The Truth about Recycling: Genre Analysis of a Magazine Article and a Photograph
What process, if any, do recyclable materials go through? Do the materials really get reused or do they end up in a landfill? These are some of the questions that go through the mind of the average citizen every time they dispose of a plastic bottle, or do they? There are many posters out on society influencing people to recycle. The “Green Movement” is having a great impact, yet there is information about the green movement that is being left out. There are many myths out that make recycling companies look bad such things like; recycling trucks produce more pollution than recycling does and that most materials from the recycling bins end up with the rest of the garbage. These issues have created a debate amongst people on whether what side is ill-informed about recycling. Therefor, it is important to analyze some of the new genres that are being created to inform people about the so called myths of recycling. Through extensive years society has seen the genres that support recycling; now it is time for them to see that other side.
The first genre that will be analyzed is a photograph that shows recycled materials dumped amongst the regular trash. The second genre analyzed is something more formal and valid; it is an article from the magazine Popular Mechanics. These two pieces of communication will be analyzed because they have valid information and have proven to make a statement. These two pieces of communication have also done their job in informing people. Now with a more in-depth analysis, the reader can maybe become more aware about the recycling debates that go unnoticed in society.Purpose and Audience
The first genre, the photograph of the landfill, is trying to portray the horrible sight of how the efforts of many people that recycle are being unappreciated and disposed of along with their trash. The photographer had the idea of evoking some type of sentiment within its viewers. This picture was not just taken to show the world either; it had a purpose to serve to a specific audience. This audience is the everyday people who recycle just because. The photographer wanted to inform people that recycling is not all that true. He wanted to show real and valid information, instead of doing in writing, he found a better way, a photograph. A picture says more than words, and that is the true purpose of this photograph.
The second genre, the Popular Mechanics article, has more support of the information that it supplies rather than the photograph. Once again, the purpose was to inform people and clear them of all speculations that are being made of recycling. The article is entitled “Recycling Myths”, with each myth the writer went into an in-depth yet brief explanation of what is really going on. The audience of this article is really anyone. The problem is that not everyone reads Popular Mechanics.
Rhetorical Issues: Ethos, Pathos, Logos
The credibility on the photograph is easy to identify for the mere fact that you can see what is actually going on. The ethos is quite present when it comes to seeing the huge amount of trash piling up and a construction truck is swiping in recyclables. The pathos in the picture is also quite present, with a dark gloomy contrast. Whether the picture was edited to give off that effect or it naturally came out like that, it evokes this feeling of melancholy mixed in with guilt. The contrast along with what the photographer really wanted to make his audience feel, are hard to identify. With that information missing, it is also hard to identify logos. The picture does not really display where the landfill is not, nor it has a title. However, the photograph does not really need evidence since it is clear that it is something wrong in society.
The article is easier to analyze its rhetorical issues. Its credibility is more than credible; it is facts that are being supplied in the article. With so many facts and statistics, the ethos in this article sticks out like a sore thumb. The ethos however lacks somewhat. Since it is an informational piece, there is not enough freedom to express feelings through the writing. Still, if any, there can be some feelings dealing with intrigue for more information about recycling. With that, the logic is clear, the author tried to debunk myths and inform the misinformed.
Structure
The structure on both genres is mainly informational; it is trying to get rid of skeptics. The photograph is structured to have the pile of trash/recyclables dominant in the picture. This is to show the audience what the problem is. The lack of abstract is the gain in getting across through an audience. The article has more structure; it was organized in numerical order. The article starts out with a short introduction that is more than captivating; it intrigues its readers into reading more. Once the reader is through with the introduction, the article is numerically ordered. Each number talks about a different myth and exposes the truths about it. This structure is very clever since it makes it easy and interesting for readers to actually understand what is going on.
Style/Language
The photograph supplies no language, therefor no style. It is simply just a photograph intended to communicate trough it’s visual and tell the readers that picture sometimes is more than a thousand words. The article on the other hand, has plenty of language and style. This is an article coming from a very popular magazine, it is important that it has both language and style. Its language is formal and at times sophisticated. The style must have been strict since journalism had a strict enforcement of the AP Style book. Its style is informative and to the point, there is not distracting its audience.
Conclusion
Maybe now, it is clearer to readers that recycling has two sides. One, it is trying to save the planet. Two, it is failing at attempting to save our planet. Truthfully the opponents and the proponents will never cease to an agreement. Myths will keep in surging out of rumors and facts will be kept under the rug until someone comes up and talks about it to the public. Alas, the issues have been presented; the purposes and all its compositional values have been analyzed. In the end it is the reader/audience that decides what is right and what is wrong, deciding who to team up with and make a change.
References
Hutchinson, A. (2008, November 10). Recycling myths: pm debunks 5 half truths about recycling. Retrieved from http://www.popularmechanics.com/science/environment/recycling/4290631
"knock 'em down, make 'em bigger" [Web log message]. (2006, September 25). Retrieved from http://blog.lib.umn.edu/scha1028/architecture/
