A Crash Course in Understanding Author’s Purpose
One year, Vice President Dick Cheney was in the news for over a week due to a near-tragic hunting accident. While hunting for quail, the vice president accidentally shot a friend. Consider the following excerpts from three written accounts of the incident:
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot and wounded a campaign contributor during a weekend quail hunt on a friend’s South Texas ranch, local authorities and the vice president’s office said Sunday.
The wounded man, 78-year-old Harry Whittington, was in intensive care at a Corpus Christi hospital after being hit by several pellets of birdshot Saturday afternoon, hospital spokesman Peter Bank told CNN. (Bash 2006)
***
At a brief news conference prior to his release from the hospital today, vice-presidential shooting victim Harry Whittington thanked the hospital staff and the media, and had this to say about Dick Cheney: “My family and I are deeply sorry for all Vice President Cheney and his family had to go through this past week.”
It says everything you need to know about this administration that the deepest regret and most heartfelt expression of contrition about the incident came from . . . the guy who had been shot in the face.
Check the transcript: in his 30-minute chat with Brit Hume, Cheney’s lamentations were all directed at himself: “The image of him falling is something I’ll never be able to get out of my mind . . . It was, I’d have to say, one of the worst days of my life.”
I’m sure it wasn’t too swell a day for Harry Whittington, either. (Huffington 2006)
***
Vice President Dick Cheney accidentally shot a man during a quail hunt . . . making 78-year-old Harry Whittington the first person shot by a sitting vice president since Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton, of course, was shot in a duel with Aaron Burr over issues of honor, integrity and political maneuvering. Whittington? Mistaken for a bird. (Stewart 2006).
8 Hurt After Car Crashes into an El Pollo Loco
A suspected drunk driver crashed into a restaurant south of downtown Los Angeles late Friday night, injuring himself and seven other people, authorities said.
About 9:30 p.m., a 25-year-old man driving a black Chrysler 300 made “an unsafe turn” at the intersection of Washington Boulevard and Maple Avenue, according to the Los Angeles Police Department spokesman Mike Lopez.
The man’s injuries were severe and he remained hospitalized Saturday, Lopez said.
Crews used the Jaws of Life to pull the driver from the crash, said Brian Humphrey, a Fire Department spokesman.
The other seven people had minor injuries, authorities said. (L. A. Times 2006).
What was the purpose of this article? Why did the newspaper run this story?
Now consider three alternative versions of the automobile accident piece.
Rewrite #1
A suspected drunk driver crashed into a restaurant south of downtown Los Angeles late Friday night, injuring himself and seven other people, authorities said.
This accident, the latest in many, serves as one more example as to why our drunk driving laws need to be revisited. Clearly they are not working, and this incident leads to an inescapable conclusion: it’s past time to strengthen the penalties for drunk driving.
Rewrite #2
I was walking home on a cold, quiet night last week when a driver slamming his sports car into a restaurant south of downtown Los Angeles shattered the evening’s solitude. The crash created an explosion, spraying shards of glass, while screaming customers dove for cover. When the dust settled, injured people were left strewn like overturned mannequins throughout the shattered restaurant.
Just before the collision, I heard tires screeching, and turned just in time to catch sight of a yellow blur jump the curb and zero in on the restaurant. I cringed as it slammed through the front of the restaurant; it sounded like a bomb set off in a glass factory. When the 2004 Ferrari came to halt inside the restaurant, it had smashed the soda dispenser, spraying everyone and everything in the dining area with a continuous geyser of Mountain Dew.
Rewrite #3
They say fast food is not healthy. Too much fat. Too many calories. Not enough nutrients. But that’s nothing compared to the newest danger facing the fast food eater: getting run over by a $300,000 sports car while peacefully eating your chicken nuggets.
It’s bad enough that I have to watch my carbs. Now I have to watch my cars? Do I now have to keep my eyes peeled for Mario Andretti wannabes, long on testosterone and short on brain cells, crashing through the front of the restaurant? Makes me wonder what I should order on my next visit: “I’ll have the number two, please, Super-size it, and throw in a road block, a crash helmet and body armor.” I’ve heard of crash diets before, but this is taking the concept a bit too far.