Levitt And Dubner's Freakonomics

Saunders criticizes the megaphone, claiming it places priority on entertaining, profitable news as opposed to news that is educational or enlightening. Saunders furthers this claim by arguing that news media is habitually over-simplifying complicated issues, thus desensitizing the masses to stupidity and frivolity. Saunders’ essay is important because although it was published in 2007, it is still relevant (and will most likely be relevant as long as media exists). In fact, the points he makes in this essay are even more relatable now, as social media has increased greatly in popularity. Everywhere you look, there is a new “breaking story” about the Kardashians or the Jenners; and people accept this as real news! Saunders’ essay encourages readers to be critical of mass media and seek out undiluted, uncontaminated, earnest news

What if I told you that before you could even speak you would already have a reputation, would you believe it? Noel Sturgeon, a professor of environmental studies at Washington State University, fights against such injustices. In her 2009 novel Environmentalism in Popular Culture: Gender, Sexuality, Race, and the Politics of the Natural, she utilizes rhetorical devices to expose the corruption of popular advertising. The genre of this text gears towards her field of expertise, classification using symbolic aspects of the environment. The time period that the text was written is significant because it was the year that Obama was inaugurated, the the murder of Dr. George Tiller, domestic abusive relationship of Chris Brown and Rihanna, and Sonia Sotomayor’s confirmation to the US Supreme court. These events demonstrate the opposite relationship of stepping out of boundaries and confronting social injustices, but the death and beating in particular show the rejection of homosexuality and women's rights. We are constantly moving back and forth on the equality spectrum, and from a very young age we were fed subliminal messages of our certain roles in society. Colonization, exploration, primitivism, racism, homophobia and sexism are presented to us through popular advertising thus her audience is the entire nation. She uses our definition of what it means to be “natural” and by doing so, people are given a reputation based on their race, gender or sexuality.

The first part of Gitlin’s argument claims that the mass media smothers students with unfiltered, meaningless, and distracting information, relying heavily on students’ lack of self-identity to obtain their attention. To portray this claim, in paragraphs one, two, and three, the author sets up a scenario depicting an everyday American’s media-controlled life. For example, Gitlin uses hypothetical diction like words such as, “suppose,” “for the sake of,” “suppose,” and “assume,” (251) this hypothetical diction creates a theoretical atmosphere and tone that hints to the audience that this “fictional” scenario is similar to our reality, which in turn affirms Gitlin’s message. In addition to that, when Gitlin continues to add on to his scenario, he utilizes short

The author Steven Levitt studied economics at Harvard University and MIT. He is primarily known for his work in the field of crime. The title Freakonomics means a study of economics based on the principles of incentives. The title is related to the book since he emphasizes how incentives drive and affect people’s actions. Although this book does not have a single theme, the main focus of the book is a new way of interpreting the world using economic tools. He explores incentives, information asymmetry, conventional wisdom, crime and abortion, and parenting throughout the six chapters of the book.

To begin with, by examining the audience, the readers can dive deeper into the topic and offer their input. The audience of the story is the American people and politicians. The readers can assume this because the author talks about how the

The Clarence Thomas proved to be a true political spectacle as eighty six percent of the American public admitted to having watched at least an hour of the Clarence Thomas hearings . The spectacle’s appeal to such a large number of Americans was an invitation for further intervention from the media. The opportunistic media capitalized on a situation where millions of viewers tuned in and used their coverage to influence the public. The media was able to manipulate the estimated 27 million viewers that watched the hearings .The media recognized that the personal drama of a public figure was a greater draw than political element of the hearings, and therefore highlighted the unsightly side of

Few Supreme Court decisions have stirred up as much controversy, vitriolic debate, and even violence as the one delivered in Roe v. Wade in 1973. Four decades later, it remains a touchstone for the culture wars in the United States and a pivot upon which much of American politics turns. In fact, the authors of “Roe v. Wade: The Abortion Rights Controversy in American History” state that even today, the case (and its companion cases) “remains the most divisive and controversial judicial decision of the twentieth century” (3). Although it is a landmark case in itself, its continuing influence on American law and politics proves that its legacy lives on far beyond its formal resolution in a court of law. Essentially, the most important points are that the cause of the case’s complexity and drama is the legal relationship between men and women that the ruling mirrored and compounded, the way the medical profession was impacted, and the political significance that the issue still holds presently.

