In the life section of la Prensa Libre today, the first two articles “Cigarrillo de marihuana es más cancerígeno que el de tabaco” and “Ambientes de trabajo ruidosos ponen en riesgo al corazón” were both giving advice to Guatemalan citizens about being physically healthier. The first article stated that “Según los expertos...” or “according to experts” marijuana smoking is worse for your lungs than tobacco cigarettes, citing an unnamed study that says marijuana contains higher concentrations of carbon monoxide and tar. The second article was about a study done at the University of British Columbia that found people who work in noisy environments over long periods of time are more likely to experience heart disease.
In spite of having positive themes of improving health neither article offered constructive advice. Instead, they both have negative language, concluding by warning about anxiety and panic attacks for long term marijuana smokers and the double danger of noise nuisance and cigarette smoking. I also found this last point ironic because I had just finished one article promoting cigarettes (as the lesser evil compared to marijuana) in the same newspaper. However, I think the articles may have been more useful to readers if they had given advice about quitting marijuana smoking or increasing your heart’s health if you do have a stressful or noisy work environment.
Este negatividad me record una la queja común, que medios de comunicación (media) norteamericanos usan tácticas de miedo para vender la noticia a menudo. Se refieren de expertos sin nombre. Para ver si podía encontrar una comparación con Canada fui a la página web de Toronto Star y miré a su sección de la vida. El cuarto artículo en la sección principal fue “Almost one in 20 moms may have traumatic delivery” y comenzó, “experts say..." ¿Por qué crees artículos como estos tres son un estilo popular en Canadá y Guatemala?
I think that this style of negativity and lack of constructive suggestion is common in journalism. The writers job is to inform the public of issues and not necessarily to affect their behaviour; this is another form of journalism which not all writers take upon themselves.
ReplyDeleteI'm a little confused with one point, the noise nuisance article also discussed smoking? Maybe these workers are also more likely to smoke (which is a more definite correlate with heart disease) - interesting to think about.