http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/06/opinion/sunday/electronic-devices-on-planes.html?ref=editorials
This editorial pertains to the confusion about the technology policy on airplanes. Most people are confused as to why they cannot use technology during landing or takeoff, while other people choose to disobey most of these regulations. This article introduces new regulations allowing people to use technology as long as it is in "airplane mode."
The context of this editorial is the fact that some revisions are being made to the old technology rules. People are now allowed to use their devices during takeoff and landing. However, old rules of using cellphones before airplane doors close, and after landing are still in tact.
The purpose of this editorial was to inform about new rule regulations for technology usage on airplanes and express opinions on them. The whole piece was very informative. It was written for people who constantly travel, however another arugment suggests a second audience because the editors give their opinion on what they think technology regulations should be. That second audience would be the F.A.A. committee who create these regulations because the editors want their opinions heard.
The editors
used irrefutable data about the percentage of people who break technology rules, also the editors use their voice and perspective, "It’s time regulators issued common-sense rules for their use aboard planes." It almost comes off as a persuasive and bias piece. "This sensible recommendation would allow passengers to read e-books, listen to music or watch movies without causing interference during takeoffs and landings." Reading this last quote really makes the voice and perspective of the editors stick out because it says "this sensible recommendation," so reading this you understand that the editors do not like the airplane regulations and this change that is being made to them is a positive factor for these editors.
The authors of this specific piece are on the New York Times Editorial board. It is composed of 17 journalists who specialize in different fields. The editors seem highly credible due to the fact that they provide clear evidence about airplane regulations "According to one private survey, as many as 30 percent of passengers left their devices on when they were not supposed to." So they do not just state opinions about people violating technology polocies on airplanes, but they give clear evidence by referring to a recent survey.
I feel as if the editors achieved their purpose, however, I think that more facts and information about airplane regulations with a more in-depth analysis would better help them achieve delivering information and giving an opinion on it.
This editorial pertains to the confusion about the technology policy on airplanes. Most people are confused as to why they cannot use technology during landing or takeoff, while other people choose to disobey most of these regulations. This article introduces new regulations allowing people to use technology as long as it is in "airplane mode."
The context of this editorial is the fact that some revisions are being made to the old technology rules. People are now allowed to use their devices during takeoff and landing. However, old rules of using cellphones before airplane doors close, and after landing are still in tact.
The purpose of this editorial was to inform about new rule regulations for technology usage on airplanes and express opinions on them. The whole piece was very informative. It was written for people who constantly travel, however another arugment suggests a second audience because the editors give their opinion on what they think technology regulations should be. That second audience would be the F.A.A. committee who create these regulations because the editors want their opinions heard.
The editors
used irrefutable data about the percentage of people who break technology rules, also the editors use their voice and perspective, "It’s time regulators issued common-sense rules for their use aboard planes." It almost comes off as a persuasive and bias piece. "This sensible recommendation would allow passengers to read e-books, listen to music or watch movies without causing interference during takeoffs and landings." Reading this last quote really makes the voice and perspective of the editors stick out because it says "this sensible recommendation," so reading this you understand that the editors do not like the airplane regulations and this change that is being made to them is a positive factor for these editors.
The authors of this specific piece are on the New York Times Editorial board. It is composed of 17 journalists who specialize in different fields. The editors seem highly credible due to the fact that they provide clear evidence about airplane regulations "According to one private survey, as many as 30 percent of passengers left their devices on when they were not supposed to." So they do not just state opinions about people violating technology polocies on airplanes, but they give clear evidence by referring to a recent survey.
I feel as if the editors achieved their purpose, however, I think that more facts and information about airplane regulations with a more in-depth analysis would better help them achieve delivering information and giving an opinion on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment