Abrams 1

Kaitlynn Abrams
De Piero
Writing 2
16 March 2015
WP2: Analyzing and Evaluating Genres Across Scholarly and Non-Academic Contexts
When looking for a reliable source on a certain subject, one may restrict their findings by
genre. Because different genres have different conventions, each one can accomplish different
tasks. If multiple genres do cover one subject, readers can expect various points of view and
reasoning. These disparities can arise from constraints of the genre and as Carroll claims,
Constraints limit the way the discourse is delivered or communicated. (Carroll 57). The
difference in substance among genres can be shown in the two measles vaccination related
pieces, 5 GIFs That Show Why Herd Immunity Is So Important and When Vaccine
Misconceptions Jeopardize Public Health. The first is a health article from the internet news
media source, BuzzFeed. The latter is a scholarly article from the medical journal, The Journal of
Family Practice. These two sources provide different reasons as to why measles vaccinations are
needed to their respective audiences by way of their own distinct moves and conventions. Moves
are all the choices writers make when composing their work. It can be made up by choice of a
single punctuation mark or choice of the layout of the entire piece. Conventions are the patterns
that exist within a certain genre. The authors similar and dissimilar moves regarding tone and
purpose among other elements, which are limited by conventions of genre, contributes to their

Abrams 2

overall argument in distinct ways making some assertions stronger than others, but neither work
is remarkably more persuasive.
Although the two articles are from unalike genres, they cover the same topic using some
of the same rhetorical features. Because measles is an important matter, both articles have a
serious and informative tone. The articles strive to teach their readers about the importance of
vaccine misconceptions thus the authors use an instructive tone that will not criticize their
audience, but rather benefit them. Losh and Alexander present a similar idea about tone in their
comic Writing Identities by stating, Your tone should engage your audience in a way that will
invite them to feel receptive to your message. (Losh 129). Although, the writers may not have
read this comic, they certainly followed the advice and displayed it with their moves. Both pieces
express their message in the right tone because they kept the audience in mind.
In addition to tone, both pieces share some formatting moves. Both make use of a bold
and larger font to highlight and separate the big ideas from the longer paragraphs. In both of the
writings the standout sentences made the whole piece easier to look at and read because rather
than a cluster of words in one area, they are separated. Additionally, if a reader happens to come
across the article, they can get a summary of the article by only reading these bold statements.
These moves are common and beneficial, as seen in the two articles.
Another rhetorical feature both articles engage in is offering statistics and outside reliable
authorities as sources of evidence. With statistics, readers can observe the definite effects and
decide for themselves if the problem is significant or not. By providing this type of evidence, the
audience will know that the information is not false or exaggerated, unless the statistics are
inaccurate. The author of the BuzzFeed article includes excerpts from a dependable figure in her

Abrams 3

article seen in the line, Pediatric infectious disease specialist Dr. Kate OBrien, executive
director of the International Vaccine Access Center at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of
Public Health, tells BuzzFeed Life (Kylstra). This helps BuzzFeed because they are not experts
in the field, thus they need to supported by professionals or it may be hard to take advice because
it could be false. The other article is actually written and reviewed by experts, but other
respectable references are still included to further back their point. The authors of both articles
utilize similar rhetorical features that support their argument in comparable ways, but they also
use different methods for specific reasons.
Due to the variation in genre, the two articles differ in the way some of the information is
displayed. In his essay, How to Read Like a Writer, author Mike Bunn explains that, Because
the conventions for each genre can be very different, techniques that are effective for one genre
may not work well in another. (Bunn 77). This observation is shown in the articles when they
discuss similar topics in differing ways, such as how they vary in language. The Buzzfeed article
is written in simple language that nearly everyone who reads the piece can understand. If more
advanced diction is used, it is explained in simpler terms immediately. In contrast, the medical
journal article uses sophisticated medical language that is part of the expected knowledge of the
reader. Not everyone who comes across the writing will be able to understand fully. This
difference appears because of the distinctness of genre and audience between the writings. In
addition to writing, both pieces present data with visual tools. Keeping with the sophisticated
manner, the medical journal uses tables. One table exhibits, Measles complications, and
another one exhibits, Vaccine-preventable diseases: Morbidity then and now. These tables are
used to compact a lot of material into one region. Because BuzzFeed is a mainstream source,
their visual tool is mainstream as well. They use GIFs that present facts such as, what happens

