This website reviews mega-churches and focuses on the technology they use and the money they set aside to make sure they have the most up-to-date technology. This source use statistics and layout to get their message across to their readers. They have the article shown on their website and next to the text is a highlighted box with short statistics in bold. These bolded facts grab the readers’ attention, and drive home the author’s point. They use as few words as possible in their highlighted text box, one example of this is, “$3 million- Cost of high end audio/visual system” this very brief statement is clearly presented to the audience to make them believe that this is an enormous amount to spend on technology. Also, they specifically include “high end” in this description to make the reader have the impression that they are wasting money on having the absolute best, when perhaps they should focus on using their money in other ways. While I do believe this is an accurate fact they have presented, it is only later in the middle of the article that is explained that is only accounts for about 1/27th of their budget each year. The article is also clearly trying to present the money spent on technology in a negative fashion because the article begins by describing the finger print scanner they use and they use irony to connect it to the passage from the Bible that says “Reach hither thy finger.” The article is clearly showing that this type of technology is a waste of money and strays away from the focus of the Bible and God.
I found it very interesting that the two pictures that were selected to go with this article were both aerial shots and simply showed a mass of people or a mass of cars in a parking lot. These pictures leave the reading feeling like the churches are impersonal and that they will be one in a million in a sea of people.
Article: Cone, Edward. "Megachurch Megatech." CIO Insight, 11 May 2005. Web. 26 Oct. 2009.
That sounds like an interesting website. I liked that even though it was a negative article, you were able to read and analyze it with an open mind. It sounds like the article was bias, so its great that you were able to overlook that.
ReplyDeleteI've never heard of this website so it was interesting to read your post about it. I think your analysis would have been more effective if you chose one specific article and gone more in depth about it. Your observations are sharp and you draw good conclusions from them.
ReplyDelete