An “A voice of Hate in America’s
Anarticle released in the New York Times is getting a lot of negative feedback.The Article is called “A voice of Hate in America’s Heartland” and is writtenby Richard Fausset.
The article is about a man named Tony Hovater who is knownto be a Nazi sympathizer and white supremacists. Fausset acts as if Hovater isa normal person just like you and me, which really gets the mind thinking whatis the purpose of this article, to begin with? What is the author trying toaccomplish with this article? This article has a lot of problems and should nothave been written, which we will be looking at here shortly. (Thesis)There have been some extreme criticism towards a mannamed Richard Fausset about an article he recently for the New York Times. Faussetgrew up in New Orleans and has a degree in English and a degree in journalism.Fausset is a writer based in Atlanta. He mainly writes about culture, politics,race, poverty, and criminal justice (ny times fausset). Fausset wrote an article called “A Voice ofHate in America’s Heartland” in the New York Times.” The article talks aboutTony Hovater and his beliefs which were very extreme.
Hovater is in support andapart of white supremacist groups. Fausset wrote in the article “Most Americanswould be disgusted and baffled by his casually approving remarks about Hitler,disdain for democracy and belief that the races are better off separate.” Now,this is just one example of Fausset being criticized. Fausset has never beencriticized this much for writing an article before until he wrote about “AVoice of Hate in America’s Heartland.” The author is now taking fire for the newly releasedarticle in the New York Times. Fausset credibility is now being taken intoquestion after writing about “A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland.
” Faussethas written many articles in his time but has never received so much negativecriticism before. He has the credentials to write any kind of article. “He hascovered the Charleston S.C., church massacre in 2015 and wrote extensivelyabout working-class voters in the run-up to the 2016 presidential elections(The NY Times).” So he’s written some very important and touchy subject beforebut manage to focus on a purpose in those. Richard Fausset meets all thecredentials to write the article “A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland” butneeds to realize it’s a more sensitive topic than most. The author failed tomeet the needs of that article, which ultimately made it a very bad article.
The audience is very clear in the article. It appealsto most white supremacist. The article does not appeal or interest many peopleat all.
Most people have actually read the article but it not because it isappealing and interesting. Many people have read it and are angered by thestatements in the article. For example “He is the Nazi sympathizer next door,polite and low-key at a time the old boundaries of accepted political activitycan seem alarmingly in flux ().
” This is just one of many statements thatangered most people. Fausset abstains very few people that would be interestedin this article. This is because it does not grab the intended audience itangers them to read it. The author did not do a very good job of getting peopleinterested, which will ultimately make it ineffective as an article.
An article written by Richard Fausset does not haveany purpose at all. If you have no purpose then there is no purpose in writingthe article to begin with. The author had already felt there was a hole in theheart of his story. People have asked the purpose in this article, whicheventually leads to Fausset making a follow-up article to find the missingpieces to the story he was looking for. He never really found this piece tofill in the article. If the author would fill that hole in the article bygiving it a purpose it would make the article better and maybe evenunderstandable. With this piece of information gone, it makes the article haveno purpose and no reason for the author to write the article making this lookvery bad on the author.
“A Voice of Hate in America’s Heartland” should nothave been published due to the flaws the author could have prevented. Theauthor has all the credentials to write this article but fails miserably. He isone of the best New York Time writers (). Fausset only focused in on a verysmall amount of people that the article will be of interest to. This means thearticle is not all that appealing and interesting to most people.
He did nothave a purpose for writing this article, which left people wondering thepurpose and questioning him. Overall this is a very poor article and Faussetcould have done a better job writing this article. What do you think about thisarticle and why?