Imagine, if you will, a time that seemed innocent... almost too innocent. Imagine a nation under whose seemingly conformist and conservative surface dramatic social changes were brewing, changes as obvious as integration and as subtle as fast food. And imagine, if you will, a radical television show that scrutinized, criticized, and most importantly, publicized these changes, making the social turmoil of a nation apparent to its post-world war, self-contented middle-class citizens. But what if this television show was not as it appeared? What if it masqueraded as simple science fiction, and did not reveal its true agenda until viewers took a closer look? Let us examine how

In this this political science paper I will go into depth on the book Abortion and the Politics of Motherhood to discuss Kristen Luker’s central argument about why people are prolife and prochoice today. Some argue that the central disagreement between prochoice and prolife activist is when life actually begins. As the argument goes, if the country could agree on when that occurs then the argument over abortion would end. I’m going to discuss Luker’s central argument first then demonstrate my knowledge of Luker’s argument based on the justices’ argument, ideas, and comments. After that I will show how we see her argument play out in the Slate magazine article about the Supreme Court.

The author is very affective with his argument, he uses logos and rhetorical questions the most to make the audience form their own opinions, but also listen to his. The main point in this book, Freakonomics, written by Steven Levitt, is to show that economics can explain many phenomenons. Levitt uses logos and rhetorical devices the most to display this argument. The audience is made to question if “It might be worthwhile to step back and ask a rudimentary question; what is a gun?” (Levitt 118). The audience asked to think about what the consequences of a gun can be. Levitt also uses data so show that these moments can be discomforting and dangerous. The most discomforting example that Levitt provided was that “The most famous gun-control

In the book Freakonomics, by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, is made up of a series of scenarios in which an economist and a journalist apply basic principles of economics to demonstrate that information can often expose interesting truths about how the world operates. It uses the science of economics and specific data to challenge our assumptions about everything. In the book Freakonomics by Levitt & Dubner, compares and contrasts two groups of people or things by using their informational data. This is called juxtaposition, which means the fact of two things being seen or placed close together with contrasting effect. Levitt and Dubner look at the world in a way that is both surprising, occasionally funny, and always enlightening. They do so by drawing unexpected connections between two greatly different but complementary aspects of sociology and economics, such as sumo wrestlers to school teachers, KKK members to the real estate agents, and lastly, crack gangs to McDonalds.

In an effort to expose the epistemology of television, which Postman believes has not been effectively addressed, he examines the effects of TV on several important American cultural institutions: news, religion, politics and education.  All four institutions, Postman argues, have realized that they have to go on television in order to be noticed which, in turn, requires them to learn the language of TV if they are to reach the people.  Therefore, they have joined the national conversation not on their own terms, but on TV's terms.  Postman contends that this transformation of our major institutions has trivialized what is most important about them and turned our culture into "one vast arena for show business" (80).  In the case of broadcast news, we see visually stimulating, disconnected stories about murder and mayhem along with a healthy dose of infotainment delivered by friendly and likeable anchors that remind us to "tune in tomorrow".  In the case of politics, we have discourse through distorted paid TV commercials and "debates" in which the appearance of having said something important is

All throughout history we have used metaphors to describe people, places, events and emotions; so it is perfectly fitting to describe the mediums with which we project our ideas as a metaphor as well. This is Neil Postman 's basis for his book Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business. Television and other media outlets have conditioned us to accept entertainment in every aspect of life; but most of all it masks the state of public affairs and politics. Through his book, Postman begs that we recognize the ways in which media shapes our lives and how we can use them to serve us instead of hurt us. Broken into two parts, Amusing Ourselves to Death focuses on a historical analysis of media, then discusses the television media-metaphor in more detail. Postman examines how media has infected every aspect of public discourse by prizing entertainment as the standard of truth.

The book Freakonomics by Steven D. Levitt and Stephen J. Dubner, is designed to pose fundamental questions concerning economics using a variety of imaginative comparisons and questions. Examples of these comparisons and questions can be seen in the list of contents, with chapter titles such as “How is the Ku Klux Klan like a group of real-estate agents?” and “Why do drug dealers still live with their moms?” Not everyone is interested in economics, but with titles that grab attention, it is almost impossible not to pick up the book and read it for yourself. The two chapters of Freakonomics I will be analyzing are “What do Schoolteachers and Sumo Wrestlers have in common?” and “Perfect Parenting, Part II; or: Would a Roshanda by any other

In Freakonomics, incentive emphasizes Steven Levitt and Stephen Dubner’s unification of disparate chapters and American society. Economic incentives drive people like teachers and criminals to make certain decisions. “...high-stakes testing has so radically changed the incentives for teachers…” (Levitt, and Dubner 23). School teachers’ incentive is to cheat because they do not want be fired or passed up for promotion because of low test scores. Levitt discovers that the different ranks in gangs have opposite incentives. “A foot soldier’s incentive was to make a name for himself; J. T.’s incentive was, in effect, to keep the foot soldiers from doing so” (Levitt, and Dubner 105-106). Foot soldiers start gang wars in the hopes of becoming noticed