Orantes, Marejoy D.

12/13/21
10- Aristotle

KINDS OF EDITORIAL

1) EDITORIAL THAT CRITICIZE

This is not to go along with President Duterte's overall take on human rights. The
value of human rights as a proposition and as a principle just cannot be
overemphasized. But he certainly had a point that he lengthily stressed during his
State of the Nation Address last Monday that cannot be denied as well - and it is that
sometimes talk of human rights is couched in a lot of hypocrisy.

In his SONA before both houses of Congress and thousands of guests and foreign
dignitaries, Duterte pointed out his willingness to be criticized for his bloody war on
drugs provided the critics stay clear of human rights. For Duterte, human rights has
become a convenient tool for countries such as the United States and others in
Europe to use or ignore, depending on whether or not it is in their interest to do one
or the other.
And Duterte did not come unarmed. He had the evidence. He had the proof. And he
testily enumerated them, to the visible uneasiness of guests unused to such a
harangue, especially those in the diplomatic corps. He cited incidents in the United
States. He culled from the deep recesses of America's past with the Philippines. To
Duterte, there is so much motherhood statements about human rights it has ceased
to be relevant.

And that is where Duterte has a point. Even disregarding the enumerations of
Duterte, some of which were clearly off-base, and most tailor-fit to suit his argument,
history itself is replete with evidences that just cannot be ignored or denied. Indeed,
there is too much of human rights that is couched in hypocrisy, in it being sauteed,
deep fried, broiled, grilled, or served raw to suit the day's menu.

Who can forget, for example, how, on a visit to Manila in 1981, then US vice
president George H. W. Bush toasted Philippine dictator Ferdinand Marcos, saying:
"We stand with the Philippines. We love your adherence to democratic principles and
democratic processes. We will not leave you in isolation." Marcos, it must be said,
was considered one of the worst violators of human rights in the world.

Yet there was the US vice president, representing the great American nation,
toasting the notorious Philippine dictator, "for adhering to democratic principles and
democratic processes." Why, you may ask. Because it was in America's best interest
to do so. Marcos was keeping the communists at bay. And he allowed continued use
of Philippine soil for America's two forward bases, Clark and Subic. No wonder
Duterte is all het up.

https://www.philstar.com/the-freeman/opinion/2017/07/27/1722154/editorial-criticism-and-
human-rights
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1593843/?page=1

2) EDITORIAL THAT PERSUADE

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/073953298000100410?journalCode=nrja
3) EDITORIAL THAT PRAISE
https://www.slideshare.net/Ken_Writer/editorial-writing-101

As someone who specializes in writing, I am called upon to write many things

for clients – fact sheets, white papers, news releases, talking points, and the
list goes on. But among the many things I might be asked to write, my favorite
is an editorial.
An editorial, of course, expresses a point of view, an opinion, an argument. A
well-written editorial can not only inform, but make complete sense to
someone who knows nothing about the topic about which the editorial is
written. And the best editorials can do that in about 600 words. (In fact, when I
write an editorial, I always shoot for no more than 600 words – if I can’t make
a coherent and sensible argument in that number of words, then I know I am
not focused enough. If I have the luxury of using more words, I can always go
back and add points that support my argument but are not essential.)
An effective editorial always starts at what Aristotle termed the point of
consubstantiality – a point about which both sides agree (spoken arguments in
public debate, the true meaning of ‘rhetoric,’ were the editorials of Aristotle’s
day). For example, any two people would likely agree that there is too much
congestion on the roads in Atlanta. But one person thinks public transportation
should be the solution, while the other believes added road capacity makes
more sense. A good editorial writer should be able to make either argument,
and in a way that makes complete sense – so much sense that you may even
change your mind. Changing opinions, after all, is the purpose of an editorial.
I find that a good editorial writer has the ability – if not always to change my
mind – to at least help me become educated about a different point of view
and the facts that support it. Writers that I find particularly good at doing that
include George Will and E.J. Dionne at the Washington Post, Kimberly
Strassel at the Wall Street Journal, and Joe Klein at Time. I also like Charles
Krauthammer and Kathleen Parker.
You may notice that this list includes an equal number of writers on both the
left and right of the political spectrum and ask if I have no political inclinations
at all? Well, of course I do (and they are outside the scope of this post) – but
that’s my point. These writers consistently craft well-written, coherent
arguments that are as enlightening as they are convincing. They make me
think and consider different points of view, to be better informed, regardless of
whether I ultimately agree with them. That’s the art of the editorial.
Of course, as much as I like writing editorials, not every client needs one, and
none that I write are published under my own name. Such is the nature of
public relations writing. But when a client needs to make its case in a manner
that is high-profile, thoughtful, and attracts an educated audience (and is more
than 140 characters), the editorial page is often the place we seek to make it.
And if I’ve done my job, 600 words later you’ll be a believer too.
http://cookerly.com/blog/media-relations/in-praise-of-the-editorial/

