A New Tool that is More Efficient
Now there is a new way to categorize the inequity for woman and minority roles on screen. In the article, “How Long Is an Actress Onscreen? A new Tool Finds the Answer Faster” by Melena Ryzik at The New York Times at September 14, 2016. Ryzik revealed a tool developed by the Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media at Mount Saint Mary’s University with financial support from Google.org, called the Geena Davis Inclusion Quotient.
The tool utilizes video and audio recognition technology together with algorithms, to identify gender, speaking time, and other details about characters in film, shows and other media. This software will speed up and automate the date-collection process for researchers.
With the balanced use of logos, ethos, and pathos, Ryzik successfully drew my attention and persuaded me into believing her. Throughout the article, Ryzik provided many credible sources with hyperlink to back up her points making the whole article itself trustworthy. Follows with logical analysis that shows how the tool works and how it can affect the inequality on screen and dropped some inspiration phrases that provoke emotions in the reader. For example, at the very beginning of the article Ryzik expressed “The Geena Davis Institute on Gender in Media, at Mount Saint Mary’s University, … will announce on Wednesday a tool … identify gender, speaking time and additional details about characters presented in films, television shows and other media”. Ryzik give a brief explanation about the tool, and backs up with a hyperlink leads to the University developed it; in light of this, give readers a sense of trustworthy because the article provides reliable information from a university, also make her credible. Ryzik then explained how the tool could analyze a 90 minutes film in just 15 minutes, expressing that “It’s almost like adding totally different eyes and ears to look at data quickly, with the latest machine advances”. Giving a vivid image to audiences, a new pair of eyes, emphasizing that the tool is like adding a new aspect to analysis data in an efficient way. To add a little bit flavor to his article, Ryzik dropped words that can provoke emotion from readers and guide readers to take the problem of inequality on screen more seriously. For example, Ryzik quoted Madeline Di Nonno, the chief executive of the Geena Davis Institute “‘the research is a tool to help inspire change’”. In other words, the tool can display the real date or fact how tough it is for women and minorities to get their role and still getting less time on screen, and readers, the audience, people need to take issue more seriously.
Over all, Ryzik did well on rhetoric, with a balanced use of logos, ethos, and pathos, convincing readers to accept his idea about the issue of less speaking time on screen. Moreover, she made herself loud and clear to readers about her topic, is not hard to see her point, and the purpose of fighting equal rights for women and minorities that deserve what they get.
Ryzik, Melena. “How Long Is an Actress Onscreen? A New Tool Finds the Answer Faster.” The New York Times. The New York Times, 14 Sept. 2016. Web. 26 Apr. 2017.