These two interviews were very different in formatting. The first interview was somewhat confusing to follow because there weren’t any questions being asked by an interviewer, but instead it was more of a group of statements from different individuals. It could be considered an interview version of a collage in a way. The second interview definitely represented a traditional interview with the proper format of questions being asked in italics and being clearly answered underneath the question. The format of the second interview about McDonald’s is also much more formal than the first interview about reporters in war. The McDonald’s interview provides a great deal of information more so than the first interview. It also provides a lot of personal experiences such as when George Ritzer travels to Europe and sees the effect of fast food on their culture. I thought it was interesting that French people were so opposed to having coke be integrated into their society because they were afraid that it was going to ruin the wine industry. It is somewhat sad how as soon as fast food restaurants came to France then fast food croissant stores popped up throughout France. It represents the deterioration of a culture.
The argument of speaks in the first interview can be somewhat confusing. It shows that the viewpoint of the author by using statements of multiple other people. This could be a problem in being a credible source because a lot of these quotes could have been taken out of context and not really be as useful or meaningful when used in context from what they said originally.
No comments:
Post a Comment