Nuclear Fusion: Article Comparison

Introduction

The two sources being presented discuss the topic of nuclear fusion energy. The first source comes from Wired Magazine, online. The article is entitled “We’re One Step Closer to Nuclear Fusion Energy,” was written by Adam Mann, and was published on February 12, 2014. The website’s intended audience is those people who are interested in reading about technology, business, and science. There is a reference to Back to The Future, and the scientific information is not ‘dumbed down’ as is usual for the general public. The second article comes from Fox News, and the article is entitled “National Ignition Facility announces promising results for nuclear fusion.” It was originally published by the Associated Press and was published on February 12, 2014. The audience for Fox News is the general public, the average reader. There is not as much information about the scientific details as the first article, but the same studies are cited regarding the recent discoveries in nuclear fusion.

Statement of Fact

The articles discuss the recent discoveries in nuclear fusion capabilities. Objectively, both articles talk about the necessary details and a reader for both will be able to understand the general idea behind nuclear fusion. This is the main reason why the articles are being compared to one another. They will be compared to one another on three main points: objectivity, the reliability of the information, and the reliability of the news source.

As well, ethos and logos play a part in how an article is written and how it affects the intended audience. Ethos means credibility, and it means “convincing the character of the author” (Durham Technical College). Logos means logic and means “persuading by the use of reasoning” (Durham Technical College). These are important in journalism, the production of these articles because credibility and the correct use of information and reasoning are deciding factors for any audience.

Confirmation

The first source shows that the magazine cares a great deal about the topic of nuclear fusion energy and feels the need to make sure that their audience is fully educated on the topic – in past and recent discoveries. There may even be too much information reported: the writer clearly wants the audience to know all there is to know about nuclear fusion energy up until this point in time (February 12, 2014). It does assume that the audience knows scientific terms, the proper interpretation of study results, and does not present many lay man’s definitions. Examples of this include the use of “hydrogen fuel” often without defining it or speaking about it in any possible lower terms. Perhaps, for the online magazine, they can only write and explain things in a way that students of science will understand, and those who do not quite understand have to go elsewhere for these smaller definitions and such.

However, the advantage that this article has is that it has sought to teach the audience, whether they know the history of nuclear fusion energy research, something just if they are interested in knowing more about the subject.

To create fusion reactions at NIF, scientists shoot 192 lasers simultaneously with a peak power of 500 trillion Watts, roughly 1,000 times the power output of the U.S. grid… This gives off energy, which should in theory set off a chain reaction that ignites the rest of the hydrogen and creates a self-sustaining ball of fusion (Mann, 2014).

This is a short excerpt from the writer explaining the new study that discovered a new possible for nuclear fusion energy to be harnessed at an earlier date than any thought possible; part of this concludes that there is a specific audience for the article. The article leaves off with many other things for the reader to think about, and lets the audience know that more will be done to harness nuclear fusion energy. Mann writes: “In the meantime, the NIF team is happy with their achievements and cautiously optimistic of their future prospects” (2014). One of the most important aspects of this article is, despite its intended scientific audience, the writer wants to teach others as much as possible and beyond the topic at hand.

The second source is shorter than the first, although it gives all general information necessary to understand the topic on a minimal scale. The reliability of the news source is the greatest issue for this article because the source’s reputation precedes them, although it was originally posted on the Associated Press website. However, by sheer name’s sake, it may be hard for a reader to trust that information published on the website is the whole truth. The source shows a lack of coverage, and the language is very plain:

Nuclear fusion would be worthwhile only if it produces more energy than it uses (as the case with liquid fluoride thorium reactors), and the results were far from that. The hydrogen fuel did emit more energy than it absorbed from the lasers, an experimental goal. But the fuel took in only about 1 percent of all the energy produced by the lasers. So, the apparatus is still far short of producing more energy than it requires to operate (Associated Press, 2014).

They do not say the term ‘study,’ but instead ‘work.’ It reads very quickly and is almost as if they simply give a short summary of all the information and did not intend to educate the audience on the subject. It is almost as if they are writing to give the audience just enough, but nothing more, because it does not seem necessary. The article leaves off with the possibility that more work with nuclear fusion, and magnets, may be done, but there are no such details.

Structure

Each of the sources is relevant in discussing the topic of nuclear fusion. All potential issues aside, each of the articles cites the same study, and much of the same information as far as an expert opinion. The first source is from a technology and science-based magazine that is published online, so outwardly, a reader would assume that all information is reliable. However, that focus on science and technology can also serve as a bias. It is a long article and contains a lot more information than the second article as far as the background of nuclear fusion research. The bias that can be found in this first source is that they describe information that is not defined in lay man’s terms. It is not written for the average audience; it is written for the scientific and technologically savvy audience. However, this bias is not necessarily negative; it can serve to teach.

The second source was originally published by the Associated Press but has been re-published on the Fox News website. Fox News has been known in recent years for published biased information despite the claim that all their news is ‘fair and balanced.’ The article is very short, seems choppy and simple in style, and would leave the more intelligent reader out on a limb searching for more information. Not to say that simple words and short style are not a great characteristic of news articles, but this also means being concise.

Conclusion

Amid different media covering the same subject, it is important to take a closer look at what is being reported. The information may be false, it may be biased, or there may be whole sections that are not important to a news source being omitted from a news article. It is nearly vital, as a serious reader of the daily news, to understand the importance of research and comparison as far as reading separate articles and news sources. The comparison of these two articles on the topic of nuclear fusion energy from Wired and Fox News shows the importance of the journalist and the news source working to inform their audience, not simply giving them enough to live on.

References

Associated Press. (2014). National Ignition Facility announces promising results for nuclear fusion. Fox News. Retrieved from http://www.foxnews.com/science/2014/02/12/promising-results-emerge-for-nuclear-fusion/.

Durham Technical College. (1998). A general summary of Aristotle's appeals. Carl D. Perkins Foundation. Retrieved from http://courses.durhamtech.edu/perkins/aris.html.

Mann, A. (2014). We’re one step closer to nuclear fusion energy. Wired Magazine. Retrieved from http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2014/02/fusion-power-not-yet/.