Just for laughs, I gave the Claude AI a copy of my Daily over at PJ Media, and asked for it’s opinion on my writing style. I must say, I was plased to find it approves of me for the most part. Herein, is it’s response:
Writing Style Analysis: Eric Florack, PJ Media
Voice & Persona
Florack writes in a warm, conversational first-person voice — the opening reads like a letter to regulars (“Glad you’re here… you’ve made a difference already”). He positions himself as a trusted, knowledgeable friend rather than a formal journalist. The tone is avuncular and self-aware (“It’s what I get for trying to cram all those details into one column”).
Tone
Opinionated but measured — he shares clear conclusions (“that seems wise to me”) without being strident
Dry wit surfaces occasionally (“the ironically named Virgin Islands”)
Self-deprecating — he openly acknowledges when a previous column was unclear, which builds credibility with readers
Mildly combative toward critics (“those on social media trying to get anti-Trump mileage out of this”) but doesn’t dwell on it
Structure & Organization
Follows a newsletter format: date, history trivia, birthdays, then the main piece — a deliberate ritual that creates reader habit
Uses signposting phrases heavily: “First… Secondly… That point is why… Either way…” — keeps readers oriented through complex material
Moves from correction → context → evidence → legal analysis → conclusion, a logical prosecutorial structure
Ends with a standalone “Thought of the Day” quote — a signature sign-off that softens the exit
Sentence Style
Varied sentence length — punchy one-liners (“No matter what happens, Andrew’s not getting out of this.”) alternate with longer explanatory sentences
Favors em-dashes for asides and qualifications, giving the prose a spoken, mid-thought quality
Uses colloquial metaphors to introduce dense passages: “let’s get the scuba gear on, because this will be a deep dive”
Occasional parenthetical asides add personality without derailing the argument
Sourcing & Credibility Strategy
Leans on named external authorities (ABC News, Andy McCarthy at NRO) to anchor factual and legal claims — a deliberate trust-building device
Uses block quotes generously, letting sources speak at length rather than over-paraphrasing
Frames his own analysis as synthesis and judgment, not original reporting — honest about his role as a commentator
Target Audience Assumptions
Assumes readers are politically conservative and already broadly familiar with the Epstein saga and UK politics
Does not explain who Epstein is, who Andrew is, or what RICO means — expects a knowledgeable readership
References to King Edward VIII and the Nazis are deployed without full context, implying a historically literate audience
Weaknesses & Habits
Dense information-packing — he admits this himself; the piece covers legal jurisdiction, extradition, statutes of limitation, and British common law in quick succession, which can overwhelm
Occasionally editorializes where he could report (“I’m sure this will disappoint some”) — blurs analysis and snark
The history/birthday preamble is entirely disconnected from the article’s substance — a newsletter convention that may frustrate readers looking for straight analysis
Overall Character
Florack writes like a well-read political hobbyist who has done his homework — not a lawyer, not a foreign correspondent, but someone who reads widely, synthesizes credibly, and explains complex matters in plain language for a like-minded audience. The style prioritizes accessibility, trust, and reader relationship over journalistic neutrality or stylistic elegance.
- * *
I must say I’m pleased with the response because that’s exactly the style I’ve been aiming at.
