So I was reading the news today and was thinking "Hmm... where have I heard this before..." when I realized, oh yeah, just a few years ago we were all freaking out about bird flu. First birds, now pigs. What's next?
So anyway, the United States government declared a public health emergency over the currently spreading swine flu. So far, 20 cases have been confirmed in the US, and scientists are expecting more. Declaring a public health emergency doesn't necessarily mean that there is one, though, just that we should prepare for it. Basically, it allows greater government response, freeing resources for diagnosis, prevention, and antiviral drugs. Basically, there's no need to panic, people... yet.
However, other countries are taking a more serious view, taking big steps such as quarantining sick travelers, screening all air travelers, and banning pork imports from Mexico, where the disease originated (even though there's no connection between the food and the disease).
I don't know how serious this disease is going to get, but maybe the US government should be even a little more concerned. After all, President Obama's health secretary and nomination for the FDA have not even been approved by the Senate yet. And even though only 8 people had confirmed cases of the swine flu in Queens, 100 kids got sick at St. Francis Preparatory School there. And scientists don't really know if our current antiviral medications - Tamiflu and Relenza are actually effective. Who knows, maybe we should be screening all travelers from Mexico, instead of just taking interest in those that appear sick.
As an article, I was sort of satisfied with the story. It did present a lot of important information, but it wasn't necessarily concise. A lot of the quotes that were used were unnecessary, and the reporter used phrases like "global pandemic" - which, if you know what pandemic means, is completely redundant. I would have found it interesting if the reporter talked about the comparison between the swine flu and the bird flu, or talked about how people become infected with the swine flu. I understand that wasn't the angle that she was taking, but had she been more concise with the information she did present, there would've been ample room to insert a little blurb about the other aspects of the story.
U.S. Declares Public Health Emergency Over Swine Flu
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/world/27flu.html?_r=1&hp
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Loving the Hatred
So sometimes reviews can get a little stale, especially ones that tear down something that the general public seems to like. If a reporter is overly critical and the reader disagrees with his/her opinion, the article can easily come off as an unreasonable, ranting tirade. Virginia Heffernan, on the other hand, attacks one of the most beloved new devices – the iPhone – in a way that instead of putting off readers, makes them laugh.
Heffernan’s article is successful because it’s hilarious. Just like in satire, people are more accepting to potentially offensive messages if they’re laughing. So Heffernan’s witty use of sophisticated adjectives, personification, and metaphors describing her hated iPhone lend themselves perfectly to her piece. I mean, as soon as you call a phone, “Refined, introverted, mysteriously chilled,” as Heffernan does in her second sentence, you’ve hooked the reader to see what the heck you’re talking about.
Maybe Heffernan goes a little extreme in her tirade, but that’s kind of the point. I doubt that she was actually “fighting rage” at four in the morning, as she said she was, but it just makes the article that much funnier. I especially enjoyed the exchange between Heffernan and the AT&T saleswoman in which the iPhone is compared to a newborn baby. Priceless.
The thing is, through the laughter, some of what Heffernan says truly rings through. I agree with the fact that the keypad on the iPhone is hard to use (I don’t personally own one, and my fingers are pretty clumsy I guess), and Heffernan’s whole bit about thinking with her thumbs as opposed to her forefinger had me in stitches. So did the way she characterized the iPhone’s word suggestions as bossy and insincere.
Overall, the article was a laugh, and a refreshing one. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?em
Heffernan’s article is successful because it’s hilarious. Just like in satire, people are more accepting to potentially offensive messages if they’re laughing. So Heffernan’s witty use of sophisticated adjectives, personification, and metaphors describing her hated iPhone lend themselves perfectly to her piece. I mean, as soon as you call a phone, “Refined, introverted, mysteriously chilled,” as Heffernan does in her second sentence, you’ve hooked the reader to see what the heck you’re talking about.
Maybe Heffernan goes a little extreme in her tirade, but that’s kind of the point. I doubt that she was actually “fighting rage” at four in the morning, as she said she was, but it just makes the article that much funnier. I especially enjoyed the exchange between Heffernan and the AT&T saleswoman in which the iPhone is compared to a newborn baby. Priceless.
The thing is, through the laughter, some of what Heffernan says truly rings through. I agree with the fact that the keypad on the iPhone is hard to use (I don’t personally own one, and my fingers are pretty clumsy I guess), and Heffernan’s whole bit about thinking with her thumbs as opposed to her forefinger had me in stitches. So did the way she characterized the iPhone’s word suggestions as bossy and insincere.
Overall, the article was a laugh, and a refreshing one. I enjoyed it thoroughly.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/05/magazine/05wwln-medium-t.html?em
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
