For our first post, let's talk about the connection between meat and the environment. Who do you think the assigned texts were written for? What kind of audience appeals do they make? Is the topic something you've thought about before?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Welcome
I have forgotten a lot of my blogging skills, so this blog might be kinda boring to look at for a few weeks. We will use this space to discuss ideas about the readings each night as well as any comments or suggestions about class. Feel free to publish links that you find relevant to the topic of food rhetoric, and broaden our conversation.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that the intended audience and actual audience are the same, the general public or maybe more specifically, those eligible to vote. The appeals made in the article would be that the US population consumes too much beef and therefore harming the envoirnment and causing global warming. I've never thought about this topic before because I never knew manure released crucial amounts of methane and nitrous oxide, which harms the atmosphere.
ReplyDeleteWhat tells you that the audience is intended to be voters? How do the appeals (ethos, logos, pathos) work? Try to be specific about the strategies.
ReplyDeleteMichael Engle
ReplyDeleteM02640327
Jan 13, 2008
In terms of the article by Julie Upton entitled, “Meatless Mondays Are Good for You… and the Earth,” it was written for people who want to get healthy, and want to do it in a more Earth friendly manner. Also, the article was written for people who may be too busy to pledge a full fledged diet, but want to improve their health. Upton provides statistical facts that help with her purpose, which is to shed light on not eating meat in an attempt to improve people’s lives. The audience appeals Upton makes is appeals to the intended audience’s health. Going meatless one day a week is not a topic I have thought of before, but it appeals to me. The context of this article is that it was written by an author who is actively involved in medicine, which shapes and supports the tone and message conveyed. A strategy that Upton has is to influence more and more people to take an active step into improving their health.
In terms of the article by Derrick Z. Jackson entitled, “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet,” it was written for people who are open minded and want to help fight the war against global warming, by lowering fossil fuel emissions. An audience appeal that Jackson makes is using an upbeat tone in his writing, in an effort to potentially convience not only the average American citizen but also the next President that America needs to consume less meat. An important factor to think about is the context of which the author writes the article. “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet,” was written in April of 2008, which significance is that the Forty-Fourth President had not been decided. This translates to Jackson maintaining a strategy where he is trying to convince the future President that cutting fossil fuel emissions via eating less meat is a central issue to helping improve our Earth. The purpose of Jackson’s article is to bring to the forefront a way in which Americans can help fend off fossil fuel emissions by consuming less meat. Again, I had not thought of this topic because I was unaware of the impact meat had on the environment. I will be more careful in the future as to impact I create on the world.
In terms of the first chapter of “Omnivore’s Dilemma” by Michael Pollan it was written for open minded, and health conscious people. The purpose of Pollan’s first chapter was to provide concrete information as to the origins of our food chains, as well as describe the importance of corn on our food chains. For audience appeals, Pollan informs his audience in a friendly manner while not appearing to sound condescending. The context of importance is that Pollan has written numerous pieces on food in the past which makes him a principal authority in terms of food information education. A strategy Pollan uses is one of upbeat tone which creates appeal to the reader, and by appealing to the reader he is able to help spread his message about food chain information which is compelling. I have thought about the origins of the food I have eaten, Pollan has only helped provide clearer guidance in terms of trying to eat better.
I feel the article "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet" was directed towards the American population that is searching and open to change. The article is located on a Progressive Website who viewers are open to new ideas and innovation. Derrick Jackson tries to appeal to the audience by making the arguement that less meat is not only better for people's health but also for the earth as whole. I think this is a smart strategy because only a certain percentage of the population places much concern on global warming. By throwing in the health issues, he will attract a larger audience.
ReplyDeleteI found the first Chapter of Michael Pollan's book very interesting. I have always heard of the saying "you are what you eat," but, I never thought to trace that saying as far back as "I am what the animal I eat consumes." I was blown away by how much corn is used in our society and all the various purposes of it.
Julie Upton's "Meatless Mondays Are Good for You...and the Earth" uses laziness as a creative audience appeal. Americans are known for being lazy and not as inclined to using self-discipline. This article gives us a way to be healthier without necessarily being healthy, but allowing us to feel good about the little bit we may do for our bodies and the Earth. I found the fact that Americans eat much more meat now than in the 1960's very interesting. That is something I had not thought of before.
