Learning to Livestrong Again
One would think that someone who has
won seven major sports titles would be idolized by many. However, this is not
the case for Lance Armstrong. After admitting to the use of performance
enhancing drugs his spotlight in the public eye is now tarnished. The New York
Times wrote several articles as the story behind Armstrong's doping unraveled.
In these articles the writers focus on the negative aspects of Lance's
character and they seem to be written as more of an attack. Like most news
stories, The New York Times reported the facts and used them to work against
Armstrong. In rewriting this story about Armstrong I worked to combine these three
news articles into a more opinionated editorial piece. Instead of focusing on
all of the negative aspects of Armstrong's doping scandal, I wanted to put a
more positive spin on the story. I think that it is important to look at the
issue in more than one context, and to bring to light how big of a step this is
in Armstrong's life. Although what he did was wrong he is now having to learn
hope to cope while dealing with the repercussions. In writing this piece I
tried to avoid the typical outline seen in news reports. I didn't use any
quotes in the piece, but instead tried to incorporate my own thoughts and
research into my writing.
In an interview with Oprah Winfrey,
Lance Armstrong, a former Tour de France winner, admitted to the use of performance
enhancing drugs. By admitting to the use of these drugs, not only was Armstrong
stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, he was also banned from competing
in the Olympics and other sporting events. Those who watched the interview felt
no sympathy for Armstrong. Instead, many felt that he finally got what he
deserved, and a majority felt disappointed that during the interview, never
once did Armstrong simply apologize. Although the discussion of Armstrong's
crimes is the topic that fills the newspapers there is another side of the
story to consider. After years of denying any wrongdoing, Armstrong is finally
facing his lies, an act that in itself is very courageous. In the wake of his
life being destroyed, Armstrong is learning to live again, and that is
something that should hold just as much significance as the scandal.
Two wrongs don't make a right, and
in Armstrong's case, seven wrongs don't make a right either. However, getting
it right is not the point. The point is to learn from one’s mistakes, and that
is exactly what Armstrong is doing. For years Armstrong was idolized by a wide
range of people. His inspirational story
of battling cancer and then going on to win seven Tour de France titles
instilled hope and strength within his followers. Watching this one man
accomplish such a great feat made people begin to believe not only in their own
abilities but also in themselves. With such a large fan base, and using his
considerable winnings, Armstrong was able to start the Livestrong Foundation.
Soon people across the country were sporting Livestrong yellow wristbands in
the fight against cancer, and Armstrong was working to help those who were battling
cancer just as he had. Obviously Armstrong wanted to support a cause that was
dear to his heart; he simply lost sight of his goal in his aim for fame.
Admitting to his mistakes has caused
Armstrong to reevaluate himself and his intentions. In his interview with
Oprah, Armstrong depicts himself as a lifelong bully who was hardened by his
fight with cancer. Armstrong also admitted that he was scared of himself and
his ability to overlook his doping as cheating. By admitting that he used
performing enhancing drugs, Armstrong is now currently in the process of facing
himself and coming to terms with his actions and their consequences. The
process may be lengthy, but in the end Armstrong may be able to view his
situation and his mistakes in a new light.
Lance Armstrong has watched his life
self destruct since the admittance of his doping. He has been banned from the
competitions he loves. He has lost his sponsorships, teammates have turned
against him, and he is being sued by multiple companies for more money than his
winnings total. Yet, throughout all of this despair, Armstrong is working hard
to mend his broken image. The road ahead is going to be rough, and he won't
have many supporters, but there is no one better suited than Armstrong for this
battle. Realizing his personal flaws is simply the first step for Armstrong on
his road to recovery. Once he rights himself, Armstrong will then be able to
address the bigger issue at hand, living honestly and mending relationships.
The road is a long one, but Lance Armstrong is sure to learn to genuinely,
livestrong.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-confesses-to-using-drugs-but-without-details.html?pagewanted=2
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/sports/cycling/those-wronged-by-lance-armstrong-see-little-right-in-interview.html?_r=0
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/sports/cycling/amid-tears-lance-armstrong-leaves-unanswered-questions-in-oprah-winfrey-interview.html
Peer
Review by Hannah Szabo
1.)
The
original story described Oprah’s interview with Lance Armstrong regarding his
confession to doping. The audience was mostly the American public but also for
people around the globe interested in the truth behind Armstrong’s history. The
purpose was to shed light on Armstrong’s past. The new story describes Oprah’s
interview with Armstrong regarding his doping but also emphasizing his struggle
with cancer. The new audience is for anyone interesting in a different
(positive) take on Armstrong’s doping history. The new purpose is to portray
Armstrong in a favorable manner and let the public know he deserves respect.
2.)
The
change of writing can be seen with the positive reinforcements the author gives
to Armstrong rather than tearing his achievements down by focusing on his
faults.
3.)
The
intro could include a more captivating opening sentence.
4.)
The
“new” article targets the new audience with a new purpose very nicely. Personal
thoughts and outside research helped the author to rewrite the story
successfully take a new and more enlightening approach to the Armstrong
interview.
Reviewer: Jordyn Theisen
1. What is the original story, audience, and
purpose? What is the new audience and/or purpose.
The original
story is about Lance Armstrong and his doping and cover-ups. It talks about how
he didn’t feel remorse for what he did and in order to get back into races, he
would have to reveal who helped him dope, who covered it up, and who knew about
it. The audience is educated people who like to read the news (because it’s in
the NY Times) and people who are fans of Armstrong or are curious about the
controversy. The purpose is to talk about an interview with Armstrong and the
latest revelations in the doping story. The new purpose is to write the essay
in an editorial format and add more personal opinion rather than just fact. The
audience of this would be people who want someone’s view of this topic. It
could be put in the editorial section of a newspaper too.
2. How is the change in audience and/or
purpose reflected in the rewriting of the piece?
The change in
purpose is reflected in the paper by the personal comments. She adds her
opinion on how it’s not just about Armstrong’s crimes, it’s about him facing
those crimes, which she sees as courageous. She argues that people shouldn’t be
so focused on his wrongdoings; they should focus more on how he’s fixing and
making up for what he’s done.
3. What is the single best thing that could be
added to the introduction?
Summing up the
three articles used as the original sources would be nice so that the reader
can get a sense of where the new article is going and how it has changed
without reading all three original articles.
4. In what other ways might the piece better
target its new audience and/or purpose?
Maybe addressing
whether or not you think he should apologize would be more opinion you could
add, or if you think that his teammates should turn against him in light of the
fact that multiple bikers were doping at the same time.
5. Any additional comments?
I thought you did
a good job transitioning to an editorial and opinion and information was
incorporated well throughout the article.
No comments:
Post a Comment