Article Analysis
This Page will consist of analysis of various forms of media from Salon.
In this article Masciotra makes a strong argument that questioned the philosophy of universities that continue to foster athletic programs, knowing that these programs are a financial burden to these schools. The author opens with an anecdote that addresses the identifies the problem at hand, "A majority of American Universities accrue no financial benefit from athletics," and, "schools can barely keep up with the increasing costs," which creates an "economic burden of bone crushing weight." The author description of the financial burden placed upon schools by athletic programs leads me to believe that he has a personal connection or vendetta against athletic programs. Masciotra describes the financial burden created by athletic programs as "bone crushing" which may indicate some sort of emotional attachment toward the topic. Masciotra appeals to ethos by citing the writings of a professor from Indiana University, who wrote that big time college sports are crippling undergraduate education. He appeals to logos by citing that students in 2014 paid $114 million in required fees that supported athletic programs. He uses this statement to draw readers' attention to the fact that so much money that is suppose to help with students' education actually assists in "the enhancement of backyard games that are not even financially viable." The author tries to pit readers against college athletic programs by making it seem like they are preying on financially challenged college students, an appeal to pathos. The author's clear purpose is to illustrate how athletic programs seem to be taking away from the true purpose of college, education for the students. Reading this piece gave me a new perspective on the allocation of funds in American universities. The author did a good job in making readers aware of how universities seem to prioritizing athletics over students' education. Masciotra also thoroughly addresses the counterargument that many bring up. Many claim that athletics bring in the most money for the school, but by counter arguing that the money they make does not equal the money they take,
0 Comments
Young's article looks at research that is going on in sub-Saharan Africa, where technology is being developed to battle the spread of malaria. Young's main argument in this article is that GMOs are not entirely bad and that companies like Monsanto have given genetic modification a bad name. He states that actions like "allegedly poisoning the world with chemicals on GM crops grown with copyright seeds... has created a PR challenge for scientist who work with nonprofit organizations to try to instill confidence with communities that bioengineering isn't all about global corporate conquest or outsiders imposing their mysterious projects on them." Kevin Esvelt, a MIT biochemist attests to this claim by telling Salon that mentioning the word 'genetically modified' gets people thinking "Monsanto; this is bad." Young creates uses positive diction to negate the negative connotation behind "genetic modification" by stating that GMOs have lifesaving benefits. Young also uses creates a positive attitude for the audience as they are informed on the new method of introduction of GMOs to countries in need. By highlighting that researchers are not making the technology about "making a buck for the corporation, but instead making the technology for "what the people want", Young is able to bring hero-esque voice to researchers trying to help battle malaria in less developed countries.
One purpose of this article was to inform Young's audience of the research going on to battle Malaria in less developed countries. Another purpose was the eliminate the myth that claims that all GMOs are bad by showcasing the good that GMOs can do when distributed properly and under the right direction. Young appeals to logos by stating the facts about Malaria, like how it "kills nearly 450,000 people a year in some of the world's poorest places." Young uses this appeal to stress the toll that Malaria is taking on the poor population, and also to set up the information that was later presented in the article. Young appeals to ethos by explaining the details and effectiveness of the "gene drive" method which will be used to battle the Malaria virus. He establishes his expert knowledge on the topic by explaining the science behind the technology and further stregthens his credibility by getting comments in support from MIT Biochemist, Kevin Esvelt. Young appeals to pathos with the use of strong verbs such as crippling and eradicate. Young uses "eradicate" to emphasize the dangerous effects malaria could cause if it were not stopped, and he uses "crippling' to evoke fear from the audience. Marcotte's main purpose in this article is to illustrate the magnitude of climate change naysayers in the Republican Party, and claim that they are increasing because of the Trump Administration's widespread policy of denial. Marcotte supports this argument by citing cases where Republican representatives have denied fact. Marcotte main focus of Republican denial is climate change. She appeals to logos by citing that, despite the facts, 84% of conservative Republicans refuse to accept that climate change is real and caused by human activity, and 65% of moderate Republicans say the same.
Marcotte creates a hostile tone towards Republicans who deny blatant fact. She claims that the conspiracy theories of climate change denial perpetrated by the Republican Party are an example of their authoritarianism because of their proneness to denying obvious fact. Marcotte even goes as far as to call Republicans "demagogues" because of their inability to form rational arguments based on facts and scientific evidence. Marcotte's Republican bashing seems to stem from her liberal beliefs, but her writing could also suggest that she is just dissatisfied with the fact that Republicans think they can just get away with lying. The author uses figurative language to denounce Republicans' credibility. She calls the Trump Administration period a "fun house of mirrors," implying that it will be hard to distinguish what is real and what is illusion during his time in office. She also exaggerates Republicans' creativity when it comes to making up facts. She claims that some Republicans might "blame climate change on women having too much sex! Or Barack Obama's affection for Islam." Obviously, these comments have not been made, but the author simply uses them to exaggerate the false claims Republican's are likely to make in "Trump's America." |
Archives
May 2017
Categories |