Evaluation After scrolling through the SIRS Database, I came across this article “Hardly Happy Meals,” by John Clark. This writing had originally come from the Los Angeles Times and was published in the newspaper back on April 25, 2004 in Los Angeles, California. The newspaper is a well known and reliable source in the Los Angeles area. The article uses Morgan Spurlock’s experiment of eating fast food as its only source and is intended for the audience of fast-food eaters. Throughout the article, the topics of: how unhealthy fast-food is, Spurlock’s health before and after the experiment, some background of the experiment, and what happened after the experiment is discussed. Throughout the article however, they failed to mention anything good about the company, such as how it is a quick meal on the go, or how there are some healthier options to choose from besides burgers and fries. After reading this article, the only question I had was why was McDonald’s the establishment that was chosen to be attacked? Yes, Spurlock mentioned the McDonald’s was just an icon and was there to represent all of the fast-food restaurant industry; however, why wasn’t a place like Burger King chosen? Also, eating greasy food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is going to be a disaster for your body, that is common knowledge. I wish that Spurlock would have done an experiment of just eating one fast food meal a day, that is more realistic in our society.
Thursday, June 7, 2012
Source #1
Summary: In the article “Hardly Happy
Meals,” by John Clark, the fast-food documentary “Super Size Me” is discussed.
Clark goes into brief detail about the documentary and how the filmmaker Morgan
Spurlock puts himself on a McDonald’s diet and is forced to eat McDonald’s for
breakfast, lunch, and dinner. After being on the diet for 21 days, Spurlock
gained 20 pounds
and his cholesterol shot up 65 points. He also suffered with asthma, chest
pains, heart palpitations, sugar/caffeine highs and lows and sexual dysfunction
(Clark 1). Clark also acknowledges the statistics that two out of three adults
and around nine million children are overweight in the United States (Clark 2).
Following the release of the documentary, McDonald’s put an end to the
super-size, and also released the statement “You can’t link our food to these
kids being sick, you can’t link our food to these kids being obese, our food is
nutritious, it’s part of a balanced diet, it is good for you.”
Evaluation After scrolling through the SIRS Database, I came across this article “Hardly Happy Meals,” by John Clark. This writing had originally come from the Los Angeles Times and was published in the newspaper back on April 25, 2004 in Los Angeles, California. The newspaper is a well known and reliable source in the Los Angeles area. The article uses Morgan Spurlock’s experiment of eating fast food as its only source and is intended for the audience of fast-food eaters. Throughout the article, the topics of: how unhealthy fast-food is, Spurlock’s health before and after the experiment, some background of the experiment, and what happened after the experiment is discussed. Throughout the article however, they failed to mention anything good about the company, such as how it is a quick meal on the go, or how there are some healthier options to choose from besides burgers and fries. After reading this article, the only question I had was why was McDonald’s the establishment that was chosen to be attacked? Yes, Spurlock mentioned the McDonald’s was just an icon and was there to represent all of the fast-food restaurant industry; however, why wasn’t a place like Burger King chosen? Also, eating greasy food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is going to be a disaster for your body, that is common knowledge. I wish that Spurlock would have done an experiment of just eating one fast food meal a day, that is more realistic in our society.
Clark, John. "Hardly Happy Meals." Los Angeles Times 25 Apr 2004. Print.
Evaluation After scrolling through the SIRS Database, I came across this article “Hardly Happy Meals,” by John Clark. This writing had originally come from the Los Angeles Times and was published in the newspaper back on April 25, 2004 in Los Angeles, California. The newspaper is a well known and reliable source in the Los Angeles area. The article uses Morgan Spurlock’s experiment of eating fast food as its only source and is intended for the audience of fast-food eaters. Throughout the article, the topics of: how unhealthy fast-food is, Spurlock’s health before and after the experiment, some background of the experiment, and what happened after the experiment is discussed. Throughout the article however, they failed to mention anything good about the company, such as how it is a quick meal on the go, or how there are some healthier options to choose from besides burgers and fries. After reading this article, the only question I had was why was McDonald’s the establishment that was chosen to be attacked? Yes, Spurlock mentioned the McDonald’s was just an icon and was there to represent all of the fast-food restaurant industry; however, why wasn’t a place like Burger King chosen? Also, eating greasy food for breakfast, lunch, and dinner is going to be a disaster for your body, that is common knowledge. I wish that Spurlock would have done an experiment of just eating one fast food meal a day, that is more realistic in our society.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment