During the Cold War era, as the free will system in American resonated around the world; simultaneously, there rose one of the most socially-dictating capable inventions known to man: the television (Anderson and Bushman, 2001). During this Golden Age of television, almost every American household had a television set in their homes. This new devotion to viewing the television led to many societal changes on how we looked, behaved or interacted with people. In the essay “The Man Who Counts the killings”, the author, Scott Stossel, an editor for The Atlantic Magazine, delves into the relationship between viewership of violent TV shows and violence in society. In his cause and effect type essay, Stossel believes in a direct correlation between
…show more content…
Stossel’s use of personification transforms the essay into a highly convincing text as he connects to the audience through emotional means. He also uses an authoritative tone as he writes: “Shouldn't the weight of thousands of such studies be sufficient to persuade broadcasters, required by law since the 1930s to serve the public interest, to change the content of television programming?” While writing in this manner, he conveys his frustration over the workings of the public that he deems redundant, all the while steering the readers into believing his argument, implying the alternative as foolishness. Moreover, the writer frequently uses personification and connotative language to engage the audience. The use of emotionally charged actions as descriptors for workings of society bridges the gap between the author’s and reader’s perspectives. Emotionally-charged, and fear-inspiring words, such as ‘hurt’ and ‘agitation’, are also used to convince the reader of the harmful effects of television programs by the use of their negative connotations. With regards to his use of personification, Stossel writes: “The broadcasting industry slips quietly away, barely chastened.” Here as he demonstrates the cyclic disaffection to change, he exhibits the actions of the government and industry to the reader on an easy to understand level. While in conjunction with these emotional words, Stossel juxtaposes that emotional connection, by placing the audience in a critical position using various rhetorical questions. For example, as Stossel explains the lack of change in the television programming unhindered by surveys and research experiments, he states, “We don’t want to become a nation of Ronny Zamoras, do we?” While his overriding assumption that the overall causal link to violence is television is invalid due to numerous factors such as gun laws and social welfare, his question would strike fear into most
Stossel’s use of personification transforms the essay into a highly convincing text as he connects to the audience through emotional means. He also uses an authoritative tone as he writes: “Shouldn't the weight of thousands of such studies be sufficient to persuade broadcasters, required by law since the 1930s to serve the public interest, to change the content of television programming?” While writing in this manner, he conveys his frustration over the workings of the public that he deems redundant, all the while steering the readers into believing his argument, implying the alternative as foolishness. Moreover, the writer frequently uses personification and connotative language to engage the audience. The use of emotionally charged actions as descriptors for workings of society bridges the gap between the author’s and reader’s perspectives. Emotionally-charged, and fear-inspiring words, such as ‘hurt’ and ‘agitation’, are also used to convince the reader of the harmful effects of television programs by the use of their negative connotations. With regards to his use of personification, Stossel writes: “The broadcasting industry slips quietly away, barely chastened.” Here as he demonstrates the cyclic disaffection to change, he exhibits the actions of the government and industry to the reader on an easy to understand level. While in conjunction with these emotional words, Stossel juxtaposes that emotional connection, by placing the audience in a critical position using various rhetorical questions. For example, as Stossel explains the lack of change in the television programming unhindered by surveys and research experiments, he states, “We don’t want to become a nation of Ronny Zamoras, do we?” While his overriding assumption that the overall causal link to violence is television is invalid due to numerous factors such as gun laws and social welfare, his question would strike fear into most