So, basically, I've been offered a chance to write a column for the school paper. Student readership is low, but the teachers seem to follow it.
We have a teacher teaching ID as a viable alternative to the theory of evolution by natural selection. That, however, won't take place until sometime during second semester, so ranting about it *now* wouldn't be very effective. My job, then, is to fill inches until it is time for my rant.
Does this suffice as an opening for the various soapbox lectures that I could give? Please keep in mind that it is only a first draft. :$
depending on how much of a nutjob you want to look like, that last paragraph could be bumped up by mentions of recent science that says even trace amounts of pharmaceuticals found in the water supply could have long term effects on people. More extreme is the stuff that says chlorine byproducts cause cancer.
The rest is good, but the potential coming threats seem a bit ambiguous.
How much editorial freedom are you given with your piece?
Well, I'm not really sure. I've been told that the school censored the shit out of the paper a couple years ago, but we have a new teacher running it that might be more inclined to support free speech. It really depends on how much the administration decides to care (which is a total unknown. They like their power, but I'm hoping for some leniency- I'm the last of a stellar academic team that got lots of publicity and recognition.)
The ambiguity is intentional- I'm not sure how many editions I can count on for peripheral topics and I'd hate to signpost a topic I don't have time to cover. Would you suggest mentioning an agenda [whatever it turns out to be] even though it might not all be addressed?
My city was recently surveyed & had tons of... pharmaceuticals (?) in the water. This is relevant and local. Thanx.
Edit: Sym, would you suggest expanding this (which is really only meant to be an introduction) into an actual rant? I feel like I should give an actual argument a separate (full) column.
I get why you would be hesitant, especially in the first column, even just to avoid pigeon-holeing yourself.
My opinion though is that, ya, it makes what you are saying that much more powerful to tie things together with real events. It bridges a gap that would make what you say about carson's work that much more relevant to the reader.
I'll try to see if any of that pharm-water stuff is online, I remember some news about it a couple of years ago...
That depends on how out there you want to sound. A full column on any subject will end up delving pretty far into it's effects and in the case of using poisons it's fairly contentious and politicized. A lot of the "green alternatives" sound odd and, nautrally, extremely sterotypially liberal.
One thing you could easily add is that the spraying they did in New Jersey failed. There are still Japanese Beetles there.
Graffiti outside Latin class.
Sed quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
A juvenal prank.
Last edited by Symmetric Chaos on Sep 17th, 2009 at 01:45 AM
well, with readership of a paper like this, you are going to want something that gets your point across in every article.
You aren't going to want to begin something that you count on the reader reading the second article in order to connect the dots.
Is your true agenda chemicals? if it is, make it real to the reader. Give an instance of similar dangers on the food we are eating now. Even giving an inconclusive study casts doubt on the safety of the current methods.
If your true agenda is something else... which i'm thinking you are setting up for your future rants... (just a guess) Make it more obvious. That final paragraph lays the groundwork, but isn't clear enough in order to make it stick with the reader until the next column is published. They will have forgotten all about the groundwork you laid, if you don't stamp it into their minds.
If you have an important point to make, don't try to be subtle or clever. Use a pile driver. Hit the point once. Then come back and hit it again. Then hit it a third time-a tremendous whack. – Winston Churchill
Depends on how stuff is presented...but, if it's facts, it's facts. The controversy would only be in the eye of the beholder if you do facts. I like articles that debunk commonly held falsehoods. Cracked is very entertaining BECAUSE of articles that do just that.
xkcd, as you apparently do not know, has always a second joke that is revealed when you hover with your mouse over the comic. That's why I posted it, though I agree with the joke about TV Tropes too, I love that site.
__________________ I'm afraid you'll never be anything more than a mere monkey.