Abrams 4

when only some people get vaccinatedwhich is what is happening in certain communities in
America today. Again, this discrepancy is due to genre, but neither approach is more persuasive;
they both work well within their given parameters.
Author of the BuzzFeed article, Carolyn Kylstra, uses specific moves to help her
argument that the majority of the public should be getting their children vaccinated. Throughout
the piece, and even in the title, she mentions the term herd immunity. It is the basis of her
argument and the continuous use of it makes the reader focus on the term. It benefits her
argument because the reader will remember the phrase long after reading the article. Another
move Kylstra makes is the use of pathos as a reason to be vaccinated. She mentions the
individuals who cannot get vaccinatedthose with cancer or a genetic immunodeficiency and
babiesand tells the reader that vaccinations protects these people. She ends the article with a
picture of a cute and happy baby. The appeal to emotions is a smart move because it is more
likely to make readers want to be vaccinated than merely statistics and other facts. Another move
that can only work well in this mainstream media type of source is a current view. This article
was published on February 3, right in the midst of the outbreak in the US. It also contains
statistics from the current outbreak. Many people looking for more information on measles might
want to know more about the situation right now rather than ones from the past. Some of these
moves are only available to writers in media sources, like BuzzFeed, and Kylstra clearly shows
the benefit of using them.
The multiple authors of the medical journal article have different moves to advance their
argument. Because it is published in a medical journal, the medical background of measles and
its vaccination is expected, which they do include as a move. They begin with an overview of the

Abrams 5

symptoms then also mention the complications that can come alongall from a medical
perspective. Then the background, safety procedures, and licensure of the actual measles
vaccination are discussed. This move educates its readers to understand why vaccinations are
safe and necessary. A bigger move used by authors is making the article about vaccinations for
measles and for another disease, Hib. Two examples provide benefits because it shows how
useful vaccinations are not just in one instance, but in two. These moves are more effective in
this genre because the readers expect it and will understand it.
Because the articles discuss the same topic, they have a similar purpose, yet due to the
difference in genre, they have different audiences. The main purpose of the articles is to help the
readers realize how important it is to be vaccinated and why. The BuzzFeed article wants its
readers to understand this and hopefully be vaccinated, get their children vaccinated, or tell a
friend who doubts vaccinations. As explicitly stated in the writing, the medical articles goal is
for primary care physicians to understand the main point and then strongly recommend it to their
patients. The purpose of each piece is highly related to their expected audience. BuzzFeed has a
very broad audience that spans many age groups across the globe. In just November, the website
reached 130 million unique users. With such a variety of readers, their articles cannot be made
for a very specific audience. Thus, the article can be read and impact many people because it
explains why nearly everyone should be vaccinated. On the contrary, the medical article has a
much more specific audience because it is published in a specific journalThe Journal of
Family Practice. Subscribers expect subjects that are largely directed toward general
practitioners. Because of this audience, a certain language can easily be used as well as
background that may not make sense to everyone. Readers expect to gain a large chunk of
knowledge, with details included, from the article. The variety in audience is the main

Abrams 6

contribution to the differences between the pieces, while the similar purpose is what connects
them.
The difference in genre allows one piece to make moves that the other piece cannot. The
mainstream source has certain advantages because it can be updated constantly and has a broad
audience. With it constantly being updated, the newest and most relevant information can be
easily announced. On the other hand, peer reviewed articles must go through a longer process
before it is published and are tailored for a specific audience. This method makes sure that all
information is accurate and reliable, a significant advantage, but will not be as up-to-date. With
the high level of review, however, readers can rely on the authors to present valid and tested
information, which is not an advantage the mainstream articles have. Pop culture writers are not
experts and even if they do present only accurate information, some people might not believe
them because they do not have as much integrity as a specialist. Additionally, health articles on
BuzzFeed are surrounded with articles such as, This 3-Year-Old Is Killing The Fashion Game,
while the medical journal provides only peer-reviewed scholarly articles that all have significant
support. Each genre has its advantages, but in this case, neither is significantly better.
Two articles on the same topic with very different genres and distinct audiences can
accomplish the same purpose with the use of unique moves. After reading the articles, 5 GIFs
That Show Why Herd Immunity Is So Important, and When Vaccine Misconceptions
Jeopardize Public Health, readers can realize how important vaccines are. Although the two
pieces share some features, the authors approach the topic from varying points of view, so they
make different moves. The BuzzFeed article uses simple language and modern visuals to express
their concerns on vaccinations. Contrarily, the medical journal articles uses medical language and

Abrams 7

a classic table to present facts. The variation in techniques used to present similar information
does not make one more or less persuasive than the other. Because the context and audience of
the pieces are so different, the similar goal must be met in a different manner, but each piece
certainly meets the goal. The conventions of the genre are great contributors to the differences in
the way similar ideas are presented.

Abrams 8

Works Cited
Bunn, Mike. How to Read Like a Writer. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. West
Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. N. pag. Print.
Caroll, Laura Bolin. Steps Toward Rhetorical Analysis. Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing.
West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. N. pag. Print.
Epling, John W., et al. "When Vaccine Misconceptions Jeopardize Public Health." Journal Of
Family Practice 63.12 (2014): E1-E7. Academic Search Complete. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.
Kylstra, Carolyn. "5 GIFs That Show Why Herd Immunity Is So Important." BuzzFeed.
BuzzFeed, 3 Feb. 2015. Web. 9 Feb. 2015.
Losh , Elizabeth, and Jonathon Alexander. Writing Identities. Writing Spaces: Readings on
Writing. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. N. pag. Print.