Here, I took the time to discuss the significance of how various sources effectively manipulated their genres, use of language, and as well as their credibility to establish their message to their audience with regards with how they feel about GMOs. Whether it be about the benefits and way to advance in society or the detrimental impacts GMOs might impose, this is what this page and paper is about.
Again, I choose to focus on GMOs for the purpose of my own curiosity. From what I have found, there are drastic differences in which one presented GMOs. For those who believed that GMOs were harmful to human health such as increased liver damage one might say, they utilized words such as “FrankenFoods” and “SuperFoods,” and “Detox” to convey a GMOs in a negative light. It ignites a sense of fear to the audience. This is probably why there is so much miscommunication between the scientists and the public because of many sources that use language like this. On the contrary, those who believed that GMOs are indeed safe for consumption including a majority of scientists, they have use mainly scientific words and laymen terms to communicate with a wide range of people with contrasting educational levels. More information about the language use of various sources and their specific mediums they use to communicate their message can be seen more here in my post, “Rhetorical Analysis on GMOs.”
Photo Credits
- The Serious Security Vulnerabilities of Mobile Devices, www.thompsoncoburn.com/insights/blogs/internet-law-twists-turns/post/2017-05-17/news-aggregators-link-don-t-replace-your-sources.
This entry is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International license.