ReplyDeleteDerrick Z. Jackson's "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet" has the same type of audience appeal as Michael Pollan's "Farmer in Chief". Both seem to address the wrong doings of the President, but each article is also trying to inform a much larger audience of problems America is facing. This makes the reader more inclined to listen because it is not addressed directly to the reader, unless the reader is the President. I have never thought about the consequences of my meat eating in terms of the Earth because I never knew there were any.
I am in the same boat as Lisa when it comes to the first chapter of Michael Pollan's book because I have never thought of "you are what you eat" that thoroughly before. I was impressed at the amount of corn that is in everything we eat. I believe the intended audience is any academic person, maybe more specifically those interested in food.
All three of these articles do not have the exact audience in mind but the message being conveyed is similar; that human beings need to be more eco-friendly by understanding the economic impacts of their dietary choices. The first article titled, “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” was written during the presidential race and the author is providing information to provoke the idea that reducing meat in our diet will result in a healthier body and planet. The author criticizes past and present presidents for their lack of knowledge and initiation towards understanding the pollutant affects of meats on the environment. Jackson uses statistical facts to suggest the next president should tell us to eat less meat and that constituents would be wise to favor. I have taken environmental classes in the past so I do understand how eating less meat can make a difference and result in better health, but the industrial sector needs to be kept a sharp eye on.
ReplyDeleteThe first few chapters from, “The Omnivore’s Dilemma” is an interesting read because it takes our simple cultural diet of the past and converges it with the melting pot of the modern diet. This book was most likely written for people that perceive modern diet is not in the best interest of all inhabitants on this planet. This book could provide some answers and propose as a guide to individuals looking to partake in an altered diet amidst a planetary sickness. The author, Pollan, relates in a most effective way to curious people by describing the cognitive reasons as to why we eat the way we do and how we got here. His in-depth analytics of how a processed food is made and comparing it the simple ways of the past dwell on the reader’s rationale of what healthy food might be.
The article, "Meatless Mondays Are Good for You...and the Earth” is a similar regurgitation of the first article but with a different target audience as it does not have much of a political opinion. The author suggests the United States eat zero meat on Mondays in order to provide health benefits which reduce healthcare costs and to reduce pollutant impacts in air and water. Such personal health benefits include less fats and cholesterol being digested which can be replaced with lean and nutrient rich fruits and vegetables that ought to appeal to US citizens as obesity is of statistical concern. I do think about this information as it is an independent interest and I choose to eat vegetarian most of the time to increase energy levels, promote health, moral perceptions, and to reduce livestock produced volatile gases that are a significant enough culprit in the theory of global warming.
I think that the audience these articles are trying to reach is anyone who makes their own eating decisions. These articles are not so much for a younger crowd, but more for a young adult and up. I personally loved in Omnivore's Dilemma when it talks about the "French Paradox." It is very true that other countries can eat a lot of the things that we say will be "unhealthy." I think that a lot of the "diets" are just a way of making money and the people that publish the books know that Americans are self-conscious enough that they will buy anything if they think it will make them happy.
ReplyDeleteThe article “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” by Derrick Z. Jackson is written during the presidential election, before we knew Obama was going to be the democratic candidate. It’s main strategy seems to be a focus on informing the readers of Common Dreams News Center about hamburgers and the harm they cause to people who eat them and the harm they cause to the environment. The author gives statistics and quotes from different sources in order to back-up his argument that the meat industry is very much responsible for global warming. In the end he makes it obvious politically whom he is in favor of for the upcoming election. The “outrageous consumption” of Americans is a fault of the Bush administration, and Republicans are the ones who “promised a chicken in every pot.” I feel that his audience would be Americans who eat burgers. His strategy scaring them into not eating burgers anymore so there can be a “safer planet”.
