5 Steps Of Critical Analysis

 

Title: 'Masks Should Fit Better Or Be Doubled Up To Protect Against Coronavirus Variants, CDC Says', by Lena H. Sun and Fenit Nirappil for The Washington Post. In this blog I will analyze the text using the 5 step process of critical analysis.

Description New regulations regarding the usage of masks have been implemented by the CDC, and supported by the new administration, as soon as Biden became president of the country. The article describes how Trump’s government disregarded the use of masks, which the authors suggest that led Americans to perceive masks as unimportant. The main goal of the article is to influence citizens into using fitted masks. This is done by describing several experiments that have taken place to prove the effectiveness of wearing fitted masks. The authors also mention opinions from various opinions from intellectuals throughout the US, as well as describing how other nations across the globe are implementing regulations themselves. 

Analysis The recurring narrative of the article was making the old administration, Trump’s government, look inferior. There are several times throughout the article where the authors blame Trump’s disrespect over the usage of masks, to the current situation the US is facing regarding the virus. It compares the two governments persistently, failing to emphasize with Trump’s decisions. I also noticed the article’s pattern of constantly taking into consideration the opinion of the public. They pointed out several times the ways in which citizens might complain or ignore the significance of wearing fitted masks, and responded to those remarks by backing up why it is critical.

Interpretation The Washington Post is known for its stance on the Liberal Party, and this article makes this way too obvious. Indirectly, the authors want to make Biden’s government look favorable. Most of the negative public reactions towards Trump happened during the final months of his presidency, because of his ignorance towards the pandemic. The new administration wants to set the public clear that they will not respond like Trump did. This article is an example of them doing so. Apart from this, I think that the structure of this article was successful. By using the pattern of describing how the public might negatively react, and then quickly disregarding it by “throwing in” facts, the readers indirectly disregard their own negative thoughts about the matter, since the article does not give them importance. 

Evaluation Although the bias of government preference by the authors is very obvious to the reader, the article is successful in the deliverance of their purpose, and effectively and strategically convinces the public to wear fitted masks. The article implemented different sources to back up their message, and informed the readers about several experiments that proved the general benefit of wearing fitted masks, but they also stated some controversies and negative opinions the public might have towards these regulations. Stating both the positive and negative makes the reader feel understood, and completely informed. In my opinion, the article should have included where people who can’t afford masks can do the matter. The authors imply that the reader has sufficient money to buy and test-out different masks to evaluate which works better for one personally, when the fact is that some people that might be reading don’t have the luxury. 

Engagement The article encourages readers to stay informed and to protect themselves. Wearing masks in public is enough engagement, since it acts as an example of what to do, and people will most likely do what they see the general public doing.