Magazine Analysis

   In a 100 word excerpt from The New York Times Upfront, the passage contained 5 sentences as well as 153 syllables. According to the Fry Readability Graph, 5 sentences and 153 syllables places the magazine at a 15 year old reading level. I believe that this is a perfect characterization of the magazine's readability, because it is meant for a teen audience. A 15 year old reading level is exactly what the writers of the magazine targeted for teens want. Throughout The New York Times Upfront, there are several pages of advertisement. However, the balance of content pages to advertisement pages is heavily in favor of content. I think that the editors left the reader with more than a favorable amount of content compared to many magazines of today. With only a few pages of advertisement thrown in with a magazine full of pages on informative content for the reader to enjoy, the magazine did a great job balancing the ratio of content pages to its advertisements.
   Out of 5 students at my table, four students' articles were measured at a 15 year old reading level, including mine. The 5th student's article came out to a 10 year old reading level. This discrepancy could be attributed to the specific 100 word excerpt that each student chose, but more likely should be attributed to the fact that the 5th students magazine was a Boston Red Sox preseason flyer from 2008. Each magazine was directed at completely different audiences, but 4 of 5 were measured at a 15 year old reading level. This leads to the conclusion that a mid-teen reading level is where most magazines are directed at, most likely to widen the target audience of the magazines. The average reader of The New York Times Upfront is a teenager, anywhere from 13-18 years of age. They are most likely an intelligent, curious young person eager to learn about the government and news of today, but not at the reading level of the New York Times and therefore searching for a news magazine more directed to their reading level. The reader could easily be male or female, but it most likely of good economic standing because this magazine is not an incredibly easily found one.

Who would you vote for?

Why do people vote for a candidate?

  Why do people vote for a certain candidate? Is it the political know how of the candidate, and the agreement upon the issues between a politician and a voter, that garners the vote? Is it the influential ads that attract a voter? Is it the charming, irresistible smile of the candidate and the firm handshake that gains the check mark come election time? More often than not, sadly, it is the latter that is truest. Most voters decide who they will cast their vote for just by taking a brief glance at the candidates. The difference between candidates in the average voters' mind is their appearance, not their political views. As wrong as this is, it is all too true in our society today.

   According to a study done by Princeton University, "researchers determined that they could accurately predict the winners in approximately 70 percent of the races for U.S. senator, and governor in the 2006 elections, based solely upon the faces of the candidates." I performed similar research to this 2006 survey by asking students as well as adults whom they would vote for when shown two politicians who had previously run against each other. I did not tell the survey-taker who the people in the photographs were, I just asked them to tell me which person they would vote for. In 62.5 percent of cases, the majority of those surveyed chose the eventual winner of the election. Without knowing the party of the candidate, or anything about what either person stood for, the prevailing candidate was chosen in over 60 percent of the time in both surveys. Such an incredible preference shows that the actual issues of politics are not nearly as important to voters as they should be. Instead, voters are more caught up in what a candidate looks like than anything else. By providing those surveyed with several female candidates as well as multiple minority candidates throughout the survey, I was amazed to find that those surveyed were still able to distinguish which women and minority candidates, and which lost. This just goes to show to an even more extensive level how greatly the voters' decisions align with solely the appearance of the candidates as opposed to their reputations, stances, speeches, ads, or campaigns.

   In the most recent elections for President and Senate, voters under 30 years old were much more likely to vote Democrat. Furthermore, voters over the age of 65 were much more likely to vote Republican. Disparities like these display that voting cannot solely be based on appearance, but it is impossible to dispute how shocking it is for more than 60 percent of people to select the winning candidate just based on appearance. The majority of those polled were younger voters, but there was no recognizable deference towards specific candidates between them. However, the fact that appearance decided nearly every race in both surveys is undeniable, and is a testament to how politics has gone wrong in America, and possible could attribute to why we have suffered such a harsh several years economically as well as globally.