In NY Times this article, Nick Kristof talks about how President Obama’s campaign in Iraq against the terrorist group ISIS is more focused on military funding than education. He believes that ISIS has grown to be stronger due to their extremist ways and oppression of women. He also believes that the US can use the opposite to their advantage: women’s rights and education.
The article is an opinion piece which differs from a straight news story. Instead of a lede, the introduction is used to set the scene for the rest of the piece. He doesn’t make his full point until around the third to last graph. Unlike a straight news story, the article is biased and opinionated. Kristof expresses his opinion using words such as “naive” and “unfortunately” to describe his opposition to Obama’s plan for ISIS. Kristof also uses many sources within the article so readers can understand what he is talking about. He uses these sources when he is talking about facts. When he discusses his opinion, there are little sources. Kristof uses questions to introduce his main argument in the middle of the article. This method is helpful posing a question causes the reader to fill in his or her own answers.
Elon on Deadline 