I recently read two articles about the shooting at a waffle house in Nashville, Tennessee. One article, titeled, Man Sought in Waffle House Shooting Had Been Arrested Near White House, was from the New York Times, and the other, titeled, A 29-year-old Man Saved Numerous Lives During Tennessee Waffle House Shooting, Police Say, from USA Today. To start, the article from the New York Times is more focused on the capture of the shooter, while the article from USA Today focuses on the man who kept the shooter from harming others. Both articles acknowledge the fact that Shaw Jr., the man who fought off the shooter, was a hero, and the fact that he modestly denied being so. Maybe by focusing the article on Shaw Jr., USA Today is reaching out to ordinary citizens, and showing us the power that we have, and how we can change the world. USA Today’s articles are typically shorter and more concise than New York Times’ articles. This demonstrates their appeal to everyday citizens who try to stay caught up with the news, without having to spend too much time. I have found that The New York Times typically has longer articles, and is more centered towards what the government can do, and what we as citizens can do to impress the government to make a change. At the conclusion of this New York Times article, the writer called upon the government to implement gun control and take actions to “get these weapons off our streets.” Based off of who these two writers were trying to appeal to, their articles were written accordingly, USA Today appealing to the everyday citizen, and The New York Times calling upon government officials to make a change.
I am a constant user of Spotify, but my cheap self does not have Spotify Premium. The defaults of not having Spotify Premium are not being able to pick the song you listen to, not having your music downloaded, and of course, advertisements. Most of these ads are for Spotify Premium, and these ads are so annoying. Sometimes, I have to leave the room when these ads come on. At first, I just thought that Spotify was just bad at advertising, and that the ads were really annoying. Then my music would turn back on, and I wouldn’t think much else of it. After we began analyzing ads, I realized the genius of these insanely annoying ads. People are so much more likely to pay to get rid of ads when the ads are so bad that can’t even be listened to. These ads are bad on purpose so that people will pay for Spotify Premium, and get rid of them. When people hear “no ad interruptions” at the end of a painful ad, it doesn’t even matter what else was said about Spotif...
I definitely agree with the fact that the New York Times does appeal to a somewhat broader audience (specifically government officials). Somehow, calling on government officials and every day people makes me feel like I have more of an impact, while at the same time it makes me feel helpless against these shootings. I don't know if that even slightly makes sense, but thats how I feel.
ReplyDeleteI feel as if the New York times appeals to the every day citizen just as much if not more than Today. Policy makers already know what they want to do, they already have an opinion, and just want the facts so they can project their bias. New York times gives solutions and injects their opinions to influence voters and citizens who don't already have policy options and strong biases.
ReplyDelete