Narratively Wimpy: The NY Times "5 Treasure Secretaries" Opinion Piece Has a Painfully Weak Opening
Not opinion, analytical fact — they chose to go indirect where they needed to be direct. Don’t you think “Our Democracy Is Under Siege” is more than “substantial cause for concern”?
YOU ONLY GET ONE "BUT BOMB”
Yesterday’s NY Times Opinion piece from 5 former Treasure Secretaries was touted as a bold indictment of another Trump Administration move, but if it was meant to be strong, why was the opening statement so weak?
How you open an essay is crucial. It is in the opening that you establish the “framing,” which sets the expectations of the audience.
BREAK IT DOWN FOR ME
Let’s break this essay down by ABT elements (And, But, Therefore) in the first 3 paragraphs. Here’s the opening sentences which are fine — a simple statement of their past experiences. It was exactly what was needed to get us to the statement of THE PROBLEM, which in their opinion is the actions of the current president.
They even managed to move right along with ABT structure, starting the next sentence with a BUT.
They teed everything up for a perfect and powerful BUT BOMB — their one moment to grab attention — everyone’s brains are primed and ready for the central point — bring it on!
BUT THEN … what did they say?
They continued talking about themselves.
Why? Opportunity missed.
And then, even further, they add one more throwaway sentence, then get to a second “turn” — a second point of contradiction (notice that you could have dropped in a “but” to have it say, “BUT regrettably …”), and how strong is this second possible statement of the problem? It’s STILL indirect, saying a wimpy, “substanital cause for concern.”
If your democracy is under siege, it kinda seems like that should be a little more than cause for concern.
Come on, NY Times — if you’re gonna pull together 5 former Treasury Secretaries, at least bring in a narrative consultant who can spot this sort of miscue. It’s like being at a bar, jumping up on the counter, shouting, “HEY EVERYBODY LISTEN TO ME!” And then when they stop the music and the room goes quiet, you say, “I have substantial cause for concern …"
One of the problems is probably the fact that you had to get a statement with which all of them would agree. Most administrative type people don’t like to make such bold statements.
Needless to say, I completely agree with your diagnosis. Particularly the indirect phrasing in that woeful last highlighted line! "Recent reporting gives cause for concern" [yikes...] "that *such efforts are underway* [as if the *efforts* are a bus that's rolling down a hill on tits own.]