Feed on
Posts
Comments

1. The interview does address the threat that “culture jammers might be disrupting a sports bar near you” by discussing situations in which people might turn off TV’s in public places. The interview also addresses appropriate times and places to turn televisions off.

2. The interviewer has a negative bias toward the device. Her bias is apparent in her questions because of her word choice that she uses. For instance, her second question, “How do you see this working?” gives off a sort of skeptical tone that demonstrates her negative attitude toward the device.

3. As mentioned before, the tone of the interview is skeptical and unsure. This is shown through the interviewer’s phrasing and word choice. This does not affect the credibility of the interviewer, however it could have an effect on the credibility of the interviewee. Because the reader senses the position of the interviewer, it is harder for the reader to be open-minded to the views of the interviewee.

4. In the last paragraph, the interview addresses the political nature of TV Turnoff Week. It says, “What does a commercial do to you? What does media concentration really mean for a democracy? How can so many Americans still think there was a connection between Saddam Hussein and al-Qaida? There’s an incredible amount of disinformation floating around.” So in this section, the topic of TV Turnoff Week becomes┬ánot only a cultural issue, but a political issue as well.

Leave a Reply