In the “article” This is a news website article about a scientific paper, Martin Robbins playfully mocks the way popular articles about science are written an organized. I thought his article was very humorous, mostly because it is completely true. In the text the author shows how articles like this generally follow a bland and typical outline. It is interesting to see how so many articles really follow the general organization that Robbins is mocking. Robbins attacks the authors of this cliché type of articles and the people who read them in one essay, clever.
Robbins’s witty comment about how audiences need a picture around every 400 words to keep them interested is a very valid point and is obviously utilized in many popular science articles. Although there is much truth behind his theories, many of them are stereotypical. Robbins also attacks the cliché vagueness of these types of articles. He shows how authors use this certain vernacular to make it seem as if what they are saying is credible and backed up by evidence. He also explains the motives behind the syntax of common sentences in these types of articles and they way they change the font and place paragraph breaks.
My popular article is from a website run by the University of Michigan Department of Surgery. While its author probably has some credibility in the subject, it still follows many of the clichés that Robbins discussed. The article is separated by pictures and has paragraph structure similar to Robbins’ mock-article. It also has bolded headings which according to Robbins is the authors saying “This is a sub-heading that gives the impression I am about to add useful context” (Robbins). My popular article does not follow all of the typical things that Robbins claims these types of articles do but anyone can see where he is coming from and that his points are valid.
No comments:
Post a Comment