We live in an age with huge investment into scientific discovery. As globalization increasingly causes people to become interested in news that might not directly relate to them, these discoveries become more relevant to people unfamiliar with the language used in academic journals. In order to make the information in these journals accessible, it becomes the role of writers to translate them into popular articles geared toward a broader audience without losing the original message. The writers of both pieces use rhetorical techniques to appeal to their target audiences, and these can sometimes distort the information. “Meet the Overcompensators”, a newspaper article by Joanna Klein published in the New York Times, is one such case. Drawing upon the academic article “Molecular constraints on resistance–tolerance trade-offs” by Mesa et al., published in the journal Ecology, Klein changes facets including engagement and tone to make his article easier and more enjoyable to read by a popular audience. Despite correctly presenting the results of the study in a way that is easily understood by a popular audience, Klein’s incorrect portrayal of Mesa et al.’s argument prevents the discovery from being fully understood.
Mesa et al. is written towards a very specific audience of scientists, mainly those within the ecological sciences, and so it must fulfill many requirements expected by this audience. The academic article however takes on a vastly different tone. Many words used are specific to the in-field scientific community. One sentence from the abstract demonstrates its heavy usage of specialized terms and lack of ease of read, reading “By measuring glucosinolate levels and seed production following the removal of apical dominance in genotypes of Arabidopsis thaliana we show that there is a positive association between tolerance and induced chemical defense.” Klein on the other hand is appealing to an audience that wants to read something interesting and engaging. The difference in tone between the two articles becomes evident after reading the first sentence of the popular article: “If plants could be stars in a cowboy film, the scarlet gilia would be one of the meanest wildflowers west of the Mississippi”. While in the academic article noa sentence exists that does not provide information, the popular article is trying to do more than simply convey the information. The popular article is simultaneously trying to provide an enjoyable reading experience. Klein effectively uses the change of tone to draw in the reader. While changing the tone worked well for Klein in allowing her to better present the information, her attempts to convey the original message are distorted by the change in another facet of proximity.
Klein’s use of language in his portrayal of Mesa et al.’s argument critically misleads the reader on the impact of the findings. Mesa et al. successfully connected growth and chemical defense production in plants to a specific molecular pathway present in 90% of herbaceous plants, finding that increased growth correlated with increased chemical defenses. Mesa et al. were able to increase growth and chemical defense by experimentally manipulating this molecular pathway. “Our results indicate that plant tolerance and resistance pathways are tightly integrated within the oxidative pentose phosphate pathway and may represent a general phenomenon among herbaceous plants given that approximately 90% of herbaceous angiosperms endoreduplicate”. However, Klein presents the results of the study as a discovery of plants that go against the norm in responding to damage with both increased growth and chemical defense. Klein first paints this image in the opening title, “Meet the Overcompensators”, specifically grouping the plants used in the study and separating them from other plants. The blurb continues this idea, referring to this group as “some plants”. Three paragraphs later, Klein describes these plants that show increased production as “outlaws”. This language separates the discovery from the widely present molecular pathway to the individual species of plants. This prevents the reader from understanding the relevancy of the research, hindering the translation of the message.
Klein inaccurately portrays parts of the original argument of the academic source by passing off unsupported claims as credible in order to appeal more to her audience. When Klein does eventually address how the results could apply to other plants, she does so weakly and completely misconstrues the potential impact of future applications. Instead of discussing how applicable these findings are to other plants or future impacts of the study brought up by Mesa et al. in the academic article, Klein takes a huge unsupported leap in saying that this information could be used to create super crops. “Mr. Mesa and Dr. Paige think it could be generalized to many other plants. Depending on much that turns out to be true, future research could one day help farmers grow super crops that made more food without having to use as many pesticides”. Klein often shows a statement as credible by attributing it to the opinion of a scientist, and here she draws upon Mesa et al.’s conclusion to make a much more broad claim than Mesa et al. ever actually say in the academic journal. Comparatively, Mesa et al. never make a claim without evidence to support it. The audience for Mesa et al.’s academic piece requires ample evidence for a claim to be credible, but Klein’s readers have a lower standard to establish credibility to a statement While Klein’s big conclusion results in a more interesting thought bite for the readers, it is an inaccurate portrayal of Mesa et al.’s original message.
While Klein presents the study in a way that is much easier understood by a popular audience, the overall message by Mesa et al. was distorted in the process. A friendlier tone and frequent engagement created a much simpler environment to understand the research. However, Klein’s change in language results in a loss of understanding of the relevancy of the findings, and the future impact is almost made up in an attempt to interest readers. As these distortions of the original message arose out of changes in rhetorical situation, it becomes important to understand the rhetorical differences between academic and popular texts in order to understand how authors frame their argument in order to best appeal to their audience. This allows a reader to critically analyze a piece of writing, identifying the tools an author is using that may be distorting the original message. As a writer, identifying and playing to rhetorical situation is hugely important in whether or not the message is successfully understood. While one needs to avoid changing the message, successfully writing to a rhetorical situation presents the message to a target audience in a much more accessible and persuading way.
Alex Flamm's UWP 1 Portfolio 