Nathan Monson

10/13/16
ENG 1010
Devin Patten
The Argument Against Headphones Article
The New York Times published an article written by Virginia Heffernan regarding the use
of headphones and the havoc it can wreck on consumers hearing. Heffernan brings up issues on
hearing loss in teens, the societal isolation headphones bring, and the negative effects it has on
childrens brains.
Virginia Heffernan argues that headphones are destroying the hearing in teenagers. She
cites the Journal of the American Medical Association when she opens the article saying that one
in five teenagers are unable to hear rustles or whispers in study done by the Journal. Heffernan
continues by saying that the percentage of teenagers who experience hearing loss has jumped to
33 percent since 1994. According to a European study, people who listen to headphones for more
than hour a day risk permanent hearing loss after just five years. Heffernan explains that while
headphones do create a private auditory experience, they are also antisocial. She follows by
citing an article written by Llewellyn Hinkes Jones in The Atlantic which states that the shared
experience of listening to music is quite similar to communal eating, and while it may not share
the same primal necessity as eating, it is still something commonly ingested together. Following
the citation of the article, Heffernan describes headphones as being something that works best for
people who only want to hear one sound and nothing else. She goes on by saying that

headphones are necessary for sound professionals such intelligence or radio workers because
they are able to listen to one sound privately and they dont need to worry about external sound.
Heffernan implores her readers to use headphones less stating that it will not only protect our
hearing, but it will protect our brains too. Heffernan gives her readers the history of the
headphones stating that they were originally invented to block out excess noise. Workers and
soldiers used them frequently to block out the harsh noise of machinery and artillery while being
able to receive commands from someone with a one way microphone. Heffernan explains this as
submission (to commands) and denial (of commotion).
Heffernan begins the article by referencing a study done by The Journal of the American
Medical Association that shows that one in five teenagers in America are unable to hear rustles or
whispers. Heffernan makes no effort in giving the readers a source to reference the article and
fails to give any further information regarding the article. Searching the study on Google fails to
yield any results. A percentage of American teen who experience hearing loss is provided,
however no information is given on whether the hearing loss is associated with the use of
headphones and Heffernan does not give the audience any indication on where the data can be
found. Heffernan continues with her vague sources and alludes to an European study done in
2008 saying that headphone users who spend an hour a day listening to headphones at a high
volume risk permanent hearing loss after just five years. With no indication as to where the
article came from, readers are forced to blindly trust her interpretation of whatever article she
read. Heffernan continues her argument against headphones by attacking teenagers specifically,
saying that they have the attention span of a hummingbird, and while this may be a problem to
her, the main problem is that teens are going deaf. Heffernan provides no factual basis for this
statement which shows her bias towards the topic and her apparent dislike of teenagers. After

finishing the first three paragraphs with vague references and clearly biased statements,
Heffernan continues on with the next five paragraphs focusing on the origin and history of the
headphones. These topics are entirely irrelevant to the point the she is attempting to make, and
they do nothing to persuade the audience into thinking that headphones may be harmful to our
hearing. Rather than giving readers a 5 paragraph article on why headphones are harmful to our
hearing, she instead spends the bulk of her article talking about the history of the headphones.
Due to the sheer lack of reputable sources to defend her claim, one can only assume she chose to
distract her audience away from the claim because she was unable to provide enough proof
showing the negative effects of headphones. Readers are able to search the internet to find
medical articles and findings that prove how harmful headphones really are to our bodies. For
Heffernan, this means that she did not care to take the time to look for better sources to support
her claim and wrote the article entirely subjectively. Heffernans clear bias towards the
elimination of headphones destroys her credibility as an author entirely. Because of her absence
of credibility, readers are unable to trust her interpretation of vague studies, and it completely
invalidates her article. After finishing the history lesson Heffernan gives on headphones, she
brings up children. Heffernan begins the article talking about teenagers and how headphones are
harmful to their hearing, however she ends the article on the topic of children; which reveals her
intended audience of parents. Heffernan fails to appeal to her audience until the end, rendering
her argument useless. Rather than supporting and concluding her claim that headphones are
harmful to our hearing, Heffernan instead chooses to bring up a new claim. She quotes an article
written in The Atlantic stating that the shared listening of music is similar to the rituals of
communal eating. Heffernan dates this article to a date not long ago, giving the readers no
indication of when the article was written or how to find it themselves. Heffernan spends the

following two paragraphs describing the antisocial behaviors caused by use of headphones and
only uses the one source from The Atlantic to back up her claims. Heffernan makes no further
references to the physical effects headphones have on consumers until the last sentence of the
article. In the second to last paragraph, Heffernan gives readers insight into who benefits from
the use of headphones rather than attempting to continue to support her claims. Heffernan
concludes her article telling readers to make a New Years resolution to use headphones less.
This is contradictory to her original claim, saying that headphones are harmful and should be
abolished. Heffernan fails to even mention teenagers in the concluding paragraph. She urges
readers to encourage children and spouses to use headphones less which makes her original
claim entirely useless. Heffernan suddenly makes a claim that we need to share with our children
and spouses what we are listening to. With the last sentence in the article, Heffernan finally
references her original claim of the harmful effects of headphones by saying that protecting
childrens hearing is protecting their brain. This last sentence is a desperate attempt to appeal to
parents emotions by saying that the usage of headphones is harmful to their childrens brain.
Heffernan introduces this claim in the last sentence of the article and gives no evidence
supporting it. Based on the previous sources used to support her claims, one can only assume she
introduces this at the end because she was unable to find solid evidence to back it up.
Heffernan writes an article attempting to persuade someone to use headphones less or
abolish them entirely. She begins the article arguing the harmful effects headphones have on
teenagers, however she does not support this claim with reputable sources and doesnt even bring
it up again for the rest of the article. She then concludes the article by bringing up new claims
that dont have anything to do with the original claim. Heffernan wastes readers time by
spending the better half of the article discussing the history of headphones which is entirely

irrelevant. Heffernans clear bias towards the topic fails to effectively persuade anyone from
limiting their use of headphones.