Analysis Of Michael Fay: Fact Is Better Than Opinion

Michael Fay: Fact is Better Than Opinion

“Michael Fay, an American teenager living in Singapore, was arrested in 1994 for possession of stolen street signs and for vandalism of automobiles. The criminal justice system in Singapore sentenced Fay to a series of ‘canings’, in which the accused is struck several times on the buttocks with a long, rattan cane” (Ancrile 178). This case has proven extremely popular among journalists. In “Time to Assert American Values,” an article published in The New York Times, the writer emphasizes their strong opinion through ethical appeal, anecdotal evidence, and hasty generalization. In contrast, “Rough Justice: A Caning in Singapore Stirs up a Fierce Debate about Crime and Punishment,” an article by Alejandro

Despite having his own opinion, the article detaches from this using sufficient logical evidence. “The Vandalism Act of 1966 was originally conceived as a legal weapon to combat the spread of mainly political graffiti…the law explicitly mandates between three and eight strokes of the cane for each count…” (Reyes 181). By adding this extra bit of information in the introduction of his article, it immediately gets you to think: Oh, this law existed years prior to Fay’s arrest, why are people outraged now? It immediately gets your brain thinking in a subtle but important way. Moreover, he carefully makes sure to use empirical evidence in the same manner. “But according to a string of polls, Fay’s caning sentence struck a chord in the U.S. …and a radio call-in survey in Fay’s hometown of Dayton, Ohio, was strongly pro-caning” (Reyes 181). Instead of pressuring the reader into thinking that his opinion is true, he rather comments on the issue at hand according to the events conspired. Notice how there is a minimal amount of negative and positive connotative diction–-it makes superb use of passive voice. As a result, the document is cleverly written; Making sure that every piece of information educates you and doesn’t warp your view of the

The author shows obvious dislike to opinions that differ, but fails to provide an unbiased, formal reason why. Anecdotal evidence runs rampant throughout the text, but one example would be: “Americans concerned with the propagation of traditional values at home should be equally energetic in asserting constitutional principles in the international contest of ideas” (The New York Times 179). Though it is a general opinion, there is virtually no data or polls that support the quote; Adding some numerical proof that their claim works in the cases’ favor would have made the article seem more concrete. Hasty generalization is also prevalent, which can be because this author wanted to persuade instead of inform. “So, the argument goes, when Americans express outrage over a punishment…they are committing an act of cultural arrogance, assuming that American values are intrinsically superior to those of another culture…It assumes that dissidents, democrats and reformers in these countries are somehow less authentic representatives of their cultures than the members of the political elite who enforce oppressive punishment and suppress individual rights” (The New York Times 179). This quote does a good job of doing what was intended, but the careless writing without solid evidence yet again gives the text an