Yawn!

Yawn Blog 4 

In looking for a commentary to read, the article by Tom Boggioni’s “Major advertisers still want nothing to do with Fox News personality Laura Ingraham: report” caught my eye. Now, when you see the name “Fox News” you know it is synonymous with “bats in the belfry” and the hosts need a psychiatric evaluation, yet  I was curious and wanted to read the article. When certain individuals give their bias view of an issue that is considered hurtful or immoral, there is no doubt that major corporations will stay away from controversy.

I felt like the article was tied to the title but was indubitably boring and caused me to lose interest because I expected more information of Ingraham’s remarks and would have been nice for the author to also include what was said to the Parkland school shooting victim, so I can better understand why advertisers were pulling their ads. The author main point is advertisers pulling their ads from Ingraham’s show due to her crude remarks, but we do not get any comments from the advertisers themselves maybe explaining why they pulled out. His references are justified by “according”, however, one reference that was an incomplete source is the “advertiser analyst” this could be one of a million people. I am a novice at critiquing,  but this article seems like it was done by a high schooler, short, boring and incomplete.

I have yet to figure out who the intended audience is, as they would find this article boring and not willing to finish reading. I sincerely hope that I was not being mean or rude critiquing this article but writing about this probably made my paper boring as well. Overall, the author wrote the article nice and simple so that his audience could understand but lacked information that would keep his audience engaged. I also think that if the title has more than one issue in its title there should be evidence explaining their thesis. I did not bypass this article even though it was not worth reading and there are articles that are less than perfect (I am pretty sure I have written essays that my professors have said…what the moo?). Thank you.

Washington Gov. Jay Inslee on Climate Change CNN.com

     "How to show #45 you care about climate change" is an article penned by Gov. Jay Inslee of the state of Washington about how global warming is affecting our planet. Inslee gives a decent amount of information about the subject, as his main intent of the article is to get Americans to vote in the upcoming mid-term elections. He goes on to explain how the current administration is making decisions and renouncing the global warming laws that the prior administration had put in effect. This is a very dangerous time to be alive.

     I really liked how Inslee used simple words in his article, as it seemed that he wanted people to understand the severity of the issue at hand in simple terms, but I would have used statistics, so they can also see the trend of climate change and using the word “science”. I gained additional information on global warming that I was not aware of such as the Clean Car Standards in which #45 declared that it was to be repealed and the adverse effect would cause Americans to use more oil, create more pollution by all vehicles and would cause hardship in the auto industry.

     Inslee wrote this article with truth and integrity and I wholeheartedly agree with him. I too believe in global warming and how it is affecting our world and find it hard to believe that some people do not agree with global warming because they do not believe in science. Science has impacted “all” our lives in many ways. Like I mentioned before, Inslee article is intended for the American people and not exclusively for democrats or republicans showing that he is being unbiased in his article. His argument is clear and concise and gets the message out, which is to go out to vote the mid-term elections in October.