Television Contradicts Five Commonly Puerto Rico

Television Contradicts Five Commonly Puerto Rico

1- this is for the please research. paper add five more References to the research paper

2-please do this work in different word also the screenshot for this work. Below you will find a short description of what the a critical annotation is and how to create one. Below is also a sample of an APA formatted critical annotation. Students will be limited to 250 words per annotation. Annotations should conform to the format below. Please be sure and see the web page below for further examples.

https://owl.purdue.edu/owl/general_writing/common_writing_assignments/annotated_bibliographies/annotated_bibliography_samples.html

Critical annotations also include an EVALUATION, or analysis, of the work.

What might a good critical annotation include?

  • The strengths and weaknesses of the article, book, or other source;
  • The usefulness of the source for the research topic;
  • How the source compares to other books, articles, etc. on the same topic.

In the example annotations on this page, critical/evaluative content is shown in BOLD.

London, H. (1982). Five myths of the television age. Television quarterly 10, 1, 81-89.

Herbert London, the Dean of Journalism at New York University and author of several books and articles, explains how television contradicts five commonly believed ideas. He uses specific examples of events seen on television, such as the assassination of John Kennedy, to illustrate his points. His examples have been selected to contradict such truisms as: “seeing is believing”; “a picture is worth a thousand words”; and “satisfaction is its own reward.” London uses logical arguments to support his ideas which are his personal opinion. He doesn’t refer to any previous works on the topic; however, for a different point of view, one should refer to Joseph Patterson’s “Television is Truth” (cited below). London’s style and vocabulary would make the article of interest to any reader. The article clearly illustrates London’s points, but does not explore their implications, leaving the reader with many unanswered questions.