Meagan Patterson

My initial impression after reading this article is no surprise considering I am unfortunately one of the many that do not read the majority of articles I come across.  I find it very interesting that articles that are not read in depth get a lot of tweets or ‘shares’, while on the other hand articles that are read in depth do not generate a lot of tweets or ‘shares.’  So often we skim over articles instead of reading them fully, and even more disconcerting is that these articles we skim we share them with our peers through twitter, or other social media sites without comprehending the full message of the article.  Unknowingly we could be sharing articles that at first glance we seem to agree with, but if we delved deeper into the text we could be representing ideas that we do not believe in. 

            The writer admits that even he himself is a culprit of not reading full articles, and even sharing these articles with his social media peers.  He warns us that if we do not read a full article, in many cases, we cannot fully understand the content, or in good faith, agree or disagree with the content.  Many crucial parts of an article may be missed by not reading an article in its entirety.  These points the author makes imply that either as readers we need to be more focused, and devote more time to the articles that we are sharing, or writers of these articles should try and stay concise, and to the point so that we do read the full message.

            The research is presented in a manner that seems to be valid.  The author presents statistics from his own web page, but also compares these findings to another website for emphasis of his point.  All the while he places himself among those whom he is writing this article about which creates a sense of relation between he and the readers.

            Without the research the point would not be completely invalid, because many people can relate to the topic he is discussing.  The research does indeed add validity to the argument, as well as puts into perspective the high numbers of semi-informed people sharing articles that they have not fully read. 

            I find the website a bit confusing, as well as the titles of many of the articles to be confusing, and not so “eye-catching”.  Once I look deeper in to the website and read through a few articles I enjoy the personalized feel that each article seems to have while at the same time leaving the reader able to make up their own positive or negative opinion about what they have read.  The articles are also written in an easy to understand manner that is not dull, and does not have you reaching for the dictionary every other word.