Jon Morris

English 0701-069

Rushkoff and Watson Comparison

Both Rushkoff and Watsons essay deal with a problem concerning our youth and both

illustrate a grim future for the younger generation. The technique used by both is mostly an

appeal to the readers emotion. The target audience of each essay is an older generation, so the

two use this to their advantage by invoking how the readers morally feel to the dilemma that is

portrayed in both essays.

Rushkoff starts off his essay by telling a story about an encounter he had with a young

shopper who was perplexed with the decision of picking the right shoe. Rushkoff uses the

example as a way of introducing the idea that we are intentionally confused by the marketers of

big-name shoe companies, so we end up having an internal conflict over what product to buy.

However, Rushkoffs intro is obviously fictional, he tries to portray the hook as a real-life

occurrence, but the language he uses is clearly that of an informed adult, and not a naive

teenager. His narrative is unsuccessful in convincing the audience that it is authentic, and it

brings down the author's credibility.

Rushkoff tries to build his credibility in the middle of this story, by claiming that he has

just completed years of research on this exact topic; but because he does not really specify what

kind of research he means, it leaves much to wonder by the reader. Is his research actually

legitimate, and scientifically based or is it just him doing a little reading on the topic in his free

time? His lack of specification continues to hurt his attempt at creating a reliable image of

himself. He has some experience in this subject, but the reader never fully has a total satisfaction

of what his accreditation is.

 After finishing his intro, he jumps right into his true purpose of writing this article. He

makes a bold statement, claiming that our children, a statement which immediately ages him,

are merely dollar signs in the eyes of marketing officials. He describes it as a never-ending

battle, between the ever-resilient minds of our youth, and the increasing persistence of big-name

companies. Rushkoffs picture is very bleak and gray and is meant to scare the reader into having

a desire to find the solution to this horrific corruption. This approach really resonates with the

reader's emotion as it touches a very sensitive subject, our children.

A recurring theme in Rushkoffs writing is this stab at the audience's feelings toward the younger

generation. He seemingly spends a lot of his time trying to act as protector of our youth; because

of this, it is easy to tell that his target market is an older generation. All of his appeals use terms

that indicate he is imploring an older crowd to become educated on this silent war. This is the

most prevalent way Rushkoff uses Pathos, which is an appeal to the reader's emotion. Constantly

nagging at the readers values by making it seem like marketing giants are encroaching on every

youths innocent mind, really makes a clear point.

Another thing Rushkoff brings up in his essay is how youth have built up a tolerance to

advertisements. He claims that Attention Deficit Disorder is mere an umbrella term for anyone

who clicks away from programming before the marketer wants him to (Rushkoff, 385). While

to an older generation, this may seem like a plausible explanation; it is honestly more like a

slippery slope. He starts this slope by saying that different entertainment mediums are simply a

different attraction for younger kids and then continuing to claim Attention Deficit Disorder can

be found in any child who chooses to mentally fight advertisements. This argument is not

effective because ADD is far from confined to the constraints of advertisements. Rushkoff's

audience may believe it is, but ultimately it is not. However, since it does appeal to his core
demographic you could also count this as a win for Rushkoff. He is writing directly to his target

audience and because of that, it could work.

Rushkoff ends the essay on a bitter note. By this point, he has successfully put a wrench

in his audience's heart, regarding big name advertisements and now he wants to end with a final

blow. Again, he makes a bold statement by saying that however media-savvy kids get, they will

always lose this particular game (Rushkoff, 387). This entire essay he has pulled at his readers

emotions and during his closing remarks, hes trying to do it more. Leaving the audience feeling

hopeless is his greatest virtue. By ending like this it leaves his witnesses with a sort of awe and

unbelief. An unmistakably brash opinion has been branded into their minds.

Moving to Watson, lets take a look at his writing style. His essay with an intro about Watsons

that attempts to build his Ethos. It states that Watson has had several jobs moderating internet

industry forums, and that he has worked with most major web analytics companies (Watson,

414). Since Watson is specifically describing the jobs he had and what they incurred he does a

much better job than Rushkoff at building his credibility.

Watsons thesis is Yet if they would take a moment to think about it, they may see how

limited the future of journalists could eventually result in the loss of a number of their

freedoms. (Watson, 414). At first glance, this seems like a plausible thesis but as the reader

continues the essay they will soon realize that these freedoms that Watson is referring to are

not elaborated on very much throughout the essay. He makes a hard-hitting statement but spends

the rest of the essay jumping around. This is probably one of his biggest mistakes of the article

and can result in the confusion of the reader on what the paper is truly one.

In paragraph 10 Watson makes a remark saying that he would be surprised if the journalism

degree is even offered in 20 years. (Watson 415). He is trying to use this proclamation to scare
his audience into believing that the structure that our reliable independent news is built on will

come crumbling down. The only evidence he provides for this is that local newspapers are dying.

By leaving other mediums of news out of this equation he successfully equates the death of

community news sources to the end of reliable information.