Nicholas Kristof’s column “Twitter, Women And Power” from the Oct. 24, 2013 New York Times reveals some core values that he believes his readers have and some of his own values. Kristof uses the newsworthy aspect of Twitter’s initial public offering (IPO) of stock to address the issue of women’s inequality on the power structure of that company and the rest of American society. Because he is using the IPO, he relies heavily on monetary gains that women bring to business to argue for equality. Kristof knows that people who are interested in the stock offering will be interested in how Twitter could become more profitable.
Kristof exhibits several of the 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values that Rokeach identified. He starts with the terminal value of a sense of accomplishment by calling Twitter “a sparkling symbol of innovation, technology.” “Sparkling” has positive connotations, and “innovation, technology” are things that are valued in American culture. Further on, also talks about “better results,” “a 26 perent higher return on investment,” outperforming the average company, and “56 percent higher” operating profit.
In his second paragraph, he talks about equity as a reason if not the only one. Equity is the same as the terminal value of equality.
An unwritten value is that of wisdom. He points out that studies show that diverse boards are better for business and that 80 percent of board members believe that diversity at the leadership level is good for business. However, after citing this information, he notes that only 18 percent of Fortune 500 companies’ board members are women, and it will be about 2050 before women make up half of all board members. This contrast shows a lack of applied knowledge and a lack of sound judgment.
The instrumental values of broad-mindedness and imagination are brought together in the idea of innovation. They are also brought together when Kristof writes about the success of companies that have promoted women. The companies are praised as "open-minded and forward-looking” and that may be what is “driving profits” with the women being just a proxy of those qualities.
His entire column is about making companies, and other organizations, more capable (instrumental value) and how women can help with it.
Kristof is careful to keep himself out of the argument as far as directly stating those things that he values. That is part of the reason that it is difficult to separate what he believes and what he believes will convince his readers and investors, who are the decision makers and will be voting for future boards, to grant him adherence.
Among the terms that he uses with that show positive values are “good for all” and “adults,” which he references twice in regards to women in Washington and the “progress” that they made during the government shutdown. He also uses statistics to back up his assessment of the positive effect of women in leadership positions. With words like “better results,” “higher return,” “higher profits,” 56 percent higher operating profit, “increased value for shareholders” and “driving profits.” Even if Kristof does not necessarily believe in these values, he realizes that his target audience will hold this value in high regard.
The negative words that he uses make it seem like he does not like old white men. In fact, the term “white men” has been associated with power and oppression. The latter is in direct contrast to freedom. The words he uses include “stale, old thinking,” “old boy’s club,” “macho culture,” “excessive risk taking,” “bizarre,” “favor” used in such a way as to say that giving something to someone out of kindness is not necessarily a good thing – they should earn it, and “embarrassing.”
In Kristof’s assessment, he concedes the value of being productive and making a profit. In fact, he uses these values to make his argument effective and then expand his argument to the spheres of government and everyone else. If it is good for business, it is good for us all.
Throughout his argument, Kristof argues against the value of conservative boardroom mentality even if he never states his argument as such. Things do not change in business very often when things are working well enough. Old, white men run the businesses because they have always run the businesses. Yet, Kristof argues for change. “Sparkling” innovation and women added to the process of decision making are changes that corporate America and, by extension, the government need to make to be successful.
Kristof admits the lack of women in his own field of punditry, which shows that he recognizes the difficult position he is in advocating for something that he is not actually partaking in. However, he changes this weakness into a strength when he notes that “gender imbalance isn’t just Twitter’s problem.”
When a good writer knows what audience he is addressing, it can be difficult to find the writer’s values because he or she will use the values that are held by the audience, especially when those values are lower in the hierarchy of values held by the writer. It is clear that Kristof values diversity, but it is less clear that he values profits and productivity even though these are specifically stated at hit upon time and again in his editorial. It is the negativity about the process in his last three paragraphs that show he may not be enamored of the profit margin, but if he is, diversity is higher on his list than making money even if they go hand in hand.
Bibliography
Rieke, Richard D., Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai. Peterson. "Chapter 3." Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. Toronto: Pearson, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Kristof, Nocholas D. "Twitter, Women And Power." New York Times [New York] 24 Oct. 2013, Editorials sec.: A27. Print.