ReplyDeleteThe article for Environmental Nutrition entitled “Meatless Mondays Are Good For You… and the Earth” by Julie Uptown gives people an idea of how they can be healthier while at the same time caring about the planet. The strategy is that the action asked of the readers is simple enough for them to accomplish. They can just stop eating meet on Mondays and at the same time they are not wasting as much environmental energy. It also gives statistics and lots of health benefits from not eating meat. She provides a recipe too that makes it seem that much simpler and tasty. The reader could just use that recipe next Monday. The audience would be people who care about their health and sustainability.
I have considered the connection between food production and the environment before and I found the “Meatless Mondays Are Good For You… and the Earth” a more effective article, because instead of just stating the problem and complaining about it the article gave advice that people could use and actually begin to make a difference.
The beginning of the Michael Pollen’s book gives an overview of what he will be talking about in relation to food and our national eating disorder along with The Omnivore’s Dilemma. It seems to be written for people who are interested in the study of food and how it is and has been consumed. It is written for people who care about the food they intake and how it affects them, or those who simply want to learn about it. His strategy involves providing information for the reader so they understand the situation and his view on it. The book is going to tell the reader the journey of food and where it comes from. He begins with corn; a very detailed explanation of how much corn is in what we eat and how we are the “corn people”. “Corn sex” is used to inform us how easy it is for corn to be reproduced and why it is so important. He describes things in a way that draws you in, whether you agree with him or not.
I feel that the intended audience for each of the three articles is different. While reading Derrick Jackson's news article I felt as if it were more of a political piece than anything else. Keeping in mind that this came from a "news" based website, the information came across kind of demeaning to me as a red meat eater. While reading I felt as if he were repremanding me for eating meat, poultry and pork. I understand the facts he presented but I think he could have made his point with out bashing the previous administration and using a little more compassion.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to Uptons article, her approach was very different than Jackson's. She was geared towards the somewhat health conscious, stay at home mom. The easy to read facts and tips were appealing to the casual reader. Also, the recipe following the article was a nice addition in order to get your "Meatless Monday" off to a good start.
The excerpt from Pollen's book was quite interesting. Though his ideas were much more complex than the previous authors, I think he would appeal to a large portion of society. He used several different subjects in addition to his own thoughts such as history, science, psychology to make certain points.
Though I have never really given the food industry much thought, these articles have most definitely brought it to my attention and will certainly impact the way I think about what I eat and where it came from.
In Derrick Z. Jackson's "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet," Jackson's audience is mainly the presidential candidates for the next election. This article was written back in April of 2008 so the election had not taken place yet but rather campaigning was in full swing. Although Jackson sort of writes the article to these presidential candidates, the real audience is the average American. He attempts to persuade the average American that consuming meat products is actually harmful to the environment and is helping along global warming. I personally have never thought about this before. But I do think that if the report is true and the production of meat does need to decrease, then the U.S. government should be thinking about this potential problem.
ReplyDeleteI believe that Julie Upton's article, "Meatless Mondays Are Good for You....and the Earth" also has an audience of the average American. However, Upton more specifically targets families of meat eaters that she attempts to persuade to stop eating that much meat. Her source is very credible as she names the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services as well as the prestigious Johns Hopkins Center for a Livable Future. Those two sources jump out and catch the audience's attention. She also gently asks the people to do something helpful for themselves as well as the planet in general. By only asking one thing and not demanding the people to do something. I have often thought of not eating near as much meat, just for the sake of healthiness. However, because meat is so well marketed, it is the easier meal.
The first chapter of Pollan's book gives a general overview of his views on modern dietary habits and how they have changed over the years. I get the impression that this book is targeted at people who are curious as to how the American diet has changed and people in general that have some sort of college education. Just the way that the text is written seems to be based towards an educated population. Since the book involves some history as well, I think it appeals to people interested in the history and future of our planet.
The article “Meatless Mondays Are good for You…and the Environment” seems particularly written for those people who are not currently vegetarians but are looking for a healthier way live and eat. I say that it is more written for those who are more health conscious than environmentally conscious because the majority of the article discusses the health benefits of not eating meat and seems to add in the effects on the environment almost as an afterthought; this can even be seen in the article title and subheadings, “…and the Earth” and “Earth benefits too.” Also, Julie Upton, is a registered dietician specializing in nutrition and fitness health.
