TOW #24 - Singapore Article

The Editorial Board of the New York Times chronicled the passing of Singapore founding-leader Lee Kuan Yew earlier this week. In their article, "Lee Kuan Yew's Mixed Legacy in Singapore", they focus on two conflicting aspects of how the leader will be remembered. While Yew was an economic genius who helped to make tiny and weak Singapore into a global economic model, he was also an authoritarian who controlled opposition and the media to favor himself, only "retiring" to still very influential position after political pressure. The article is trying to make a very careful and balanced point: This one wasn't so bad, but let's try to do even better with the next one.
Any New York Times readers who have heard the name Lee Kuan Yew probably knew him as a purely good force in Singapore. Obama went as far as to call him a "giant of history". The article's address of his positive legacy was therefore mostly reassuring, it included a few different effects and ways of phrasing the basic concept of economic prosperity and stability. This wasn't overtly effective, but that is a testament to its subtlety then its impact.
Alternatively, qualifying the economic claim by reminding an audience of his human rights violations and freedom infringements required a bit more skill. The text does this in a bomb shell method. Right in the middle of list of positive to neutral facts, it switches to a terrible event. For example, "His 'Singapore model', of economic development inspired other leaders, including Deng Xiaoping of China, toward free-market policies. He was also an autocrat who silenced critics and sent opposition leaders to jail, suppressing dissent and intimidating the press." There is no subtlety, but there is a lot of shock value, and for this piece of evidence, it is effective to get it out up front as much as possible.
In short, this is  not just another text article. The introduction full of subtlety and doubt. As the subtlety gives way to impactful-ness present at the end of a paper. Perhaps the strategies themselves were not effective, but  it did make the point more obvious and force the audience to reconsider widely help beliefs.