Crt 205 Week Three Final

o Who paid for each example to be created?
All the examples were funded by some type of company.
o Can you detect a slant—that is, a secondary opinion conveyed by the examples’ creators?
In every video I watched there was some type of side or slant, diverting you to the opinion of the author. Even with the 9/11 video, there are two distinct sides between who thinks it was a tragedy and those who think it was Wright.
o What does each example reflect about society at large? Is it credible? Explain your answers.
Society can give credible information but to find the information about the side society does not want to portray is very hard. I think society is blind and only sees what they want to see.

o Are you skeptical of the sources’ credibility? Why or why not?
I am always skeptical of my information source. Just because the information is coming from a big name company, does not mean they have a one sided view of the information.
o Do you detect any bias? Why or why not?
I feel the author was trying to sell opinion or was trying to make the viewer feel an emotion from their perspective. I also feel they were trying to make people approve the new memorial even though there were many other memorial ideas but they only showed one.

o Does the ad make a claim?
It claims there burgers are better made and better tasting.
o What fear or desire does the ad play into?
It uses hunger, illusion and displays perfection compared to crappy fast food, although there is no real proof of the manufacturing process and the fact they do not use names of other companies they are talking about.
o Does it target an existing fear or desire or does it try to create a new fear or desire?
It creates a fear of food that might be made with malnutrition, round in shape, burgers that no one truly cares about.
o Does it try to invoke feeling, use admirable people to persuade, or describe a common situation?
The feeling of hunger is created by the perfect image of food... [continues]

Read full essay