Parker gains credibility by simply being a writer herself. She might know what writing and the controversies surrounding them might mean. In fact, Parker refers to her as "poor Dunham" with her critics being offended about what they read. Parker doesn't exactly side with Dunham's points of views and baring of the whole truth, but she feels like Dunham is being critiqued a little too strongly by what she wrote. Her piece is convincing because she says " her harshest critics haven’t read the book themselves" and choose to be rude based on rumors. Her piece is well researched because she refers to the actual book in question, and uses direct quotations from there. Parker clearly knows what she is talking about. The author does not side with Dunham, nor does she side with the critics. Her side is more in the territory of freedom of speech, and a little kindness to her fellow writers. She also gains credibility by saying that for herself, she wishes sexual, and anatomical talks happen in homes, or doctors offices. She then says "It isn't prudery but decorum that compels me to say this" and putting her honest opnions out there. She also refers to herself as old-school, something her older readers might be able to relate to.
The author probbly wants her readers to feel pensieve. She wants them to think if the nasty comments Dunham is recieveing is constitutonal and humane. She does feel like the book is cintroversial, but that controversy should not spark to full out hatered. She says that some "might find this offensive but, contextually" and in relation to the enitre book, these acts are blown way out f context. She then explains Dunham's backstory leaving her readers even more thoughtful than before. Is Dunham's book that controversial, or is she a free spirit inluenced by her family background? According to Parker her book is just " Dunham’s brand of blunt truth is , in fact, her brand" and it should not be judeged.
Parker includes references to other contorversial books and movies making her article nore convinving. She is ven more convincing by saying "Reasonable arguments accrue to both sides." and nit just sticking with one side of the group. She appeals to the ctritics and Americans by sying that he karger truth is "artisitic freedom" which is whhat Dunham is using. She includes allusion to the consitution saying the First Amenedment is needed "to protect us from forces that would silence certain thoughts, and, inevitably, certain people."
I have realized that from reading this piece that whike America might claim to have freedom of press, the harch critics on the sidelines mak it seem like almost a mock freedom. Although I don;t agree with Dunham's book, or her views, I feel like is shouldn;t be so negative to a writer whi-o clearly has a coice herdelf. Instead of being hatedul I could just not buy the book or proote it. I think that many Americans shiuld learn to do the same because for now "Lena Dunham is stuck with the story she wrote. And critics, as always, are stuck with themselves."