1. How does the author introduce the topic at hand?
She opens with a rhetorical question (When you need help picking out a new book, gadget, hairstylist or even doctor, what do you do?) and then uses it and the familiar concept of online shopping to segue into her own topic of job review sites.
2. What techniques are used throughout to hook and maintain the audience's attention?
By utilizing quick, snappy headings, as well as a healthy bit of suspense (we don't know right away how she feels about these review sites, though there is some foreshadowing that they aren't entirely good or entirely bad), the author grabs audience attention and encourages them to keep reading.
3. How does the author incorporate outside evidence? Explain why you think the presentation of evidence is either compelling or weak.
Outside evidence is presented in a conversational manner, like the writer is pointing out situations that a job-seeker might find themselves in if they pursue a career while perusing ratings on these company review sites. She then links to the specific reviews where these complaints were raised, thus adding real-world gravity and a more verifiable, fact-grounded tilt to her editorial.
I personally like the way she presents evidence. It doesn't feel like she's trying to force your hand into seeing things the same way she does, nor is the tone inappropriately scholarly. She strikes the balance between friend and self-help writer quite well.
4. How does the author conclude the article?
She ends the article with one last piece of advice: "Don't be afraid to trust your (well-informed) gut. It's usually right."
5. List any of the author’s techniques pertaining to arrangement, style, voice, or delivery of content that you would be interested in imitating in your own editorial.
This article is a bit unique, for me, in that I liked everything the author did outside of the opening and closing. I am usually fairly skeptical about opening a piece with a rhetorical question (though I will concede that it can be effective and that I've done it myself on occasion). The author's question here, though, felt very mundane and inorganic, and made me question, for a moment, whether I was reading the actual article or some spam advertisement that preceded it.
Similarly, I thought the last sentence felt tacked on and cheesy, and not necessarily of a piece with the rest of the article. I would have ended it with the "take this with a grain of salt" advice and the point that people with bad things to say will always say them louder than people with nothing to complain about.
Outside of those two things though, I really liked the conversational voice (not at all antagonistic, which is something to think about for an argumentative editorial) and the headings, which do a lot of break up the piece and enhance the flow.
"Coke Blinks"
1. How does the author introduce the topic at hand?
He better explains his intriguing title, setting up the scene and giving a brief history of Coca Cola at the same time. In addition, he also establishes his negative stance on the topic.
2. What techniques are used throughout to hook and maintain the audience's attention?
He works through a brief rhetorical analysis of the central commercial, makes a key point by equating sugary soda drinks with cigarettes, both in manipulative advertising and disease-causing danger, and then moves on to more scientific support. The audience can only sit, open-mouthed, as they hear about how bad this stuff is for them and how shameless the marketing campaigns that keep the machine moving really are. In a sense, the subject matter keeps things going more than the actual writing or structure, but the author serves as a good conduit for that information, which is worth something at least.
3. How does the author incorporate outside evidence? Explain why you think the presentation of evidence is either compelling or weak.
He links to polls, studies, commercials, etc., as well as conducting interviews on his own, all to rail against the dual damages of sugary beverages and manipulative advertising.
4. How does the author conclude the article?
His last paragraph brings everything together and it all coalesces to form a portrait of Coca Cola as a villain of the people and of public health:
"The beverage companies see the writing on the wall and will lobby,
cajole, beg, plead, propagandize, lie, spend and do anything else they
have to do to prevent that regulation, just as the tobacco companies
did. And chances are, in time, they’ll also accept regulation in the
United States while aggressively increasing their marketing efforts
overseas. But that won’t work either, because the word is out: Coke is
not part of the solution. It’s a big part of the problem."
The last sentence is a perfect condensation of his argument: this company is damaging something in our country, their interests are purely monetary, their advertising is faulty, and they need to be removed from the occasion.
5. List any of the author’s techniques pertaining to arrangement, style, voice, or delivery of content that you would be interested in imitating in your own editorial.
I wish that he had structured the whole thing with a little more flow or hierarchy. He seems to jump from one thing to the other, and with no forecasting statement to orient readers, it doesn't always feel natural to follow the changes. Headings would have helped break things up and would have made the piece feel shorter and easier to comprehend.
With that said, his conclusion is brilliant and his manipulation of a wide variety of sources shows a great understanding of the topic.
No comments:
Post a Comment