First and foremost, I think the lead is extremely effective.
It is a little misleading in one technical sense: it makes me think there are poor people who are spending all their money on fashion. Instead, it shows what may be the outcome that Vogue and other marketers are looking for in Asia’s future.
But as you read on you see that it’s the very image of the lead that makes the article strong because, at least for me, I feel outraged when people who are poor get into superficial things and put it in front of practical survival. And it’s appalling to me that Vogue would actually want to market and introduce brands into a place where people are struggling to eat. That’s like introducing a Nike sneaker to an old, vagrant man in a third-world country. What is he supposed to do with it? Does looking expensive fill a stomach? No.
And the quote that saving money is a “western attitude”? Not quite. First, that’s a general statement, and second, that is so wrong in so many ways. Why should they “fix that”? These people need to save when they’re living under 1.25 a day, budgeting is very important, and they want to change that?
The sources were appropriate to a certain degree: let me explain. In one sense it’s perfect: it uses the focus of the article, and the quotes from the different marketing representatives pretty much paint a picture of what the representatives are looking to do, and how “morally invested” they seem to be. The quotes alone make me want really pissed that Vogue seems to be so nonchalant on what they could be doing to the people of India.
On the other hand, a more complete article may have more sources. While the quotes show what they are planning, the article doesn’t get any sources beyond Vogue: like one of these ordinary people and whether they think it’s positive or negative what Vogue wants to do. The way it is now sort of guides the reader into a singular perspective that isn’t exactly objective.
I think it helps us as students in seeing a) topics that are really important and raise questions, and b) makes us remember what to add and what to omit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I agree with you, when I first read it I got the impression that some how these people are buying designer clothes, but then as I got further into the article it was clear that it was just a display. But it is true the lead was great, I couldn't just read the lead and walk away I had to read the entire story, something about made me keep reading even though I was becoming annoyed.
I agree with your response about the article. I thought you answered the questions well. I also agree with you that the article is missing the opinion of an "ordinary" person. I thought you should have a little more specific of how the article help journalism students. Also, you should write without referring to "you" or yourself. Other than that, you should work a little on your grammar (I would have used a dash instead a colon in paragraph six).
Post a Comment