Rhetorical Analysis Of Everything Bad Is Good For You

Not many people look beyond the statement that “T.V. is an idiot box” but writer Steven Johnson does and in result he makes you second guess your own opinion. Steven Johnson’s article Watching T.V. Makes you Smarter first appeared in the New York Times Magazine in 2005 it was an excerpt from his book Everything Bad is Good for You. In this article Johnson aims to convince his audience that certain video games, violent television dramas, and juvenile sitcoms can be beneficial to the human brain in the sense that it’s a “cognitive workout, not a series of life lessons” (279). While he may be the only one on this side Johnson’s use of personal anecdotes, organization, and word choice makes for appealing argument on a sensitive debate. Steven Johnson starts his article with a conversation between two scientists, this has absolutely nothing to do with the argument but it works as an attention grabber, sort of a humorous anecdote. For example it says “No steak or cream pie or hot fudge? ... Those were thought to be unhealthy” (277). This comes to show that Johnson understands the topic and he is demonstrating just like food has changed over generations so has television programs. Not only does he recognize his audience that he is communicating to, but how they can personally relate to it. Another example Johnson uses to provide evidence of the topic he discusses a script from the hit television show E.R., the situation is that their rushing in a 16 year old girl who is known for going into comas and their discussing the medication she is taking. Johnson states that the actors talk faster because “most viewers won’t understand” (287). I believe Johnson provides this example to show that he has analyzed the many aspects of television shows, this proves that he is knowledgeable writer on the topic. While providing some factual information Johnson also offers a visual demonstration with charts. Each chart is a map of how hard your brain is …show more content…
Throughout the article Johnson uses the compare and contrast method, this is a great technique in helping Johnson present both sides of the debate. For example he says “we need a change in the criteria we use to determine what really cognitive junk food is and what is genuinely nourishing” (293). Also the headings above each new idea show that Johnson recognized that it was a lengthier article and how he could make it more organized and clear to the reader. On the other hand Johnson’s writing is formal and at some parts informal, for example when Johnson is talking about scary movies and the “flashing arrow” that movie critics want the mind to focus on like “don’t worry about if the baby sitter is going to break up with her boyfriend worry about the guy lurking in the bushes” (285). This shows that Steven Johnson looked not just certain parts of television shows but genres, and did it in a humorous yet informative way. Johnson is a professional writer and has to write formal at times to show how serious he takes the subject like using words like “sleeper curve” which is a word he defines as how are brain makes inferences and track social relationships (270). Sometimes there is no structure in an article and this directly affects the audience negatively, Steven Johnson realizes that throughout his article, and presents it