Many sophisticated scientific journals are being published each year, presenting abstract information unknown to a lay audience, because of this, journalists are given the task to accommodate these journals for an audience unknown to science, some doing better than others. In Jeanne Fahnestock’s article “Accommodating Sciences: The Rhetorical Life of Science Facts, she describes accommodation as “…present a rather abstract scientific subject in a popular manner…” (Fahnestock 332). Before writing, journalists carefully monitor and choose sections from the original report that will marvel their readers and have them understand the significance of it from a lay view. In order to provide an effective accommodation, journalists must present each
…show more content…
has a purpose to establish the validity of the observations they reported, paying little attention to lay readers. They decide to use sophisticated jargon and fully analyze each section of their research, taking a considering amount of time to do so. Equally important, Sheikh has a purpose to celebrate rather than validate the explicit claims mentioned in the original report. She seeks to adjust the information for her audience to recognize the significance of the information, writing it bluntly; straight to the point, making the original article easier, and allowing her audience to celebrate their claims. Parker et al. scientific article is not meant for the average reader—being one who scantily reads scientific reports. Their audience tends to be scientists within their field or research institutes who wish to challenge their findings or praise it by conducting further research. Let us consider the phrase “…presence of residual endogenous DNA template” (Parker, Glendon J. 2), being a lay reader myself I have no idea what this phrase means, however if a scientist were to read it, they will completely comprehend what is being mentioned. Similarly, Sheikh accommodates their article for a lay audience, making major changes to the terminology for the public to easily understand. Adding emphasis to certain words, her audience can marvel and glamorize that finding protein in a strand of someone’s hair can genuinely be superior than DNA when identifying an individual. You can see this when she expresses how protein is better than DNA stating “Proteins…are, more stable than DNA and … more abundant in hair” (Sheikh 2). Both authors have a specific purpose for writing, making specific rhetorical choices for their audience. Despite each authors purpose, they are held responsible to inform the public, yet Sheikh could have provided a better analysis to ensure her audience is to be marveled at a scientific
has a purpose to establish the validity of the observations they reported, paying little attention to lay readers. They decide to use sophisticated jargon and fully analyze each section of their research, taking a considering amount of time to do so. Equally important, Sheikh has a purpose to celebrate rather than validate the explicit claims mentioned in the original report. She seeks to adjust the information for her audience to recognize the significance of the information, writing it bluntly; straight to the point, making the original article easier, and allowing her audience to celebrate their claims. Parker et al. scientific article is not meant for the average reader—being one who scantily reads scientific reports. Their audience tends to be scientists within their field or research institutes who wish to challenge their findings or praise it by conducting further research. Let us consider the phrase “…presence of residual endogenous DNA template” (Parker, Glendon J. 2), being a lay reader myself I have no idea what this phrase means, however if a scientist were to read it, they will completely comprehend what is being mentioned. Similarly, Sheikh accommodates their article for a lay audience, making major changes to the terminology for the public to easily understand. Adding emphasis to certain words, her audience can marvel and glamorize that finding protein in a strand of someone’s hair can genuinely be superior than DNA when identifying an individual. You can see this when she expresses how protein is better than DNA stating “Proteins…are, more stable than DNA and … more abundant in hair” (Sheikh 2). Both authors have a specific purpose for writing, making specific rhetorical choices for their audience. Despite each authors purpose, they are held responsible to inform the public, yet Sheikh could have provided a better analysis to ensure her audience is to be marveled at a scientific