Media Critique: Berkeley Coffee Measure Gives Brewers Jitter
I chose to critique an article that introduces Measure O, which will show up on the upcoming voting ballot. Measure O, if passed, would require all cups of coffee sold in Berkeley to be “fair trade”, organic, or shade-grown. The author, Charles Burress, introduces the controversial issue with evidence of those for and against the measure. However, he does not provide the readers with information about the ecological and societal effects of the status quo for those who are not familiar with the present situation regarding the coffee industry. Burress hooks the intended audience, the voting population of Berkeley, by stating a drastic effect of voting for either side. He explains that those voting for O would “put a Starbucks barista behind bars”; those voting against it would “starve the child of a peasant coffee farmer”. Voters are told, the author says, that if passed, the measure would deprive consumers of their freedom of choice. This is a fact. Following this valid statement, however, was one which was influenced by the author’s opinion. He says, “Not supporting [measure O] is equated to destroying the rain forest.” This statement is biased. The author would not bring up this point--his point-- if he did not suppo
. . .
Some common words found in the essay are:
Equal Exchange, Charles Burress, Farms Sonoma, , coffee industry, Mark Inman, fair-trade coffee, political ad, regarding coffee industry, status quo, burress explained, shade-grown organic, increase demand, social ecological, regarding coffee, organic coffee,
Approximate Word count = 836
Approximate Pages = 3 (250 words per page double spaced)
|
