In the first interview, a reporter named Terrence Smith discusses how the Iraqi War is being broadcast and how showing the war live risks the lives of reporters, who have not been trained to be part of the military. With Terrence Smith and several other experts chosen by CBS, this issue is argued through certain real life examples, such as an Australian reporter who nearly died. By CBS selecting people on its side of the argument for the situation given, they easily discuss their point of view on the topic with no trouble.
In the second interview, a man named George Ritzer discusses the issues that McDonald's is bringing with their business. By appealing to everyone and delivering food fast and successfully, people are unaware of the low quality food actually being served to them. He makes his point that by doing this it is making people impatient and will ultimately lead to making everyone and every business with the same mind set. In this interview, Ritzer is the only person being asked questions, so this is extremely one-sided and he uses this to his advantage to further convince his audience of his beliefs. He also gives several examples of other business, pretty much all fast food restaurants, taking the same strategy that McDonald's uses to advertise and uses these examples to explain his reasoning.
By looking at both of these interviews, they both do a good job of giving their opinions on certain topics and do so effectively by good selection of the people they interview. By not allowing anyone who disagrees with them to take part of the interviews, the audience hears only one side of the argument, in which the interviews are trying to only allow. The people selected all have strong opinions on the topic and are able to express themselves with no trouble, therefore making it easy for the audience to listen to their persuasive appeals.
No comments:
Post a Comment