News Article: http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2013/08/06/wil_wheaton_discovery_channel_megalodon_documentary_betrayed_viewers.html
This was a very interesting article to read, since I was an rabid fan of the discovery channel. This article stated that the program on last Sunday about the sharks had false informations and evidences. The author seems to agree with what Wil Wheaton says and was very biased against the history channel. The article also gave a quote from the Wil Wheaton and severly criticized the history channel.
The structure of this article was from specific to general. First it starte off saying that one specific show about the sharks was wrong. Then, it said about how this was not the first time. The article said some of the other shows were false as well. Lastly, it talked about how other tv shows besides the history channel airs some false informations. It was very easy to perceive this point and the article was very easy to understand. It was also stated its main point of view very clearly.
Personally, I was very disappointed in history channel, if this were to be true. I always believed the history channel to be true about every information they provided. I really liked the article because it gave valuable information about history channel. However, I thought the article could have been better if there was another side of this story. I wished to hear what other people think of this article while I was reading. Another point of view, or even a contrasting view, would be very nice to complement this article to be perfect.
Hi James!
ReplyDeleteAlthough I myself am not much of a Discovery Channel fan, I'm still a little disappointed upon reading this article. It seems that these shows are trying to gain more attention rather than to do what their pure motive was: to inform. I like that you broke down the author's structure of the article but I think you evaluated that too much. It's rather a summary than a commentary.
Your first two paragraphs were pretty much a summarization and your last paragraph included point of view and analysis. I think you should ratio your summary and analysis better. If you improve on those parts, I think your commentary would be very convincing. You did well, however, on your hook and especially on your point of view. I think the word "rabid" caught my attention the most since it is not used that often and despite having a limited point of view, it was still strongly supported. Improve on your analysis James, you will get better. :D
ReplyDeleteI too found the article very interesting. I was surprised to hear that Discovery Channel and History Channel completely fabricated some of their programs. I like how you analyzed the structure of the article and mentioned your own opinions on the topic. However, you should be more careful of avoiding grammar and capitalization errors (for example, History Channel is a proper name, so it should be capitalized). But overall, your commentary was well-written.
ReplyDeleteYour article selection was quite interesting and amusing to read, although it was slightly disheartening to find out that Discovery Channel would allow false information to be aired to their many viewers. Your structure of the commentary is organized quite explicitly: the first paragraph a summary, the second your commentary on structure, and then your opinion. This was very enjoyable to read, however, I'd advise you to reread your commentary in order to proofread for any simple grammar or spelling mistakes before posting it. Overall, you did a good job.
ReplyDelete