Genre Analysis

Paola Vargas
RWS 1302
Professor Gomez
2/19/16

Introduction:

The two genres I will analyze focus on the topic of sexual preference in our media.
One of the genres is a film made by Jonathan Levine for CNN. It is news segment titled In
China, LGBT citizens seek acceptance where Chinese citizens seek federal recognition to samesex couples. The other genre I will analyze is an article written by Oliver JJ Lane for Breitbrat.
The articles tittle is called Over 300,000 Rally on Rome Against Gay Marriage in which the
author asks for some opinions and comments from those who attended the rally.

Audience and Purpose Questions:

Who is the intended audience/discourse community for each genre?

The audience for the CNN film are those who agree with the legalization of same
sex marriage and the social acceptance of the LGBT community. And the audience for the rally
article could be directed for those who accept liberty of sexual preference and for those who
oppose it.

What is the purpose of the information presented in the genres?

Both the article and the film try to inform the viewer and somewhat persuade.

How does the audience tie in with the purpose? Are they trying to convince a certain
discourse community to agree with them or think differently? Are they trying to encourage
general awareness?
The CNN film tries to bring awareness about other countries struggles. The rally
article tries to persuade the viewer that abnormal sexual preference leads to problems and that
its wrong in every aspect, specially for children.

What it the audience likely to know? Want to know? Why?

Those who support the LGBT community probably know the hard facts and
the truths about the myths of homosexuality, but probably want to know why it is so hard for
other countries to take the step the American government took in terms of civil rights. Those
who oppose free sexual preference probably demand to know why beliefs that date back
hundredths of years ago are questioned, because many could believe that our ancestors where
right and that the practice of homosexuality is a mental disorder.
How much time will the audience spend with the information presented in the genres?
It is very probable that the readers will spend quite some time trying to
comprehend both sides of the arguments simply because it is a controversial topic and the
audience has to have the capacity of having an open mind. The vocabulary and the genres are not
hard to understand, but it is difficult to try to comprehend others opinions.

How formal/informal is the language? Is it appropriate to the audience and purpose?

The vocabulary used in both of the genres is formal for the most part.
Something I deem appropriate because a topic this serious should not be presented in any other
form. The exceptions are some of the comments from those who participate in the rally from
Rome. Their comments where informal, but the article itself was formally approached.

What are the significant similarities and/or differences between the two genres?
Not only are their intended audience somewhat different but also their
message. CNN tries to bring awareness about our current civil rights fight in which there are
many countries that need to be educated in regards to this topic. Whereas The rally in Rome
article tries to voice the opinions of those who profoundly disagree. What both genres have in
common is that they both present an issue that has not been resolved throughout the world.

Rhetorical Issues: Ethos, Pathos and Logos:

How does each genre help to establish the informations credibility? Is it effective in
helping to achieving the purpose of the genre?
Both genres use opinions directly taken from their sources (mostly interviews),
therefore their credibility is strong. This successfully achieves the purpose of the genre because
these opinions are the structures of the genres.

How does each genre help to evoke an emotional response from the audience? Which
emotions? Is tit effective in helping to achieve the purpose? Why?
Those who support free sexual preference are probably pleased to hear that
countries like China are fighting for civil rights and that a small group is making an effort to
make a change [CNN film]. Those who think otherwise are probably enraged with the fact that a
topic, that is still considered taboo in many countries, is being accepted and even defended
[Rally in Rome article].

Conclusion/Synthesis:
Which genre was more effective in conveying its message? Why?
The CNN film was more effective in bringing awareness to the topic of
sexual preference. They (CNN) started with the success of another country and shifted its
attention to a not so successful one. They presented the struggles, in this case of a particular
person, and the social state used in China. This allowed the audience to somewhat understand
that social stance of a country that is struggling in many ways.

Offer a final comment.

Even though laws and acts have been approved, there is still a civil rights
fight that seems to be far from ending. Younger generations are definitely living in a completely
different world than their parents and grandparents. We are living in an era in which new
ideology and attitudes towards others are changing. New beliefs are replacing old teachings and
new values are being born every day.

Citations

Lane, O. J. (2015). Over 300,000 Rally in Rome Against Gay Marriage - Breitbart.
Retrieved February 19, 2016, from http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/06/21/over-

300000-rally-in-rome-against-gay-marriage/
Levine, J. (2013, June 27). In China, LGBT citizens seek acceptance. Retrieved February
19, 2016, from http://www.cnn.com/2013/06/27/world/asia/china-gay-lesbianmarriage/index.html