This thirty second read is about a mother who realizes that her son has memorized the McDonald's script through her consistent coffee runs. She's surprised by how much of an impact it has on children and she's afraid that it makes her family seem lazy. "A mother-of-two said she felt guilty after realising her son had perfected the McDonald's drive-thru patter thanks to her morning coffee runs." Its very simple diction makes it seem like the author shoved this out in five minutes before it was published onto the website. The author also utilizes simple syntax because it's a light-hearted article about a boy that memorized the McDonald's script, "She explained she feared people might think the family eats there 'all the time' but realised the impact the chain has on children." This makes the article easier and quicker to read without too much thought on it. The author's tone in this article is difficult to determine because most of the article is just quotes from the mother. "Nicky, from Cumbernauld, Scotland said her little boy only eats at the fast food chain as a treat, but because she pops by for coffee, he'd picked up the workers' scripts." There's little to no emotion in this article that I could find. The goal was to shed light on how malleable young kids minds can be, if they are exposed to something at a consistent rate they are bound to have it drilled into their head. It's a strong purpose but the entire article is extremely weak, nothing but direct quotes from the mom with one or two sentence explaining the situation and no analysis or anything like that. The author appeals to ethos through the mother's guilt. She feels as though she's done something wrong because her son knows how to say, "Hi! Welcome to McDonald's" at such a young age. The article then randomly transitions to talking about the different types of toys that the boy plays with and has no real conclusion to the whole situation.
0 Comments
This article is about the impatience that the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition is developing due to the fact that the U.S. Interior Secretary, Ryan Zinke, has continued to avoid attending a meeting with them in the matter on managing the national monument. The author’s diction is biased and their tone has a hint of an emotional connection to what they're writing about for once. Unlike almost every other article I have read, the author doesn't qualify the argument. They are siding with the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and provides contradicting and racially insensitive statements from Ryan Zinke and his spokesperson. Ryan Zinke himself said that he was “going to ride a horse, like Teddy Roosevelt, and see the land and talk to the Navajo and the nations of tribes,” during one of the conferences. What’s surprising is that he never planned on going to the conferences in the first place, not even informing the people who work for him about it, “An Interior Department spokesperson said she did not know whether Zinke planned to meet with the inter-tribal coalition.” The author only brings up statements like these against the U.S. Interior Department, showing a bias towards the Bears Ears Inter-Tribal Coalition and how they deserve to have a say in “the 1.3 million acres that are protected with the monument designation contains 100,000 archaeological and cultural sites.” The purpose of this article was to show how racially and culturally insensitive the people who run our country can be and how unfair Native Americans are still being treated to this day.
This article might be the shortest one I will read. If it was put on paper it would only be about half a page. With a news site like The Daily Mail there's hardly any connection between the author and their work so it's difficult to find rhetorical devices like tone, diction, or purpose. This article actually does not have any diction from the author because the author didn't write anything themselves, the entire article is what the dressmaker said during the interview. The dressmaker's diction was simple but professional, talking about situations in her work but making sure not to sound whiny or as if she hates her customers for wanting their dress to be certain type or gaining weight before their wedding. She even loves her work so it's not much of a problem for her, "I love doing evening dresses for formal occasions, and those customers are so much more relaxed." The author has absolutely no emotional attachment to this article but the dressmaker has a deep and intimate attachment to her work. The dressmaker's tone is also very kind and understanding, as she talks about her interactions with her customers she doesn't complain about them and actually learns from them, "I once made the mistake of telling a new client, who was very fat, that for ‘larger’ people I recommended in-built support. She said ‘I’m not large!’ and stormed out. Now I’m very careful how I put things — I aim to make people feel gorgeous, no matter what the tape measure reads." The headline for this article was very misleading and click bait-y. When I first read it I thought it would be dressmakers talking trash about how their customers don't know what they're talking about and that they should listen to the dressmaker but it was just a transcript of a five minute interview with a very sweet dressmaker. I don't think there are any appeals in this article.
