meme

meme

meme

meme

more humorous ways that people are reacting to the event

social impact

more specific details about the impact

good quote from company affected

small-scale larger impact

larger economic impact

credibility

larger impact

pictures above another good representation of how much impact it had on the global shipping industry

economic impact

larger impact

shows us that we cant know if it was actually the wind that caused it

fact

explains HOW it happened. Gives a first thought reason as to WHY it happened.

Good image to use^^ Shows facts and gives a good perspective of how big the ship, and the canal are.

global disturbance - proximity/prominence

economic fact

is this why? or an assumption of why?

how did it happen?

wide-spread impact

fact

further examples

quote

timeline

This is a route they used to use before colonial times, these are old old shipping routes.

location

Quote from a good source

This is great. Having excerpt(s) from real-life sources and experts who have been going through this transformation, or have been viewing this transformation throughout the pandemic, is a great way to back up your overall point. Adds a great deal of credibility to the story. Also, I highlighted a handful of words at the beginning of the story that help solidify the overall idea of the article. The purpose of the story is to show people how others are now viewing their lives or finding new ways to live their lives during such a struggling time for many of us. Using words such as: changed, learned, transformation, transformed, and reshaped, helps further push this idea that there's a "window" to look through that will help show us the "new" America that none of us have yet seen.

I would place this metaphor under the category of understanding is seeing. As 2020 progressed and turned into 2021, people began to see the world and the ways we live in a completely new light. A new "window" was opened for us to look through. This doesn't literally mean that people are looking through a glass window to see new ways to live life amidst a pandemic, but rather that the pandemic has given people a new perspective to view their lives from.

The best thing about this article that helps the reader fully understand and see the events in the story is how many quotes and specific references from the victims they use throughout it all. Between the "Oh my God," and the "Get out! Get out!," the reader can truly comprehend the severity and emotions of this situation. The overall set up of this article is fantastic and does what needs to be done to paint a complete picture for the audience.

This metaphor, to me, would be under the category "ideas are people." Now even though this is talking about a person and not an idea or object, the man obviously did not literally "swing" into action (like on a rope or something) when he fought back against the bobcat. They are just using this metaphor to explain more colorfully how the man stepped in to protect his home and family.

This is a fun way to end the article. Keeps the readers on the edge of their seats as they wait to see what discoveries have been made next. I can see this being considered a rumor because while this is a further development in the overall story, it has yet to be proven with evidence of its own besides the writers merely saying "we are finding things that we did not expect to find...", we want to hear about them! But until we do, this will just be a rumor.

This is great because it gives us attributions to the information, very credible attributions at that considering they are from a scientific journal out of a University in Chile (which this animal is supposed to be from South America so that helps the credibility even more). Makes me feel that I can trust the information in this article regardless of it being fact or opinions.

This one is a bit more simple to understand. Clearly we see that this is a form of opinion because they say the word "thought," which shows that it is not 100%. However, if we look closer we can see that this would be considered an informed opinion because they came to this "understanding" by using the facts they had discovered so far about the creature.

Some may see this a fact while others may not, as it is slightly difficult to break the sentence down. Just because we see the words proof and evidence, does not automatically make this 100%. The word proof itself does mean that something is real or true, while evidence only means that said information may lead someone to believing something is real or true. So from the way it was worded, some people may see this as yes, 100% fact this new finding proves that mammals inhabited the South American area much earlier than anyone had thought. However, others may view it also as a conclusion, since nobody who wrote the article lived with these animals back in the prehistoric times, we could view the newfound evidence as a way to make an inference based on said facts.

I don't even know what to say about this sentence besides the fact that it is false. I understand the idea they are trying to get across with it (that no health care worker is more important than another). But to me, I see this statement as one being used to create a sense of importance to get the vaccine. By including "everyone" in the health-care workers category, anybody reading this article may feel they have a duty to go get vaccinated whenever possible.

I was focusing my evaluation on the first survey, however this detail caught my eye. It is perfect that The Washington Post included this vital detail at the bottom of the survey, however should it be written somewhere where it is more prominent and will catch people's attention. If someone were to miss that detail, they would not be understanding the complete scenario that this survey is trying to look at.

I dont know if this would necessarily be considered anchoring, but it seems slightly devious to use the "2 in 10" and "3 in 10 health care workers" statistics, and then to use a "1 in 6" ratio to further explain the issue. Using different ratios could sway the way the reader is viewing the information. This could also be bad because it is assuming someone would be able to understand the actual value comparisons between the three ratios given (may be easier for someone to fully comprehend the 1 in 10 or 3 in 10, versus the 1 in 6).

Here we can see the margin of error for this survey. According to "How to Read Political Polls Like a Pro," it may be useful to expand the margin of error given by at least half, maybe even double. So, for this survey we can assume the margin of error may actually be between +/- 5 maybe even 6 percentage points instead of +/-3. Expanding the margin of error allows ourselves to not be mentally constricted by the numbers presented to us through this sample population. In other words, expanding the margin of error can allow us to keep our perspective a little bit wider.

This is showing the reader the exact sample sized used to conduct this survey. Not only does it give us the number, but it tells us that everyone involved was a U.S. health-care worker.

This opener signifies that "PR Daily" has an appreciation for Time magazine and their "Person of the Year" feature. It also signifies that "PR Daily" has a desire to share that appreciation and explain deeper into how this Time magazine feature has a larger impact on the brand and the world.

Loved this ending. Brings it full circle, then pushes the reader to step out of their comfort zone, even in the context of big brands or organizations. On a closer level, this isn't just a positive way to end an article, but rather it's signifying that "PR Daily" has a desire to help inspire their readers through a connecting/caring closing message.

They prioritize a specific audience over another. Obviously a necessary move in business, especially in this example where the world is moving towards all news being virtual. However this can possibly impact the way the message is perceived if they are geared towards one type of audience (such as prioritizing mobile audiences over the physical paper audience).

It's interesting to see how "Person of the Year" has a larger impact on the Time brand as a whole, as well as the stories it has helped tell and partnerships it has helped form.

This is just a fun factoid. Most people probably have no idea why or when Time magazine started doing their "Person of the Year" feature. Knowing that it began due to a slow news week in 1928 gives added background that could change the way a person views this feature of Time magazine.