Thesis of this article is "More local television content draws viewers." It was clearly stated in this article. Methods used to investigate the topic include primary source-interview and supporting statistical data. Interviews were carried out with person of authority (i.e Suria's senior vice president and vice president of Central Network Programming). Thus, interviews were insightful and it was highly relevant to the topic of interest. Supporting evidence of the thesis was shown statistically in the increase in average ratings for two out of five local channels. It also briefly mentioned areas which may draw more attention from viewers.
However, I feel that the data provided is under-representation of the Singapore population as the writer only covered two groups of population namely Malays and Indians. Furthermore, the statistical data lacks substantiation and there was no citation of its source.
In my opinion, every paragraph lacks a deep and thoughtful analysis. The topic sentence in each paragraph is a regurgitation of the interview. There was no example to further substantiate the argument.
Those who might benefit from reading this article are local production companies for Malay and Indian productions. However, this article may not be sufficient to due to its limited analysis.
Hi,dear buddy
ReplyDeleteFirst of all,i should say that from your analysis of the article,i can see that you really have read through that article and analyzed it thoroughly and seriously.
However,i think that you should pay attention to the paragraphs.If you can set the paragraphs more logically,it will be better^_^
One more suggestion is that if you could zoom in the picture it will be easier for us to read that article without opening it.Because when i open it,i just can see the picture and couldn't see your analysis.
Good night!
Hi Janette,
ReplyDeleteeven though this wasn't exactly a correspondence letter, I think you took alot of effort in analysing it.
However, I must say that for your writing style, it seems that your sentences don't seem to flow. You are merely stating down one point to another without trying to let your sentences join. Such is that when you mention that some methods used for investigation are like interviews. and then you just say how the interviews were conducted. You could always add connectors before your sentences, and try to link them together so that they don't sound so disjointed such as, These interviews blah blah...
Also what does "it" in this sentence "It also briefly mentioned areas which may draw more attention from viewers." mean? So you mean the interviews or do you mean the methods?
I hope this helps you understand what I'm trying to say... (:
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteDear Jaenette,
ReplyDeleteI like the initiative you have taken by selecting and analysing this news article. Like Jane wrote, this is not technically a business communication, but you conduct an interesting analysis in any case.
Thank you!
Thank you Jane for pointing out my mistake. I do face similar problem in other areas of my writing as well. I always seem to lack the connectors.
ReplyDeleteI will work on it!
Thanks once again!