Today I will be writing about how people from 2 different occupations or careers would look at the same topics in 2 different perspectives. I will be pointing out moves that the writers make and explain which writer had a better argument. I will be basing it off of supporting details and resources that each writer has given. I have found 2 different types of articles on drugs and crime. The first article I would say is more like government perspective on drugs and crime. The second article was more looked at from a journalist point of view.
The first article was from a government website and talked mainly about statistics and fats. Being as though its on a government website the information and resources are more trust worthy. The article was very informal also it gave all sorts of resources. By giving resources I would call that “The resource move”. For example the article stated “In 2004, 17% of state prisoners and 18% of federal inmates said they committed their current offense to obtain money for drugs. These percentages represent a slight increase for federal prisoners (16% in 1997) and a slight decrease for state prisoners (19% in 1997).
Source: BJS, Drug Use and Dependence, State and Federal Prisoners, 2004, NCJ 213530, October 2006 and Substance Abuse and Treatment, State and Federal Prisoners, 1997, NCJ 172871, January 1999.
The writer of the article made a move called “capturing authorial action” move. He made this move by letting the readers know what the inmates claimed they had caught their cases based on. The writer lets the reader know that these facts are accurate because its based off surveys from the actual inmates them selves.
In the article the writer also use a move called the “camparison”move. The article stated “In 2002 about a quarter of convicted property and drug offenders in local jails had committed their crimes to get money for drugs, compared to 5% of violent and public order offenders. Among state prisoners in 2004 the pattern was similar, with property (30%) and drug offenders (26%) more likely to commit their crimes for drug money than violent (10%) and public-order offenders (7%). In federal prisons property offenders (11%) were less than half as likely as drug offenders (25%) to report drug money as a motive in their offenses.
The move that the writer made was a good move to use and a very informal move. I think the author chose to use this move because he wanted to let the readers have some type of ideas around which times these offenses occurred. If I was to give this move a grade I would give it a “A” because I think its very useful. I like that the article is more set up into graphs showing the number of homicides and the number of homicides that were drug related. The graphs have so much detail from year dates to numbers of homicides. http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/
Heres an example of how the graph is set up
Year Number of homicides Percent drug related
1987 17,963 4.9 %
1988 17,971 5.6
1989 18,954 7.4
1990 20,273 6.7
1991 21,676 6.2
1992 22,716 5.7
1993 23,180 5.5
1994 22,084 5.6
1995 20,232 5.1
1996 16,967 5.0
1997 15,837 5.1
1998 14,276 4.8
1999 13,011 4.5
2000 13,230 4.5
2001 14,061 4.1
2002 14,263 4.7
2003 14,465 4.7
2004 14,210 3.9
2005 14,965 4.0
2006 15.087 5.3
2007 14,831 3.9
I can also name this example a move. I’m going to make up this move and I think I should call it the “show the reader visually” move. I call this move the “show the reader visually” move because the writer actually show you the charts and graphs. His arguments were based on facts and statistics.
Being as though this article was on a government website (www.bjs.gov). I would say it was looked at from a government point of view . A person who might want to study a topic like this might have degree in math and criminal justice. This article was more so statistically driven. There was a lot of logos shown in this article and mainly numbers.
The next article I have found was a article that would be looked at from a journalist point of view. This article was on the same topic but was looked at differently because of difference in occupations. The article is called parents house seized after son drug bust. Written by Pamela Brown.
This article was about a family that lived in the Philadelphia suburbs. Christos Sourovelis (The teenage boy father) was very hard working man. he worked 6 days a week some times 7. His parents had no idea he was selling drugs till the cops showed up one day. Because of thie son wrong doing the parnts have got thier home taken away. Chridtos stated "Im a working guy. I work every day, six days a week, even seven if I have to," m a working guy. I work every day, six days a week, even seven if I have to," Sourovelis says. One day this past March, without warning, the government took his house away, even though he and his wife, Markella, have never been charged with a crime or accused of any wrongdoing. says. One day this past March, without warning, the government took his house away, even though he and his wife, Markella, have never been charged with a crime or accused of any wrongdoing.http://www.cnn.com/2014/09/03/us/philadelphia-drug-bust-house-seizure/
This article differs from the government article beacuse its more so set up like a journalist would set it up. It haves different moves and approches in it. It was based off of interviews and bassically close up. Kinda like a movie. These 2 articles ar on th same topic but yet are looked at differntly be cause of the different occupation one has. One article was more numbers and statistics while the other article was in eassy form. Thats how these to occupations see one topic in different perspectives.
No comments:
Post a Comment