This source seems to be unbiased and scholarly, however, whenever the CDC references a zombie apocalypse the tone is more satirical. Pallatt found this source to be effective when deciding if social media would be the best way to communicate because it states that, “social media use increases during crises and disasters, when some people turn to the Internet and social media to seek or share information or support” (CDC’s Use). On the other hand, the CDC doesn’t show serious concern for the situation since it did not go through the full process a normal campaing would. It describes the campaign for zombie preparedness as, “a product of attention and considered thought, [however,] it did not undergo extended planning with “focus groups,” discussions of “theory,” or a “drawn-out formalized process” (CDC’s Use). Even though only a part of the research was helpful for Pallatt, it probably gave her more accurate information then her last …show more content…
He sets up his article to be informational to his readers yet still sets a biased tone. The skills he presents such as, “community management, leadership and communication skills, and tactics and execution” (10 Essential) all are accurate as to what Pallatt did to make her role effective. The disadvantage to making this source a major part of her research is that Bullas didn’t use any credible sources in his article. Statements like, “Social media is about creating, observing and responding to conversations within your…community” (10 Essentials) are completely bias to what Jeff Bullas believes. I find this article convincing because all the information laid out makes sense to be a social media major. Pallatt also found this article resourceful because you see in her social media sites she is organized and intentional just as Bullas says. An expert, like Niana Pallatt, even in a biased piece, can find viable