Introduction
Advancement in technology has brought about revolution in telecommunication industry. This has led to increased use of camera phones and digital cameras in the United States. Estimates show that nearly half of American families have cameras. Moreover, they also show that nearly 40% of the families have camera phones.
This shows that people have embraced technology. However, it is worrisome that some people risk their lives to use these gadgets. For instance, a graduate student (Jamal Albarghouti) took footage of the Virginia student massacre on a camera phone. Similarly, another 19 years old college student (Ho) took footage of plane crash on a digital camera. These cases provide examples of citizens who risk their lives to take video footages (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265).
Summary of the two articles
Praise for Student’s footage of Virginia tech Mass killing
The article by Lily Yulianti narrates about a chilling event at Virginia Tech. Yulianti reports how a Palestinian graduate student (Jamal Albarghouti) took footage of mass killings at the college using a phone camera. Albarghouti took a detailed footage of the event. Yulianti mentions in the article that Larry King, a news reporter with CNN, was amazed at Albarghouti’s achievement.
The article goes through the event as taken in the footage. It mentions mass shootings, which was experienced at the College. In addition, the article covers Albarghouti’s interview with Larry king. Yulianti’s main concern in the article is about Albarghouti’s safety (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265). She could not understand why Albarghouti stopped and take footage of events in such a commotion. Moreover, he was not a professional journalist.
The article describes how Albarghouti gave an account of the event to King. Yulianti describes Albarghouti’s account on the event as clear and firm. However, she also notes that Albarghouti was used to such hostilities back in Gaza. Later on, the author introduces the citizen journalism debate, which has received criticism from traditional media. She therefore wonders why exclusive reports from citizen journalists are met with suspicion by the mainstream media (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265).
Disaster Photos: Newsworthy or Irresponsible
The second article is about a debate on whether photos taken by survivors are newsworthy or irresponsible. The article begins by recounting how plane crashes have prompted concerns by safety investigators.
In addition, it gives a detailed description of London bombings as well as witness photos from survivors. The article wonders why victims put the lives at risk to take pictures during tragic events like plane crash. It goes on to give a story of Ho, a student who took pictures of a plane crash disaster, in which he was a crew (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265).
This was quite worrying given that he could have easily delayed rescue missions as well as his safety. The article talks of photos from Eddie Ho, which were, broadcasted in ABC’s good morning America. Moreover, this information was also broadcasted in CNN and NBC. The article therefore tries to debate whether taking photos at such crucial moments is newsworthy or irresponsible. It utilizes several scholars such as Helen Muir and Kelly McBride to analyze the debate (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265).
For instance, one scholar cautions media from taking footage/ pictures from citizens without prior information on how the sources got such information. However, other proponents like Sherwood welcomes contributions from citizen journalists like Ho. In the end, the article reaches a consensus on the issue by noting that over time, it is upon survivors to decide when to take pictures or not (Rottenberg and Winchell 262-265).
Analysis
The first article gives an overview of events before criticizing journalists at the end. It gives an overview of citizen journalism and an overview of how it is clear and firm. It does not give detailed information on professional journalism although it criticizes mainstream media, which consist of professional journalists, of being suspicious of citizen journalism. The author therefore uses appeal to describe one side and to refute the other (Whately 11).
In this regard, the model utilized in the first article is Aristotelian, which promotes one claim but refutes the other. On the other hand, the second article gives a detailed description of both sides of the debate. For instance, it gives example of proponents of survivor photos with their reasons and those against survivor photos. In the end, it reaches consensus on situations when survivors can take photos. This article shows a rogerian argumentation, which normally reaches consensus after exploring both options (Whately 11).
Conclusion
From the two articles, it is clear that the latter provides more information for decision making than the first. For instance, it does not only make claims on the need for survivors to stop taking picture in distress, but it also provides evidences from proponents.
These include Helen Muir and Kelly McBride, among others. On the other hand, it provides information from opponents like Sherwood, among others. Finally, it reaches a solution with evidence from Mark Glaser. The second article is therefore more convincing than the first (Munson and Black 55).
Works Cited
Munson, Ronald, and Black Andrew. The Elements of Reasoning, Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Publishing, 2011.
Rottenberg, Annette, and Winchell Donna. Elements of Argument, London: Bedford, 2012.
Whately, Richard. Elements of Logic, New York, NY: Sheldon & Company, 1826.