Comparing An Inconvenient Truth And A New York Times Article

981 Words4 Pages

Today’s media can be described as many things; manipulative, condescending, misleading and much more. The point is not everyone agrees what with the media says. The media is never always right and never always wrong, this uncertainty in the media creates mixed opinions on topics especially if we are talking about climate change. Today, I am talking about An Inconvenient Truth and a New York Times Article, both sources are pushing people to see the effects of climate change and how we will be affected in the future. [>>] Davis Guggenheim’s An Inconvenient Truth, presented by former vice president Al Gore sets out to inform the world of climate change and the inevitable effects. [>>] This documentary is accompanied with credible and scientifically proven statements making the film a reliable source for direct information. [>>] The film also documents a small portion of Al Gore’s story, showing him missing out on the United States presidential role in unfortunate circumstances. These small flashbacks are quick but effective and create depth and adds emotion into the film which in the end makes Al Gore seem like a real person. Without this backstory, the film would lack personality and would …show more content…

However, this film was lacking in entertainment value which does not accommodate modern day viewers who tend to have shorter attention spans. The film was enough to make you fall asleep although there was just enough character and personality in the film to keep it rolling until the very end. Despite genuine and proven facts and information used, Gore’s monotone voice created a poor viewing and listening experience for many viewers. Overall though this film had some very good qualities [>>] and it was these qualities that caused the film to attain quite high reviews commercially [>>] and in the end, hit its goal, to spread information about the fast-growing problem of climate change.