FANDOM


SummaryEdit

The two sources that are used are two articles. One of them is from a news and gossip website and addresses false advertising that Burger King did when promoting their new product. The second is a scholarly source that discusses several fast-food chains and how their picture advertisements do not match what their actual food looks like when you go to the restaurant and order it.

First SourceEdit

Since this is published on a news and gossip website, the general purpose of this article is to inform its readers that Burger King is falsely advertising their latest product, the Tendercrisp Chicken Burger. The audience is meant to be consumers. People who are buying this product are the ones that they are intending this article for. They want to get the word out that this new menu item is not what you think it is. Therefore, this article is meant to be more informational and maybe a little persuasive. The author’s purpose is to shed light on the false advertising Burger King is doing. Clearly they want to get the word out so that people who go to Burger King will either not go to Burger King anymore, or they will not order this item from the menu. This article is somewhat of an attack on the fast-food chain. It is only about the one restaurant, rather then several fast-food chains.

The author states their opinion within the first sentence of the article. Sean Poulter (the author) says, “Fast food chain Burger King has been found guilty of telling a whopper with a TV commercial suggesting its Tendercrisp Chicken burger was bigger than it is.” By asserting this statement in the very first paragraph of the article, Poulter is automatically claiming that Burger King is at fault and is guilty. This statement alone will make a reader be turned off by the restaurant and by the product it is discussing. Also, because this article comes from a gossip and news website, the type of writing and the form it is written in seems to be very informal and very biased. It definitely seems as though it is intended to be biased so that the readers will be biased as well and will not go to Burger King or order this new menu item.

Second SourceEdit

The second source is titled, “Pretty as their Picture.” It follows a more academic and scholarly outline, but it includes several pictures that compare how a fast-food product is advertised and what it actually look likes. This source also takes the route of discussing several falsely advertised products from several chains, rather than just one restaurant. Although the audience could be consumers, similar to the first article, I believe that this source is more intended for the people who actually make the advertisements for these fast-food chains. Since it does give several examples of the false advertising that fast-food chains give off, this leads me to believe that the author wants this article to affect policy-makers and those who can actually have a say in how these restaurant chains advertise. The author wants these people and readers to make changes in the way they advertise or in how they make their food.

All of the advertised pictures seem to look very fresh and like a five-star chef just made the burger or the sandwich. But the real-life picture of the product looks greasy, warped, and as if the ingredients could be days old. This comparison demonstrates just how accurate the author’s argument is. Backing up the author’s opinion with factual evidence definitely has a lasting affect on the reader.

Comparison of the Two SourcesEdit

Although these two sources convey facts and opinions about the same topic, false advertising, they both deliver their information and argument in very different ways. The news and gossip article seems to convey its facts in a much more informational way, whereas the scholarly source seems to be more persuasive since it is trying to prove a point to the advertisers for these fast-food chains. One similarity I see in both of these sources is their use of pictures. The images included really get the point across of how mislead consumers are with these ads. Although both sources have some element of persuasion to them, the scholarly source does a much better job at comparing the advertised and what the food looks like in reality since it has several examples, rather than just one.

Another thing to think about is where these sources are found. The first article is found on a news and gossip website. Therefore, this style of writing is much more informal and biased. This style of writing is used to cause an immediate reaction to the reader to not go buy this product. Whereas with the second source, the reader is left thinking deeply about just how poor of a job these fast food chains are at advertising. The scholarly article leaves the reader wanting to make changes to how these advertisements are made, and the gossip and news website leaves the reader just thinking about how they will not go buy that menu item.


AdviceEdit

When compared to the news and gossip article, the scholarly source does a much better job at providing facts, images, and information to back the author’s opinion. When writing a piece over a subject of discussion, it is very important to include examples and facts to back up your opinion. It makes your opinion seem much more valid and it will convey your point of view in a better way. People will also take your writing more seriously if you have the factual evidence to support what exactly you are saying. When writing about a topic that could be an arguement, it would make your writing much more valueable if it is in a more formal format, like the scholarly article.


Sources UsedEdit

http://0-web.b.ebscohost.com.library.uark.edu/ehost/detail?vid=11&sid=72e704b6-cfa6-4f5e-862d-82a1f2e93121%40sessionmgr113&hid=108&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZSZzY29wZT1zaXRl#db=a9h&AN=93387946


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1296485/Advertising-watchdog-finds-Burger-King-guilty-telling-whopper-serving-size.html