Art Cullen is a Pulitzer Prize – winning author from Iowa. In my blogging class, I have been tasked with reading at least two of his editorials and responding to them. Like any other skill, it is useful to observe very good examples of writing so I can improve my own writing skills. During 2016, Cullen wrote several editorials on issues regarding nitrate levels in the water and soil in Iowa.

His first article, posted in March of 2016, is called BV is Losing the Public. In this editorial, we learn about the nitrate pollution in the Raccoon River. The Des Moines Water Works was filing a lawsuit against the Drainage Districts in three separate counties for allowing pollution to be dumped into the river. However, as Cullen points out, the pollution is coming from farms not adhering to clean water regulations. Cullen suggests farms must either make sure their crops aren’t producing all these nitrates or pay for the nitrate removal facilities to be replaced.

In this concisely – written article, Cullen does an amazing job of summarizing the issue and explaining what is not being done correctly. He then is able to offer a solution without being petty or disrespectful to people who think differently. If someone wants to argue well and be respected and listened to by their opponents, they must be tactful in their approach.

In July of that same year, Cullen wrote another editorial that is more strongly worded. In his editorial, They Don’t Know, we learn that the three counties being sued earlier that year paid off the Des Moines Water Works in a settlement to keep them quiet. Upon further investigation, Cullen reports that no one knows where the settlement money came from. The money allegedly came from mysterious donors. Cullen points out that this is ridiculous and that this much money can’t be given or moved simply.

In this second editorial, we see a slightly different side of Cullen. In this editorial, we see Cullen get very upset with the people involved in this issue. While he still remains tactful, the tone of this editorial is decidedly much more tense and angry than that of the earlier editorial. He calls people out for doing some less than ethical things in this process. This editorial is a good example of a situation where the author disagrees strongly with the people he is writing about. Still, it is well-written and does not resort to pettiness, something other journalists turn to at the drop of a hat.

I’d love to connect with you! Check out my Instagram and Twitter.