TOW #13: Niche is the New Mass by: Tim Wu

The average American consumes over five hours of TV per day according to Tim Wu, writer for The New Republic magazine, and author of “Niche is the New Mass”. In this article, Wu explores how the popular video streaming company Netflix is revolutionizing the television industry. He argues that because they are creating a television culture that is catered to specialized fan bases, instead of the far-reaching scope of on-air television, Netflix is changing America’s TV watching habits. To prove that Netflix is slowly but subtly changing our television culture, Wu calls upon the history of Netflix, and quotes from various people.

To help the reader understand the context of the Netflix “revolution” and the company itself, Wu explores Netflix history. He explains how they pioneered the beginning of Netflix exclusive shows: “Once while attending a software convention, he ran into a guy named Stu Pollard… ‘He gave me his movie, and he said. “I’ve got ten thousand of these if you’re interested’’” (33). Wu also explains the new series on Netflix: “Rather than putting the show through the normal pilot process, the company would commit to two 13-episode seasons up front” (34). The fact that Wu spelled out the achievements and history of the company helps him to understand how Netflix is different than network TV. Therefore, he is later able to compare Netflix to regular TV more effectively, because the reader is able to see the difference, and how specifically Netflix is different.

Not only that, but Wu uses quotes to back his later assertions that Netflix is revolutionary. He claims Netflix can offer something regular programs for the masses cannot: a niche, series that specific groups of people watch that don’t target the masses. He quotes Netflix Chief Content Officer: “Human beings like control...To make all of America do the same thing at the same time is enormously inefficient, ridiculously expensive, and most of the time, not a very satisfying experience” (34). Through this quote, and others like it, Wu is able to drive his points home, and show the reader that he is not blindly asserting random statements. The reader is able to see other people backing this argument. Even though the person who says this is partial, the quote, along with others, strengthens Wu’s argument considerably, and brings to attention the subtle change Netflix is inflicting on our society.

I agree, after that, all I want to do is go “binge-watch” on Netflix. It’s addictive and I fully believe they’re taking over America.

(Source)

TOW #12: IRB- A Breifer History of Time by: Stephen Hawking

How does our universe really work? Where did we really come from and where are we going? The answer is actually more complex than you would think, according to Stephen Hawking, world renowned theoretical physicist, and author of A Breifer History of Time. In A Breifer History of Time, Stephen Hawking offers a simple explanation to the common person about complex theories about our universe. He is able to dumb these complex theories down for us through the use diagrams and analogy, which help the reader to understand.

Although usually scholarly works offer no more than one bland diagram, Hawking takes another route in A Breifer History of Time. For example, when explaining the Relativity of Distance, it is hard to illustrate the idea with only the use of words. Therefore, Hawking includes pictures to go along with his written examples so the reader can comprehend the topic more. There is a picture with a person on a train bouncing a ping pong ball. To them, it looks like the ball moved only a couple inches from hand to table to hand, but to an observer outside, it looks like the ball moved forty feet because the ball was on the train moving as well (I could not find the actual picture online). These pictures are rhetorical devices because they are used to forward Hawking’s purpose, which is to educate the general public on important scientific theories; and through these pictures, the reader is able to comprehend them.

Not only do pictures aid in reader comprehension, but in addition to that, Hawking includes well crafted analogies. Intellegently crafted either before or after the introduction of a new theory, these analogies also help the reader to comprehend complex theories. For example, in the “Curved Space” chapter, when discussing uniform gravitational fields, Hawking compared gravity from a uniform field and gravity from acceleration to an elevator. He says that when “you are accelerating, everything that happens inside the elevator will unfold exactly as it would if the elevator was not moving at all but at rest in a uniform gravitational field” (Hawking 45). Although this complex theory, the principle of equivalence, is hard to explain with the scientific terms, the analogy to the elevator connects the principle to something the common person can conceptualize. Therefore, Hawking is able to make sense and teach his readers.

So far, Hawking has achieved his purpose with a great amount of craft, because as a reader I am able to understand theories probably way over my head when he offers visuals and analogies, for me, the common peasant (compared to Hawking’s intelligence) to understand.

(Source)

[Not Hawking's picture of the principle of equivalence, or relativity of distance, but the only picture form the book online]

TOW #11: Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion by: Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell

When I came across the article “Why pro-lifers keep fighting abortion,” and I saw it was written by two obviously educated and high-profile people, Helen Alvaré and Meg McDonnell one of whom is even a professor of law at George Mason University, I expected an academic argument about the debate on abortion with considerable substance. To my disappointment, this article depicted “pro-lifers” to be simpleton and the article’s purpose does not even have a platform.

The article aims to convey reasons why the pro-life argument has survived, and at the same time give people who are pro-life confidence in their views. However, in the beginning, Alvaré and McDonnell make a fatal mistake. They begin with, “pro-choice Americans must wonder from time to time what keeps pro-lifers going,” (para. 1). Beginning an article with a highly arguable statement like that plants the seed of doubt in a reader’s mind right away. Not only that, but their reasoning for their purpose relies mainly upon the assumption that pro-choice has been beating pro-life for “40 years since Roe v. Wade,” (para. 1). This is also an assumption. If the abortion battle had been won by the pro-choice side, then “pro-lifers” would be a minority with a very bleak future. This is what Alvaré and McDonnell attempt to illustrate with this assumption, but it just is not true. The abortion debate is still very prevalent and neither side has dominated. Although there are laws that legalize abortions, many states are passing preventative pro-life laws. For example, in Virginia, it is illegal to get an abortion unless the woman views an ultrasound of the unborn baby and then decides to go through with the abortion. This is very much a victory for people who are pro-life because it prevents a significant amount of abortions.

Aside from the premise of the views in the article which fuel the purpose being refutable, the rest of the arguments in this article are spotty, and never offer any facts. The few fact that are thrown in are stated plainly without a source and highly questionable. So, even if the article was not based on a refutable idea, the lack of facts and reliable information to support their arguments would crush any shot Alvaré and McDonnell had at proving their purpose regardless.

(Source)