Electronic Media Critical Analysis Paper
Purpose: To critically analyze an electronic medium. Examples:
1. Broadcast TV show such as Big Brother, The Simpsons, The View and Family Guy
2. Cable TV show e.g. Jersey Shore, The Walking Dead, American Horror Story, The Closer, South Park,
Beavis and Butthead, etc.
3. Cable news show/host – Fox News/Bill O’Reilly, CNN/Wolf Blitzer, MSNBC/Chris Matthews, etc.
4. Broadcast TV newscast – NBC, ABC or CBS Evening News, PBS
5. Radio News/Talk show – Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, Don Imus, NPR, etc.
6. Feature Film – Fight Club, Fahrenheit 9/11, DaVinci Code, The Passion of Christ, Apollo 18, etc.
7. Web site – Facebook.com, Huffingtonpost.com, etc.
8. Video game – Bully, Tomb Raider, Grand Theft Auto, etc.
9. Music album or video – Lies/Guns & Roses, Erotica/Madonna, As Nasty as They Wanna Be/
2 Live Crew, etc.
You are not required to email me for approval on the media that you use. The above are only examples of many, many media there are to choose from. You are not limited to choosing from this list.
A published work such as a book or magazine will be accepted in lieu of an electronic media
Format/organization: The paper should follow a standard essay/composition format of an introduction, body (analysis) and conclusion. The introduction should include a thesis which clearly defines your argument, a preview of the specific steps (main points) you will take to prove your argument. The body (analysis) should go into detail (main points) substantiating your case (thesis). Be sure to furnish any background information needed to understand your contention(s). Do not assume everyone is familiar with the entity you are criticizing. Then remain as critical as possible either negatively or constructively. Your conclusion should restate your thesis and main points and have a closing remark.
Length/Mechanics: The paper should be three to five pages double spaced in Times New Roman font – size 12, with one inch margins, appropriate bibliographic citations and reflect a college-caliber writing style.
Avoid “I think, I feel, I believe.” Expect the reader to automatically attribute the content to you except for when you cite someone else’s ideas. Their thoughts should agree with yours unless you are refuting their claim(s) to strengthen your argument.
Have only one main point thought per paragraph and use transitional sentences.
Content: The paper should not be an evaluation of the entertainment value or popularity of the product, nor should it be a review/summary. Take a noticeable stance. Consult the thought starters below. Think with the mind, not the heart.
You are required to make a specific argument or contention, including the steps to prove your case. The paper should be noticeably persuasive. Does the media chosen have more of a positive or negative influence on society? Why?
Furnish specific examples which support your argument. Remember anyone can have an opinion. Provide credible evidence. Use sources that support your argument and provide a Works Cited page.
Three sources minimum are required and you are not required to do a source document for this assignment.
Do not ramble! Clearly define the issue. The paper should be well organized and easy to follow.
Remember critical thinking is analytical thinking. It is based in the mind, not the heart. It is how you think, not how you feel.
What is the social, educational, political or religious impact?
Are there any insensitivities or prejudices through the use of mischaracterizations or stereotypes?
Is there a hidden agenda, theme or subtext?
Is the content biased? Is it slanted liberal or conservative as opposed to balanced? Is it
pro Democrat, pro Republican or pro Tea Party rather than independent? Does it intentionally appeal
to the religious right or secular left?
Are there any profanity or vulgarity issues expressed either verbally and/or visually?
What direction does its moral compass point? Are there any unethical implications?
If it is promoted as a news product, is there an over-reliance on opinion, speculation, commentary or spin rather than substantive facts?