sSocial Network Is social networking a bad thing? Going back in time to about forty years ago, there was no such thing as social networking. Technology has become a major part of society. It has also impacted the youth of this generation. Now social networking is a part of most teenagers’ life, which most times lead into an addiction. My article is titled, Study Finds Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Isn’t Such a Bad Thing by Tamar Lewin (676). Although it captivates its reader’s attention with the use of logos and ethos, the evidence used in it, and its appeal to the audience, the purpose of this article is not entirely effective.
It lacks information (evidence and support), about the main subject, which would answer the question, “How does internet socializing benefit teenagers? ” The use of egos and logos was thorough and well used in this article. For example, in the article, Ms. Ito, a research scientist in the department of informatics at the University of California, Irvine, said that some parental concern about the dangers of Internet socializing might result from a misperception (Lewin 677).
This is a good example of logos, and how the author integrates the information of credible sources.
The author also integrates the studies of the MacArthur Foundation, which is part of a $50 million project on digital and media learning (Lewin 677). This leads to show that Tamar Lewin put logical and legitimate sources in his article. Tamar Lewin himself seems credible in the article he wrote, hence, he has been writing for the New York Times since 1982, often relating to social policy (Lewin 676). This shows the use of logos because of his background knowledge and previous work that he has written for the New York Times; we can see that he can be accounted for (Lewin 676).
The evidence in Study Finds Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Isn’t Such a Bad Thing is commendable. Case in point, in the article, research scientist Mizuko Ito says, “Those concerns about predators and stranger danger have been overblown. There’s been confusion about what kids are actually doing online. Mostly, they’re socializing with their friends, people they’ve met at school or camp or sports. ”(Qtd. in Lewin 677). Additional sources of information used as evidence were after-study interviews. Only one student, a 14-year-old girl, had ever opted out—and she lasted only a week; “it didn’t work, you become addicted.
You can’t live without it,” says 14-year-old (Qtd. in Lewin 677). I personally think that this article is appealing to the general audience, whether its adults, parents, and/or even teenagers themselves. The author used an example of two early Facebook messages, or “wall posts,” by teenagers who eventually started dating; he even uses a little humor by actually translating it for his audience (Lewin 678). “First the girl posted a message saying, “hey… hm. wut to say? Iono lol/well I left you a comment… u sud feel SPECIAL haha. ” (Translation: Hmm…what to say? I don’t know. Laugh out loud. Well I left you a comment… You should feel special. A day later, the boy replied, “hello there… umm I don’t know what to say, but at least I wrote something…”(qtd. in Lewin 678). Having real evidence from the source, which in this case would be teenagers, is a good way to appeal to the audience. It was a strategic move and smart idea to have people’s real comments as part of his article. Most of the comments have an opposite view on what Tamar Lewin is writing about (679). For instance, here is one of the comments that replied to the article online and agrees with it, “This type of interaction has become especially significant in cultures and countries where public socializing is limited.
It allows younger people to circumvent social norms that frown upon young people of the opposite sex mixing. ” (Lewin 678). Now here’s a comment that disagreed with the article, “Great, so they have technological skills. But they are not getting outside, getting exercise, connecting with nature. Nor are they truly developing social skills—e-communication is a far cry from navigating face to face interactions. ” (Lewin 679). By allowing these individuals’ comments on the author’s article, Tamar Lewin is showing that he understands that not everyone will agree with him, but he acknowledges all points of views.
The evidence, research, and interviews of this article are all well thought of and well put together. However, as I was reading the article, there were very few reasons on why the author thinks teenagers’ Internet socializing isn’t such a bad thing. The reasons came from Ms. Ito, research scientist, and she said, “It may look as though kids are wasting a lot of time hanging out with new media, whether it’s on MySpace or sending instant messages, but their participation is giving them the technological skills and literacy they need to succeed in the contemporary world.
They’re learning how to get along with others, how to manage a publicly identity, how to create a homepage. ” The entire article mostly talked about how teens are addicted to network socializing and how they somehow find a way around the restrictions put on their Internet. It does not list enough reasons of how Internet socializing is not a bad thing. Therefore, the article is not entirely effective. All things considered, the article is mostly stating how addicted teenagers are to social network.
It didn’t really consist of what a reader was planning on reading about, which would be the actual benefits of social network. The article would be effective if the title were something like, Tech Addiction or Teens Social Needs. Overall, the article was interesting; it was consistent with the research, evidence, and teen interviews, it just did not maintain to its main idea. Works Cited Lewin, Tamar. “Study Finds Teenagers’ Internet Socializing Isn’t Such a Bad Thing. ” Everything’s an Argument with Readings. Eds. Andrea Lunsford, John Ruszkiewicz, and Keith Walters. 5th ed. Bedford/St. Martins, (2010): 676-679. Print.
Cite this Social Network (Argument Analysis) Essay
Social Network (Argument Analysis) Essay. (2016, Dec 23). Retrieved from https://graduateway.com/social-network-argument-analysis/