Im a Communications major with a focus in Advertising, so for my two articles, I picked

a somewhat recent discovery about television viewing. According to recent studies, my scholarly
article being one of which, the advertisements played on childrens networks, not the shows
themselves, have an effect on poor eating habits and childhood obesity (Kelly, Freeman, King,
Chapman, Buar, and Gill, 2015). One of the articles is a study conducted by multiple persons
posted on a scholarly website for pediatric obesity, the other is from the website Everyday
Health, which posts articles related to food, fitness, and other relevant topics (Khan, 2013).
While these articles were written for different audiences, the reason behind them is more
similar; there was information discovered, and the author(s) wanted to share it. Things begin to
differentiate themselves, however, when it gets more specific. In the scholarly article, it was
written to some degree in order to announce the results of their study. Just under the sub-category
Objectives, it reads, We aimed to quantify the specific impact of television advertising, as
distinct from television viewing generally, on children's usual diet (Kelly, et al. 2015).
In the other, its written for the sake of viewers, most likely mothers of younger
children. There are eye-catching ads. The website is designed to help these readers live a
healthier lifestyle, and, if applicable, their children as well. Its also meant to be somewhat
interesting and generate hits outside of their regular visitors (Khan, 2013).
The constraints on each of these differing articles can be fairly assumed. The scholarly
article, which was found through Google Scholar, is written with the assumption it should be
written with the utmost professionalism. It is also expected to account for every single detail,
whereas an article simply relaying the information has the freedom to pick and choose which
aspects it would like to discuss. The scholarly article also cant really give personalized opinions
on the matter. Meanwhile, the article on Everyday Health is limited to the knowledge of its

readers. Extra time is taken to make sure the point is made simple and clear, and cant use any
jargon or baffle those who arent into math with examples of the statistic equations and models.
The credibility of the scholarly article is much stronger. First of all, it is connected to
Google Scholar. All of the authors have also worked together on this topic before, as you can see
in their references. (A hierarchy of unhealthy food promotion effects: identifying
methodological approaches and knowledge gaps) (Kelly, et al. 2015). The acknowledgements
also state that the research was funded by the Australian National Preventive Health Agency and
an Australian Research Council Linkage Grant. This means the article was actually endorsed by
an entire country, while the other one was written for the sake of adding content to the website.
While this doesnt make the professional article unbelievable, it isnt a direct source; its
referring to studies like the academic article and just relaying the information. Whenever
someone is quoted, the credentials of that person is given. For example, Rubina Heptulla, MD,
chief of pediatric endocrinology and diabetes at the Childrens Hospital at Montefiore in New
York City. The website has a clean history and isnt notorious as far as I know for giving
false, exaggerated, or biased information. You shouldnt believe everything on the internet, but
this article at least appears to be safe.
The layout of the professional article is much more reader friendly. The font is larger, and
the websites layout is more opening. The title font is big and bold, with a hook statement for a
title. The article itself has a different title underneath, which is more in-depth but still intriguing:
Children are bombarded with $2 billion worth of food advertisements every year, according to a
new study, and experts say it's a big contributor to the childhood obesity rate. (Khan, 2013)
The first thing a reader sees after that is a small but colorful photo of a pudgy toddler
messing with a television remote. The title choice and size of this picture say a lot: they want to

be interesting and eye-catching, but not overwhelmingly showy like Buzzfeed, Clickhole, and
other clickbait sites. (Clickbait is a term used to describe websites that share news, stories,
and articles entirely for sensationalism and gaining webpage views rather than actually creating
quality content.) Key statements within this article are highlighted, but not enlarged or bolded or
set apart from the rest of the text. All in all, this article is a lot more professional still than
familiar clickbait articles. The academic study, meanwhile, is divided into categories and subcategories. There is a summary at the top for people who dont have/want to read the full article
and just need the core information. At the heading for each subsection, there is a Jump to
drop down box for viewers to quickly find whatever section they need. This article is built less
for casual reading and more for the raw searching of information. Those who are using this
article for a project can get in and out very quickly, which is a nice feature. It also has citations
already prepared. Its safe to assume that most if not all of the readers arent viewing this article
for their own recreational pleasure, and this article has catered to those viewing it for research.
There is not an overwhelming amount of emotion in either article, though the Everyday
Health article has a bit more of it. This can be found in the diction throughout: for example, in
the title, kids arent just viewing $2 billion in advertisements, theyre bombarded by it. In the
final paragraph, they feature one of the persons quoted saying the real problem is getting kids
off the television at all and getting outside. This is an idea that is so often charged with other
sentiment that it carries its own culturally now. The final sentence is this person saying: To me,
thats the bigger issue. This is a very human-like and personal way to end a work, especially for
an article about a statistical analysis. While this may just be flavor text, the effect is still there: it
encourages readers to form their own opinions on the issue, but to make those opinions in line
with theirs: children need less television.

One of the most distinctive and unique features of the academic study is its use of
statistics. The equations and mathematical tables are clearly laid out (for those who can
understand them) and every factor applicable has a decimal number of its respective value next
to it. They made a very clear point to back up their findings not only with logic, but with actual
math.
All in all, the differences in discourse between the academic article and the professional
article are exactly what I would have expected. The academic article put less of an effort into
aesthetics and instead focused on how to make the process easier for those doing research. It was
drier, and assumed some amount of knowledge on the subject was already possessed. The article
from Everyday Health, however, was meant both to entertain and to inform. It very subtly
pushed the authors ideals, but was by no means was solely built for this. The setup was less
designed for research and more for casual reading. It assumed its audience was less informed
about the subject. The most interesting thing, in my opinion, was how it differentiated itself from
clickbait articles. Both articles served a very distinct purpose, and their rhetoric definitely goes to
show that.

References
Kelly, B., Freeman, B., King, L., Chapman, K., Baur, L. A. and Gill, T. (2015). Television
advertising, not viewing, is associated with negative dietary patterns in children. Pediatric
Obesity. doi: 10.1111/ijpo.12057
Khan, A. (2013, August 6). TV ads driving childhood obesity, study says. Everyday Health. Retreived
from: http://www.everydayhealth.com/kids-health/tv-ads-driving-childhood-obesity-studysays.aspx