ReplyDeleteThe article targets its health conscious audience by using strategies such as quoting statistics from a report entitled “Healthy People 2010” which was composed by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services. Ms. Upton uses such popular health concerns as saturated fat content to relate eating less meat to most peoples’ diet strategy of eating less fat. She also uses a scare-tactic strategy by bringing up such serious health issues as heart disease, stroke, and cancers and linking it to the consumption of meat. She plays on people’s insecurities by saying “Indeed, vegetarians weigh less, on average, than meat-eaters.”
The second article “One Less Burger, One Safer Planet” is directed towards a slightly different audience than the former. While it does address the health concerns of eating meat, i.e. “we in the obese United States”, it delves deeper into the environmental and economic concerns of eating meat.
The target primary target audience, I believe, is someone who does not give a lot of thought to the environment and those of us who are not particularly interested in environmental concerns. I say this because the introductory paragraph of the article lures in this particular audience I have just described by making it seem like they are on their side. Mr. Jackson says “brace yourself for cuddly, hug-the-planet blubbering…” and makes jabs at the presidential candidates stances on environmental issues. This appeals to someone who is not environmentally conscious and captures their attention.
I also think that to a lesser extent this article is intended for the middle and upper class of America. Mr. Jackson tries to make his point to this audience by addressing them directly. He says “wealthier people at some point have to move “down the industrial food chain.””
I personally have not thought of most of these issues because, as with most of America, I don’t feel a personal connection with these issues. I do not see the direct effect of eating meat causing the emission of more harmful greenhouse gases or causing me heart disease. I think that a lot of this is because I am younger, especially with regards to the health concerns, but also because we would like to think “How can something that is so ingrained in our culture, such as meat, have so many negative side effects?”
In the article "One Less Burger, One Safer Planet," it is clear that the audience are the Presidential Candidates of this past elections. The context of the article involves healthier eating for the environment and the purpose was to persuade the audience that eating less meat could help slow global warming. The author even proposed that there is a need for a 10% cut in global meat consumption.
ReplyDeleteJulie Upton's article was targeting meat eating families and households and gave advice and things people can implement in their life, which is very helpful and useful.
Pollen actually targeted society as a whole, as opposed to certain people like in the other articles. It appeals and relates to any and everyone who is concerned with the Earth's past, present, and future. It is also written for people who are concerned about food and the factors and risks that could potentially harm the food they consume.
I believe that the assigned text was targeted towards an older type of audience. Where some of the audiences have different targets they have pretty much the same overall tone and cover an overall group. They differ in some areas, but share some similarities. It was meant for people who maybe have to make choices about the foods they eat or the types of foods they feed to their families. These type of people want to live healthy lifestyles and know that the food they are eating is not compromising their health. Most people do not have time to read up and research on every single food they eat. They rely on commercials and magazines to inform them and confirm weather or not they are making healthy decisions for themselves.
ReplyDelete“One Less Burger, One safer Planet,” is an article targeted towards a more adult crowd that is at least of voting age. This article helps to present information to the citizen. This ensures that the voter with see and get a better understanding about today’s meats.
In “our National Eating Disorder” it is also targeted towards young adults who maybe are interested in the history of foods and the reasoning now for being so skeptic. It helps to explain the history that food has gone through and show us the faults it holds today.
“Meatless Mondays Are Good for You…and the Earth” is an article that is again targeted at adults. This article helps to show individuals that changing one simple eating habit can be good for them. It allows that individual to make better decisions for both themselves and maybe the family they are feeding home as well.
I believe that the text “ meatless Mondays are good for you … and the earth” is an article directed to the general population. But the target readers are health oriented individuals and an adult health conscious audience. This evidence is demonstrated by the paper in which it is published -a nutritionist website- and the organization that publishes the paper -belvoir media group- is tailored to reach an ostentatious populations with specific needs and not quite the entire population. The paper is reach with information and backed by professional knowledge, which makes the information quite trust worthy, again, the audience are more like an organization that already have developed trust in the source which makes the information more believable
ReplyDelete