#里茲螞蟻批判性思考寫作專欄 #Alex專欄 #外師每週精選閱讀
In this week’s article, we have what appears at first glance to be a human-interest story written with the intention of tugging at the readers’ heartstrings. It ostensibly details the story of two immigrants to America – one naturalised and the other still seeking citizenship – and the fast-paced romance they enjoyed going sour, with the malicious mother “abducting” their child and withholding visiting rights to extort money from the father. It seems to portray the woman as an unashamed gold-digger who comes from a family that also wants to milk the rich foreign husband for all he is worth, and who is not afraid to hold their child hostage to extract as much money as possible, whilst also securing American citizenship for herself. The article details the trials and tribulations of the unfortunate father (now ex-husband) as he attempts to just see his daughter, while the malevolent and greedy seductress constantly issues new demands for cash and benefits, but never actually delivers on her promises to grant access to the child.
On the surface, this human-interest story seems to ticks all the boxes for a moving piece of journalism. It has apparently unambiguously good and bad people that allow for absolute distinctions between who is right (the father) and who is wrong (the mother), and who is an innocent victim (the child). It almost sounds like a fairy tale, with the heroic prince pitted against the evil witch in a righteous battle to rescue the damsel in distress. But real life is rarely so simple and straightforward, and regardless of the facts of the story, if that is how it comes across in the article then it is certainly not a balanced piece of writing.
The article is most glaring in its omission of any of the mother’s side of the story, and almost every detail that is retold seems not only to be from the side of the father, but actually directly related by him to the writer of the article. In other words, the whole piece collapses under the weight of its own bias, which completely undermines any journalistic integrity that the story, writer and website may claim to present. Instead, it comes across as a one-sided opinion piece that was written as a favour by a friend of the father, or at least written by someone who exclusively empathises with the father’s side of the story, and which skips over any semblance of correlating facts; not digging any deeper into the story beyond accepting the father’s claims at face value. In disputes such as this, the reality is very rarely as clear-cut to objective observers as it is presented here, since it invariably involves a lot more nuanced he-said-she-said argument based on the different parties’ perspectives. If that is absent from the article, reader beware!
上面的貼文內容是我們的實力派外師Alex，針對每週一篇英文文章閱讀後，親自寫出的批判性思考文（不是copy & paste的東西啊）。旨在讓同學知道如何用不同的角度來讀文章。你可以選擇先讀Alex寫的批判文，也可以選擇先讀本次的英文文章連結，但最好兩處都要閱讀才能達到最好的效果。
Alex是我們的御用老師，每週都會幫梅姨、托托、慕華上英文課。目前星期一晚上有開一班 #里茲螞蟻外師應用英文課程 ，程度高級，充滿知識性與深度。有開放單次付費上課。若你想學習用英文來深度探討各項主題，check it out！