Feature Article Analysis

Assignment 2
Feature Article Analysis
By: Aryo
8/5/2009

This essay will attempt to analyze the feature article “The Best Science Show on Television” by John Schwartz. This essay will be divided into two parts. I will begin by analyzing the writer’s style of writing and then continue by critiquing on the article.

In the beginning of the article Schwartz gives us a snapshot of the setting of a recent episode of the “Mythbusters”. This anecdotal approach he seems to carry on throughout the article. He then diverts from the backdrop to gives us some background info on the show, an introduction to the “Mythbusters”. No startling facts, just the standard W5. He also gives a couple examples of what type of myths they try to solve. A brief background on the stars of the show follows, facts about what the two star of the show do in their spare time. Then he goes back to the beginning scene he gave us and continues to explain what the “Mythbusters” are doing on that day’s episode. He also tends to dramatize dialogue and quotes by or from the shows stars, an example of this being (“Failure,” Mr. Savage said, “is always an option.”) where he divides the quote in two, with the first part only being the first word from the quote. He finished the article with a narrative, adding a few quotes to add to the image. The last couple quotes (Earlier in the day, Mr. Hyneman said that he sometimes worried about “glorifying explosions,” which could send the wrong message to young and impressionable viewers. “If I had my druthers, we wouldn’t be blowing stuff up,” he said. Mr. Savage appeared behind him. “But then we wouldn’t have a show,” he said with a crackle, and darted away.) Added a hint of irony to the picture, totally contradicting everything they’ve done for the duration of their airtime.

The article was well written, but it lacked a more in-depth look into the topic. It was too much of an “A day in the lives of the ‘Mythbusters’” than on why they are the “best” science show on television. Nor did he put any real startling facts about the show. The writer also left out a major part of the “Mythbusters”, the sidekicks. Kari, Tory, and Grant play an equally important role into why the show is successful, more so Kari than the other two. Other than that I felt the article was well done, and did the “Mythbusters” justice.

In conclusion, the piece was mainly and anecdote with a W5. It also failed to mention some aspects of the show that I felt should have been added. In addition, he did not vary the approach he took to writing the article. On the other hand, it still delivered its message and was highly entertaining.

…end item…