Comparing the Tactics of Kaminer and The Economist
The 21st century technology makes people live in a world full of monitors. Wherever we go, there is a various kind of surveillance system watching people. In the 2000s, two authors, Wendy Kaminer and The Economist brought the issue of surveillance system in their articles “Trading Liberty for Illusions” (2002) which is written by Wendy Kaminer and “If Looks Could Kill” (2008) by The Economist. Kaminer’s article focuses more on the negative sides of the electronic surveillance system, especially facial recognition system. She questions if it is safe to believe facial recognition system, emphasizing the importance of civil liberty. She also calls for people to approach to safety in a logical …show more content…
On the other hand, The Economist’s article also shows the downsides of surveillance system, but it focuses more on explaining various kind of surveillance system. Although both authors states about surveillance system, the differences of purpose for writing, tone, and strategies to appeal to readers make The Economist’s article more convincing to the general audience.
To begin with, Kaminer and The Economist have different purpose for writing their article. Kaminer tries to warn readers by explaining the negative side of facial recognition system. She says “Consider the false promise of many electronic surveillance measures, like facial recognition system.” which clearly shows that she is persuading the audience not to trust facial recognition system. She also mentioned that hopeful thinking that surveillance system can protect people can be a threat to their freedom. This shows that she has a strong opinion of facial recognition system, which she thinks people should not give up their liberty for the safety which facial recognition system promises. According to what Kaminer …show more content…
Kaminer keeps on revealing only negative side of facial recognition system to convince readers that the system harms people, while The Economist focuses on informing advances in surveillance systems with opinion of both sides. Also, The Economist try to take an balanced attitude whereas Kaminer put too much subjective language which makes her less logical. The way of using expert opinion also shows The Economist’s article is more effective because Kaminer only cites one expert but The Economist utilize various expert opinion in their article. Therefore, The Economist’s article is more appealing to the general audience because they deal with the issue in an unbiased
The 21st century technology makes people live in a world full of monitors. Wherever we go, there is a various kind of surveillance system watching people. In the 2000s, two authors, Wendy Kaminer and The Economist brought the issue of surveillance system in their articles “Trading Liberty for Illusions” (2002) which is written by Wendy Kaminer and “If Looks Could Kill” (2008) by The Economist. Kaminer’s article focuses more on the negative sides of the electronic surveillance system, especially facial recognition system. She questions if it is safe to believe facial recognition system, emphasizing the importance of civil liberty. She also calls for people to approach to safety in a logical …show more content…
On the other hand, The Economist’s article also shows the downsides of surveillance system, but it focuses more on explaining various kind of surveillance system. Although both authors states about surveillance system, the differences of purpose for writing, tone, and strategies to appeal to readers make The Economist’s article more convincing to the general audience.
To begin with, Kaminer and The Economist have different purpose for writing their article. Kaminer tries to warn readers by explaining the negative side of facial recognition system. She says “Consider the false promise of many electronic surveillance measures, like facial recognition system.” which clearly shows that she is persuading the audience not to trust facial recognition system. She also mentioned that hopeful thinking that surveillance system can protect people can be a threat to their freedom. This shows that she has a strong opinion of facial recognition system, which she thinks people should not give up their liberty for the safety which facial recognition system promises. According to what Kaminer …show more content…
Kaminer keeps on revealing only negative side of facial recognition system to convince readers that the system harms people, while The Economist focuses on informing advances in surveillance systems with opinion of both sides. Also, The Economist try to take an balanced attitude whereas Kaminer put too much subjective language which makes her less logical. The way of using expert opinion also shows The Economist’s article is more effective because Kaminer only cites one expert but The Economist utilize various expert opinion in their article. Therefore, The Economist’s article is more appealing to the general audience because they deal with the issue in an unbiased