Kristof exhibits several of the 18 terminal values and 18 instrumental values that Rokeach identified. He starts with the terminal value of a sense of accomplishment by calling Twitter “a sparkling symbol of innovation, technology.” “Sparkling” has positive connotations, and “innovation, technology” are things that are valued in American culture. Further on, also talks about “better results,” “a 26 perent higher return on investment,” outperforming the average company, and “56 percent higher” operating profit.
In his second paragraph, he talks about equity as a reason if not the only one. Equity is the same as the terminal value of equality.
An unwritten value is that of wisdom. He points out that studies show that diverse boards are better for business and that 80 percent of board members believe that diversity at the leadership level is good for business. However, after citing this information, he notes that only 18 percent of Fortune 500 companies’ board members are women, and it will be about 2050 before women make up half of all board members. This contrast shows a lack of applied knowledge and a lack of sound judgment.
The instrumental values of broad-mindedness and imagination are brought together in the idea of innovation. They are also brought together when Kristof writes about the success of companies that have promoted women. The companies are praised as "open-minded and forward-looking” and that may be what is “driving profits” with the women being just a proxy of those qualities.
His entire column is about making companies, and other organizations, more capable (instrumental value) and how women can help with it.
Kristof is careful to keep himself out of the argument as far as directly stating those things that he values. That is part of the reason that it is difficult to separate what he believes and what he believes will convince his readers and investors, who are the decision makers and will be voting for future boards, to grant him adherence.
Among the terms that he uses with that show positive values are “good for all” and “adults,” which he references twice in regards to women in Washington and the “progress” that they made during the government shutdown. He also uses statistics to back up his assessment of the positive effect of women in leadership positions. With words like “better results,” “higher return,” “higher profits,” 56 percent higher operating profit, “increased value for shareholders” and “driving profits.” Even if Kristof does not necessarily believe in these values, he realizes that his target audience will hold this value in high regard.
The negative words that he uses make it seem like he does not like old white men. In fact, the term “white men” has been associated with power and oppression. The latter is in direct contrast to freedom. The words he uses include “stale, old thinking,” “old boy’s club,” “macho culture,” “excessive risk taking,” “bizarre,” “favor” used in such a way as to say that giving something to someone out of kindness is not necessarily a good thing – they should earn it, and “embarrassing.”
In Kristof’s assessment, he concedes the value of being productive and making a profit. In fact, he uses these values to make his argument effective and then expand his argument to the spheres of government and everyone else. If it is good for business, it is good for us all.
Throughout his argument, Kristof argues against the value of conservative boardroom mentality even if he never states his argument as such. Things do not change in business very often when things are working well enough. Old, white men run the businesses because they have always run the businesses. Yet, Kristof argues for change. “Sparkling” innovation and women added to the process of decision making are changes that corporate America and, by extension, the government need to make to be successful.
Kristof admits the lack of women in his own field of punditry, which shows that he recognizes the difficult position he is in advocating for something that he is not actually partaking in. However, he changes this weakness into a strength when he notes that “gender imbalance isn’t just Twitter’s problem.”
When a good writer knows what audience he is addressing, it can be difficult to find the writer’s values because he or she will use the values that are held by the audience, especially when those values are lower in the hierarchy of values held by the writer. It is clear that Kristof values diversity, but it is less clear that he values profits and productivity even though these are specifically stated at hit upon time and again in his editorial. It is the negativity about the process in his last three paragraphs that show he may not be enamored of the profit margin, but if he is, diversity is higher on his list than making money even if they go hand in hand.
Bibliography
Rieke, Richard D., Malcolm O. Sillars, and Tarla Rai. Peterson. "Chapter 3." Argumentation and Critical Decision Making. Toronto: Pearson, 2013. N. pag. Print.
Kristof, Nocholas D. "Twitter, Women And Power." New York Times [New York] 24 Oct. 2013, Editorials sec.: A27. Print.
|
|
Reflection
The power structure benefits those who are in power. When you want to change the system, you must make changes in public opinion such that the public will raise their voices against any discrimination. It has worked well for homosexuals and the right to get married. Women still lag behind in spite of the evidence that says that having women involved in leadership actually makes things better on all levels. As a person who has taken Journalism classes and works for the paper, it is important that I recognize my inherent biases and overcome them.