a third party. This Op-Ed is very serious about its concept, makes it’s purpose very clear, and uses various types of evidence to say what needs to be said. This article is much better than the previous because it suits the form of the Op-Ed in a much more appropriate fashion. This Op-Ed, however, is not without its flaws. The conclusion lacks the same draw that the introduction presented, and felt much weaker in terms of content and support. Furthermore, while using sources that are qualified, there could have been more support, such as by using a quote from an Apple executive on this subject. This Op-Ed, while decent and thorough, still doesn’t hold up to the quality of the final Op-Ed.
The final Op-Ed is particularly interesting in both subject and execution. The article addresses the rise in avian influenza strains in tandem with the world’s increasing hunger for poultry. The Op-Ed then goes on to mention potential factors for how several new strains are being created due to conditions in China and climate change. The Op-Ed is very serious, uses powerful language, and holds a constant, unyielding sway over the reader. From start to finish, this Op-Ed calculates its usage of words to emphasize its point and encourage a reaction from its readers. Furthermore, this particular piece seems to emulate the format of the Op-Ed to the letter, showing very little dissonance from the steps to creating an Op-Ed.
Regarding these three Op-Eds, they all hold varying degrees of quality and adherence to what makes an article an Op-Ed. The first showed little promise and lacked the properties of a true Op-Ed. The second showed a much greater sense of self in regards to what makes an Op-Ed, yet still had some flaws that could have been addressed. The final Op-Ed is by far a much greater example of such than the former two, and acts a great example for editorial journalism.
In the Order in Which They Appear: