In this essay I will be presenting how types of media’s discourse affects the way information is presented to a reader. Unsurprisingly, different situations create different types of writing and often with different purposes. To illustrate this mind-blogging revolutionary concept, that has not been realized since the fall of the bourgeoisie (this whole facetious thing is not ending anytime soon, it is not very clever or fun but enjoy… on second thought it does actually), I will be discussing how data is represented in a popular news source versus the academic research article it is based upon. The topic that both sources will be discussing is how Geni.com provide data on family marriage patterns within the United States and how distance affected
…show more content…
As my little league baseball would say with an impressive hit of the baseball, “that was a real dinger”, and “dinger” is not how I would describe Stephen Yin’s article – not that it is bad, this is not baseball. Her work as mentioned previously is titled, When Did Americans Stop Marrying Their Cousins? Ask the World’s Largest Family Tree, is what I would describe as clickbait. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary clickbait is defined as, “something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest” (Merriam-Webster). The dubiousness of this article comes with the question the title asks, something that can never properly be answered, because some Americans may never stop marrying their cousins. Now, an attempt to why this title chooses to be clickbait you can look at the type of business The New York Times is in order to extrapolate a possible meaning. The New York Times is a news company and as a company it probably desires to make a profit. The Times relies on its readers to fund it, whether it be in subscriptions or advertisements, it needs capital to keep it business model going (now, I could shoehorn an unfunny communist joke here that will have some relevancy to the bourgeoisie statement I made earlier, but I will not as I feel it will just weaken and constrain my paper; much like how the bourgeoisie …show more content…
I believe the literalness of the title versus the more ambiguous title of the Times article, reflect the values of each source. The scholarly article accomplishes what is stated in its title, this is too due to the nature of the work, it is very direct and leaves little ambiguity on what the entry is about. The Times article title appears to indicate a more ambiguous approach in its title to possibly trigger interest in the paper. This may be subjective but I do not feel alone in saying that, Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives, may be less inserting title than, When Did Americans Stop Marrying Their Cousins? Ask the World’s Largest Family Tree, for most readers . The times article seems more invested in in hooking someone with little knowledge or interested on the subject on American martial pattern throughout the United States’ history than the more cold and precise language they my be uninviting language that is found in, Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. The times article asks a question that the average reader can probably easy understand and enjoy; whereas the Sciencemag seem to care little for inviting the average times reader and more focused on being correct, than sacrificing
As my little league baseball would say with an impressive hit of the baseball, “that was a real dinger”, and “dinger” is not how I would describe Stephen Yin’s article – not that it is bad, this is not baseball. Her work as mentioned previously is titled, When Did Americans Stop Marrying Their Cousins? Ask the World’s Largest Family Tree, is what I would describe as clickbait. According to the Merriam-Webster dictionary clickbait is defined as, “something (such as a headline) designed to make readers want to click on a hyperlink especially when the link leads to content of dubious value or interest” (Merriam-Webster). The dubiousness of this article comes with the question the title asks, something that can never properly be answered, because some Americans may never stop marrying their cousins. Now, an attempt to why this title chooses to be clickbait you can look at the type of business The New York Times is in order to extrapolate a possible meaning. The New York Times is a news company and as a company it probably desires to make a profit. The Times relies on its readers to fund it, whether it be in subscriptions or advertisements, it needs capital to keep it business model going (now, I could shoehorn an unfunny communist joke here that will have some relevancy to the bourgeoisie statement I made earlier, but I will not as I feel it will just weaken and constrain my paper; much like how the bourgeoisie …show more content…
I believe the literalness of the title versus the more ambiguous title of the Times article, reflect the values of each source. The scholarly article accomplishes what is stated in its title, this is too due to the nature of the work, it is very direct and leaves little ambiguity on what the entry is about. The Times article title appears to indicate a more ambiguous approach in its title to possibly trigger interest in the paper. This may be subjective but I do not feel alone in saying that, Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives, may be less inserting title than, When Did Americans Stop Marrying Their Cousins? Ask the World’s Largest Family Tree, for most readers . The times article seems more invested in in hooking someone with little knowledge or interested on the subject on American martial pattern throughout the United States’ history than the more cold and precise language they my be uninviting language that is found in, Quantitative analysis of population-scale family trees with millions of relatives. The times article asks a question that the average reader can probably easy understand and enjoy; whereas the Sciencemag seem to care little for inviting the average times reader and more focused on being correct, than sacrificing