Reading Analysis Of Two Essays

Douglas Rushkuff in his article Why we listen to what they say discourse about how the media coerce young adults and the youth to lie to themselves with keen , confusing , non-conformist and irrational campaign ads . The purpose of the agent was to justify to the reader just how the media manipulates its audience into buying something that they site with and how the times X has responded to their manipulations . While Misia Landau in her report on How media vehemence touches children attempt to convince the reader that media military group as back up by scientific look into are injurious to children . Rushkuff s (2000 ) founding of his ideas followed a cause-and-effect format wherein he first dissertateed the reasons why media consultants and send names changed the story of their ads and the message it sends , the n goes on to discuss and give evidence of just how this changes coerced the viewing popular to chance on with the brand . On the early(a) hand , Landau (2001 ) utilise an effect-oriented format wherein she time-tested to give examples of the effect that media violence arrive at on children s health . For both articles , one has to read it throughout in to understand what each is trying to say , stave , Landau had a better way of presenting the effects based on research conducted by a reputable organization , magical tour of duty Rushkuff s interchange seem to be much of a conceptualization than evidenced by hard facts . Landau was probably trying to foresee parents in her report and she made a good gibe in it by giving examples specifically those involving children , patch Ruskuff by chance commanded to reach young adults or the youth exempt his style was more inclined to readers with an academic orientation . His banter where somewhat rhetorical and difficu lt to follow given that he tend to jump from! one idea to the next , objet dart Landau was simply reporting to her audience how media violence affects children , there s no difficulty with that . The two essays are similar in the sentience that they present the negative side of media , one violence the other is product marketing , they were also at the same bump that media is a powerful tool that can be ill-used and manipulated by other people to the detriment of children and a finite s sense of self . They were different though in their approaches , Landau was more of an easy reading her evidences supported her arguments while Rushkuff s article was diffuclt to run on in one reading . Thus , Landau is more effectual in getting her point across her readersReferencesLandau . M (2001 . How media violence touches children . FOCUSRushkuff , D (2000 . Coercion : Why we listen to what they say . FRONTLINE...If you extremity to get a full essay, order it on our website: OrderCustomP aper.com

If you want to get a full essay, visit our page: write my paper