4) EDITORIAL THAT EXPLAIN

https://slideplayer.com/slide/10415377/
Leave it to the ChiComs to give the West a lecture on democracy. The communists
running the show, the only show, on mainland China know how to dress down other
nations. They're experts at it. Just don't expect any introspection. Even to try it,
publicly, you might find yourself a head shorter.
The president of the United States convened something called a "Summit for
Democracy" last week, and why not? It made for a good enough photo op. Certainly
whoever thunk up this idea had good intentions. Why not hold a meeting of the
world's democracies and rally the free nations of the world against authoritarianism?
(But why was Pakistan invited? The Washington Post suggests it's because the U.S.
needs its help in that part of Asia since pulling out of Afghanistan. And the U.S.
needs Pakistan to deal with the Taliban. This administration's policies get curiouser
and curiouser.)
As far as world-altering approaches to problems, however, this summit will probably
make as much a difference, long-term, as midnight basketball. In fact, the
administration might spend more time walking back most of this event's inferences.
Even before the summit, the White House ran its people out to the press to make
sure the media didn't report that this was the White House's worldview of good guys
vs. bad guys, which it certainly was. "Inclusion or an invitation is not a stamp of
approval on their approach to democracy," the White House's press secretary Jen
Psaki said. "Nor is exclusion a stamp of the opposite of that, of disapproval."
Uh-huh.
Tell that to the Red Chinese.
The apparatchiks running things in Beijing took exception to this get-together of
democracies. In short, they had a hissy. The Party sent its people to the western
press to wag fingers at western democracy in general, and the American version of it
specifically.
For example, they said, just look at the United States' response to covid-19. An
official with the Party said the high covid-19 death toll in the United States was partial
proof that divided government doesn't work. "Such democracy brings not happiness
but disaster to voters."
Funny, but here some of us thought that the covid-19 death toll in the United States,
and everywhere else, might could be blamed on Red China. Or at least the problem
was aggravated by Beijing's secrecy in the beginning of the pandemic. And might
continue to this day.
The state media in China, and there is no other kind, frequently reports about the
Jan. 6 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol as proof of "chaos" in the United States'
version of democracy. Yes, version. The ChiComs say they are running a democracy
as well, with Chinese features. They even call their nation the People's Republic of
China. Which is wrong in three ways. It belongs to the party, not the people. It isn't a
republic. And it doesn't cover the free Chinese in Taiwan. But who's counting?
"In such a large country with 56 ethnic groups and more than 1.4 billion people," the
Party official said, "if there is no Party leadership . . . and we uphold the so-called
democracy of the West, it will be easy to mess things up, and democracy will work
the opposite way."
Another official went further: "The U.S. calls itself a 'leader of democracy' and
organizes and manipulates the so-called Summit for Democracy. In fact, it cracks
down and hampers countries with different social systems and development models
in the name of democracy."
And: "Their domestic governance is messed up, but they point fingers at and criticize
other democracies. Is this the democracy they advertised?"
To which somebody in the democracy of the United States might answer: Our
democracy is indeed messed up, often. But that's real democracy at work. A fake
democracy--one in name only--would be much neater. We can all make our own lists
of examples.
This reminds us of the old story of the new communist student from the Old World
who tried to explain to a Western friend how his communist government held the real
"free" elections and the elections in the West were a scam. After all, he explained,
how can the West hold free elections if the wrong side sometimes wins?
There is a surefire way to explain the difference between a real democracy and one
that only borrows the name. And it can be found in this editorial column. We've spent
several column inches laying out the argument for the Chinese Communist Party,
and the criticisms it provided against our own national government. But no official
from the United States government is going to ask us to explain ourselves.
But what are the odds that this editorial would be allowed in the state-run Red
Chinese media?
Odds? You'd have better chances of winning the lottery. Twice.

https://www.nwaonline.com/news/2021/dec/12/editorial-democracy-or-disaster/?
opinion