Current Events Project #2
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/printout/0,8816,1541283,00.html
What makes us Different?
Indeed, what really makes man different than chimps or gorillas? This driving need to answer that question has led to some pretty amazing discoveries in the field of DNA. When trying to determine whether or not the author is biased in this article, the biggest thing that pops out at you is of course religion. When dealing with any article related in the slightest to evolution, authors have to be carefull not to stress the issue either way so they don't offend anyone. In this article, I think that the author does believe in evolution, because the point of the article is not whether or not evolution is correct, it is what makes us different in DNA, and all the discoveries and breakthroughs made so far, so the author takes believing in evolution for granted in the reader, otherwise they probably wouldn't be reading the article in the first place. The race and ethnic background of the author doesn't really matter in this case, because evolution has to do with the human race as a whole, so if the idea doesn't differ there, opinion probably won't either. Social class and age might affect your views though. The authour's social class might affect their level of education available to them about evolution and/or creationism. I think these authors are of middle social class, like the average person, because they are educated about evolution, and the goings on in medical research. Age might also bias you, because if you were older and religious, you would probably be more set in your ways, and less open to ideas such as evolution than a younger person; therefore, I believe these authors are of middle age or younger. As far as context, this article uses some propoganda, such as generalizations, but no name calling, appeals to hatred, pride, fear, or slogans. The generalizations these authors use are slight. They use sarcasm to appeal to your humor, such as "You don't have to be a biologist or an anthropologist to see how closely the great apes... resemble us. Even a child can see that their bodies are pretty much the same as ours." The authors are trying to get the reader on their side, but not by scaring or offending them. As far as the presentation of research facts, the authors do a nice job, and don't really seem biased. They present both cases in a clear-cut and professional manner.
What makes us Different?
Indeed, what really makes man different than chimps or gorillas? This driving need to answer that question has led to some pretty amazing discoveries in the field of DNA. When trying to determine whether or not the author is biased in this article, the biggest thing that pops out at you is of course religion. When dealing with any article related in the slightest to evolution, authors have to be carefull not to stress the issue either way so they don't offend anyone. In this article, I think that the author does believe in evolution, because the point of the article is not whether or not evolution is correct, it is what makes us different in DNA, and all the discoveries and breakthroughs made so far, so the author takes believing in evolution for granted in the reader, otherwise they probably wouldn't be reading the article in the first place. The race and ethnic background of the author doesn't really matter in this case, because evolution has to do with the human race as a whole, so if the idea doesn't differ there, opinion probably won't either. Social class and age might affect your views though. The authour's social class might affect their level of education available to them about evolution and/or creationism. I think these authors are of middle social class, like the average person, because they are educated about evolution, and the goings on in medical research. Age might also bias you, because if you were older and religious, you would probably be more set in your ways, and less open to ideas such as evolution than a younger person; therefore, I believe these authors are of middle age or younger. As far as context, this article uses some propoganda, such as generalizations, but no name calling, appeals to hatred, pride, fear, or slogans. The generalizations these authors use are slight. They use sarcasm to appeal to your humor, such as "You don't have to be a biologist or an anthropologist to see how closely the great apes... resemble us. Even a child can see that their bodies are pretty much the same as ours." The authors are trying to get the reader on their side, but not by scaring or offending them. As far as the presentation of research facts, the authors do a nice job, and don't really seem biased. They present both cases in a clear-cut and professional manner.
posted by jem at Wednesday, October 04, 2006
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home