This article is a detailed summary of the fire that occurred on I-85 in Atlanta and the possible suspects who started it who have been arrested. The author’s diction is well informed and serious on the matter. Their level of emotional attachment is probably fairly low considering that most of the journalists for The Daily Mail are based in either the U.K. or Australia. The article contains a lot of pieces and interviews from city council members, prosecutors, and people that live near the accident who “thought a storm was coming or that the sun had set early” due to how thick the smoke was. This all makes the article very strong and solid and shows that the author actually put work into it. The author appeals to logic when writing about the possible culprits and why they were arrested specifically, “one suspect, Basil Eleby, was charged with criminal damage to property; the others, Sophia Bruner and Barry Thomas, were each charged with criminal trespass.” The author’s tone is mainly professional, writing a summary without trying to develop any personal connection or opinion on the matter. The purpose for writing this article was to give a detailed summary of an incident with such a massive impact that happened so quickly.
The author's diction in this article is much more formal and serious than the other articles I have read so far (it should be, this is a serious case that they're writing about) and this time there are parts actually written by the author instead of just a copy of the interview. There doesn't seem to be much of an emotional attachment to this article and it's more of a summary of what's to come in Iowa, "Iowa Coalition Against Domestic Violence is registered against the bill, which is expected for House debate Thursday. Laura Hessburg, the ICADV director of public policy, said the group fears increasing prison penalties could cause unintended consequences such as perpetuating cycles of violence and racial inequality." The tone is very detached because the author doesn't give their own opinion in the article. The purpose of the article was to explain the opposition that the DES MOINES bill is receiving and how the bill could actually make things worse for domestic abuse victims and even the government, "We should be figuring out ways to address these very important issues, but without sending even more people to jail." The author appeals to logos by using facts to discuss each side of the argument. People who support the bill say, "the bill will ultimately ensure repeated domestic abuse offenders are not eligible for early release too quickly following a conviction." People who appose the bill say "That's not going to change unless we find a way to get people into productive rehabilitation and give them the opportunity to have a healthy life." The author qualifies the argument which inherently makes the article weak but the facts provided on each side give a detailed explanation or the problem and makes both sides of the argument valid.
This article is more of a brief summary of an infamous murderer that has just recently been caught and now has jumped the waiting list for cataracts surgery. The article is then followed by a video that interviews one of the victims' son about the court hearing. In the short sentences written by the author, their tone seems to be slightly sympathetic. The author talks about how pleased the Yorkshire Ripper is for having the surgery and being able to see clearly without talking about the fact that he had murdered 13 women in the 80's until the very end of the article as a side note. There's no emotional attachment to the article that the author possesses, no personal opinion or anything like that displayed and that seems to be a common pattern in The Daily Mail's authors. The video appeals to pathos as the son talks about how long he has waited for the court hearing and to get some closure for the death of his mother, yet that's the only thing that could be gotten out of the video as it doesn't even mention the cataract operation that the article talks about. I'm not entirely sure what the purpose of this article was other than an update on the life of a mass murderer, which I'm sure no one asked for. Like all the other articles, this one was weak in the sense that it provides the bare minimum information in the span of two to three sentences and that's the entire article. I understand that that's what tabloids are meant for, quick summaries of current news so people can stay generally updated on what's going on, but even BuzzFeed has longer articles and 90% are gifs and jokes stolen from teenagers.
This lengthy article talks about how homeless people sleeping in front of Melbourne's busiest street, called rough sleepers, have been arrested and forced out of that area to accommodate for construction. The author's diction is professional, qualifying the argument by interviewing both sides and providing an equal amount of evidence. The emotional connection the author has to this situation is more indifference than anything, since they qualified the argument about whether rough sleepers should be allowed to sleep on the street or not makes it seem like the author is a mediator and has no real opinion on this, or at least their opinion isn't expressed. The author appeals to the government's lack of credibility and how "'genuine homeless' people still outside the station would be offered accommodation and access to 'intensive' support services for two years." This claim is contradicted in a later interview with one of the homeless people they evicted who said, "she has been offered six weeks of accommodation but she would be back on the streets again soon after that." The author's purpose for writing this article was to provide a closer look at the homelessness situation in Australia, how the government is handling it, and the spectrum of reactions that the public has on the homeless. The article brings sympathy for the rough sleepers through pictures and personal interviews of them dealing with the police and the unwanted attention from the public. This article is very strong which surprised me because it came from such a trashy news site. It's lengthy and detailed, provides plenty of evidence, and even lists solutions that have begun to develop for the future.
|
Archives
May 2017
Categories |