Anda di halaman 1dari 6

Norris 1

Claire Norris Noah Tysick English 111 09 October 2013 Comparative Analysis Essay The internet has proven to be a huge influence on people and the spread of information. Anything can be found with the click of a couple buttons. Information can reach the other side of the world in seconds, but like with a game of telephone there will always be some mistranslation. There have been many articles discussing such things. A couple of these articles are, The YouTube Effect by Moises Naim and Mad About You by Greg Gutfield. While both articles have strong points of view, The YouTube Effect is an easier article to understand the authors point of view and relate to it. While assessing these two articles their word choice plays a key role. Gutfield makes it hard to take him seriously, when he uses the word boneheaded (Gutfield 422) six t imes in a single sentence. You cant take someone seriously that uses such words, it makes him seem uneducated. Then on the other side of things, Naim uses words such as propaganda (Naim 424) and proliferation (Naim 425) which shows he is educated. It is much easier to put trust into an educated persons writing. It is believable that they would know what they are talking about or at least they have done the research. Another thing to look at when comparing these two is their use of Aristotles appeals . The use of pathos is very apparent in Gutfields piece. He starts off by saying, I am extremely excited. (Gutfield 421), with that he sets the tone for the strong emotion behind the piece. He

Norris 2

uses the word hate (Gutfield 422) which is a very strong emotion to feel, it shows how invested he is in his writing. Its good to show some emotion, but the lack of facts takes away from the piece. Sometimes your feelings can get in the way of the point youre trying to make because it comes out too jumbled when youre frustrated about it. If he could have supported what he was saying with some facts it would have made a bigger impact, like Naims piece. Naim tells us that, Every month YouTube receives 20 million visitors, and, there is 65,000 new videos posted every day, (Naim 424). With information like this is gives credibility to this piece. He is clearly using logos to express his opinions. When he compares the CNN effect to YouTube and he tells us he believes The YouTube Effect will be stronger it show s his logical reasoning for it. It is nice how he talks about how our government along with other governments are trying to prevent some effects of YouTube and the sharing of information. He states, Governments are really feeling the heat of the YouTube effect. The U.S. military recently ordered its soldiers to stop posting videos unless they have been vetted, (Naim 425) this briefly shows the negatives of the effect. There is something that these articles have in common. They both are lacking in something that would have made these articles more engaging, while Gutfield s piece could have made more interesting with the use of some agreement from others or by showing the opposing side of things, Naim is missing his personal insight. Gutfield is very bias in his article. He talks a lot about his distaste for Time magazine and online writers. If he would have included some quotes from others that have the same feelings as him, it would have made this piece seem more like a point of view instead of just sounding like a rant. He could also have shown the other side of it. There are different types of online writers; they are not all the same. Like it

Norris 3

was stated earlier he could have used some more scholarly words and he would have sounded like an educated man. It wouldnt have sounded so childish and it would have been taken more seriously. Then there is Naims article which shows facts and logical reasoning, but has left out the personal touch. This piece would have been a more dynamic piece if the author would have included their own thoughts on the subject. It is always nice to know the authors thoughts it helps the audience understand the author. These two articles are both clear in their audience, but dont think it was received so well by both audiences. Both of these articles were written for a political audience, we know this because one was published in The American Spectator (Exploring Relationships 421) and the other was published in Foreign Policy (Exploring Relationships 423). Both of thes e magazines are known for their coverage of political issues and news. Going off the assumption that the audience wants to know about politics, they want a well written article with facts and credibility to support their claims. With that in mind its safe to assume that Gutfields article was not received well by the audience. He has no facts or credibility to support what he is saying, he just weighs us down with his dislikes without getting to the point and making it clear. He says, They are everywhere and nowhere at once-creating cruel stereotypes rather than arguments-to attack their opposition, (Gutfield 422). He makes it very hard to trust his word when he is being a hypocrite; he is doing the very same thing with his article. He just tells us about how much he doesnt like what online writers are doing, but he doesnt give any examples of poor internet writings. Naims article of the other hand would have been received well by its audience because it is filled with credibility and logic. He tells about all different types of videos posted on YouTube. He not only talks about the positive, he also talks about the

Norris 4

negative side of it. When he says, Activists everywhere are recognizing the power of citizen produced and Web-distributed videos as the ultimate testimony, (Naim 424) with this we see the positive in the effect. While we see the negative when he states, Beijing has been effective in censoring the content its citizens can view, it has yet to figure out a way to prevent a growing number of videos of peasant rebellions from being posted online, (Naim 425). He also compares it to the CNN effect and talks about how he believes The YouTube Effect will have a bigger impact. Its easy enough to come to the conclusion that Naims piece was the better received article by the political community. One big difference in these articles that cant go unnoticed is the use of generalization. Gutfield made the choice to generalize his article, by grouping all online writers together and saying that they are all cowards hiding behind the comfort of their computers. How is it that he knows this to be true? There are plenty of online writers that dont attack others and are on there to get out their opinions just simply because it is the best way to be heard these days. Everyone one uses the internet and it is very easy to put yourself out there and to tell people what you think and how you feel and know that it will been seen and heard. He says that all online writers just make cruel stereotypes, but from what is wrote in this piece he is doing the same with this article. He also states, The web does not connect people -it ramps up a mob mentality masquerading as a community-a sham considering no one does anything for anyone anymore, (Gutfield 422). That is a big claim to make without backing it up. There are plenty of people that can stay in touch with family members only through internet and without it wouldnt be able to stay in touch. The internet may alienate some from the world around them, but not all of them. Then on the other side of things you have Naim that didnt generalize at all.

Norris 5

He shows you all sides of things. He doesnt say that all uploaded videos are the same; instead he tells you that some are flat out lies, some are true and some are just for something fun to watch. He lets you know that this could be a good or a bad thing. It is better to read a piece that isnt so selective and closed minded. You have to remember not everyone that does a certain thing all do it for the same reasons. There is no need to generalize when it comes to people because we are all so different. Through this we see that with the use of credibility and logic, Naims writing about the internet is best understood. Naim creates a bond with the reader with his choice of wording and relatability, while Gutfield just confuses his readers with his words and accusations. Two examples of this are, I might add, a few million other crotch fondler, and stalkers, stated by Gutfield on page 422 and, Some videos reveal truths. Others spread disinformation, propaganda, and outright lies, which was declared by Naim on page 424. We would have been able to understand Gutfield a little better if he would have been more relatable. In conclusion the article to read about on the subject of the internets effect on society would be The YouTube Effect.

Norris 6

Works Cited Exploring Relationships: Globalization and Learning in the 21 st Century. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print. Gutfield, Greg. Mad About You. Exploring Relationships: Globalization and Learning in the 21st Century. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print. Naim, Moises. The YouTube Effect. Exploring Relationships: Globalization and Learning in the 21st Century. Boston: Pearson Learning Solutions, 2013. Print.