Interview Comparison

In the two interviews, the one dealing with embedding reporters in war zones and the other discussing the "McDonaldsization" of our country, you can see a few similarities as well as differences. They're both using their arguments to prove that their subject is an unpleasant one and that we need to bring about changes to it as a country. With the first interview, they're trying to show that while we want a high tech coverage of what's going on with our troops overseas, it's not the safest or smartest plan to just plant reporters right in the middle of the war zone because they're right in harms way. So they set up the interview to say that this isn't the best idea, and then have quotes from reporters that were in an area while it was being attacked so you could understand how horrified they really were. They do this so it's much easier to convince you that their point is correct. The same goes for the Ritzer interview. By just having one person answer questions and give you only their opinion, you're getting a very biased point of view, but a very effective one. Since you're not hearing the other side of the argument, you are much more likely to side with what he's saying because he does make valid points and talks in a very intelligent manor. So, they planned that interview to be very one sided and to just be a Q&A session with the interviewer in order to give the readers only one side of the argument that they were presenting. At least with the first interview, they gave you a few different examples and showed you different perspectives on the issue, so that you could somewhat decide for yourself. You were just more likely to side with the fact that it wasn't safe for reporters to be out there because you can read the transcripts of what they were saying as they were being attacked.