Stereotypical News Article

I thought Robbin’s “article” and was very witty and entertaining and made me forget I was even reading an article. He brings up some good points about popular scientific articles when he mentions an author’s use of “weasel-words” to remain vague, the addition of the picture to keep audiences interest every 400 hundred words, and the necessity to have a human interest section to really reach the public. I was surprised to find that the popular article I have chosen, from the magazine Scientific American, did not utilize some of these strategies. The only hint at clichés would be in the authors attempt to remain vague about his findings by adding in “weasel-words” such as “many scientists” and extremely vague headlines such as “surprising findings from popular studies.”

Also the article is four pages long and there is a picture for every page proving the idea that readers need pictures or visual aids to remain interested in a long scientific article. Some are educational, pictures of ancient human’s geographical movements, and others are put in simply to grab reader’s attention, a man’s face formed from colorful legos depicting human changes. These, however, are the only connections I can make from my article to Robbin’s parody. This may be due to the fact that the magazine I have chosen is at a somewhat higher level than other certain education or science magazines and the article was written by an evolutionary biologist and not a regular journalist. The voice and tone of the overall article seems to be very intellectual and informative, meant for well educated adults hoping to further their own understanding of recent scientific data. Robbin’s is obviously trying to reach a specific type of audience that read scientific articles regularly and recognize the patterns he discusses. These tendencies are discussed, however, in a very lighthearted, jovial manner letting the audience know that he is not serious.