Digital Lab Assignment #3

Because my source is a commentary written by someone to the Salt Lake Tribune, the data that Voyant presented to me doesn’t represent what I find to be offensive about the article at first glance. I believe this is due predominantly to the fact that the perspective and opinion of the author is very different from my own opinion. However, after further investigation into the data, I did manage to find some phrases that accurately represent what upsets me about this commentary. For example, the images below represent some of the ridiculous defenses that the author of this commentary used to justify Doug’s actions. For reference, Douglas Tate was sentenced to prison for sexual abuse of a minor in 2017.

The phrase “hurt will find healing” might seem nice at first glance, but the fact that it is directed at Doug’s “hurt” is infuriating. I think this is proof that the text says more about the author of the commentary than it does about what actually happened. Comments like these emphasize the powerful influence Doug had on those he interacted with. He was capable of creating a purely false pretense in order to coerce others into seeing him in exactly the way he wanted to be seen. Doug’s actions will never be justified by someone who did not experience abuse at his hand.

This trend was really interesting to me and definitely relates to the most common claim of the commentary; the author repeatedly attempts to justify Doug’s actions by blaming his service in the Vietnam war. Although I have no intention of disrespecting those who have served our country, there is absolutely no excuse for forcibly manipulating and repeatedly, forcibly raping a sixteen-year-old girl.

I used the information from both Voyant and the article to utilize a mixture of my perspective and the perspective of the author. I wanted to create a juxtaposition of the ideas of the author and of the realities of the consequences of Doug’s actions. I chose phrases that disgusted me and phrases that spoke to me on a deep, emotional level. It was satisfying to use the phrases the author wrote in an attempt to defend Doug and turn them around to attack his character and choices. Words are powerful and although the author attempted to justify his own decision to write this defense of this cruel and horrifying man, he failed miserably. There is no way to justify the decision to defend a child rapist in the face of a survivor who was brave enough to come forward.