Reality vs. America's Power

Upon first viewing both websites, there are noticeable differences in appearance and appeal. Reality.org's website is a lot bolder in style using a black and yellow color scheme with moving, bold animation. Reality also employs a little flying yellow bird which moves around the site running into big printed facts on clean energy. It is really attention grabbing.

America'sPower.org on the other hand is a little softer in approach and uses light pastel colors with a white background. They are definately more conservative in their appearance with your basic website layout and simple links that are easy to use. I feel that Reality.org's webpage appeals to me more in the sense that is is visually grabbing and draws my attention into the website. It is bold and much cooler than the basic, cookie cutter website of america'spower.org. The one complaint I do have with Reality is that the website is a bit confusing to navuiaget and the links to seperate pages are in small print at the bottom of the page. So, Americaspower is simpler to use and has its own appeal in easy to read and use links.

From what i can gather, the clean coal debate is a debate over whether or not the coal industry is really trying to developement and implement technology that would trap and eliminate CO2 gases from coal run electricity plants. America'sPower holds the position that while clean coal is a not a full on reality right now, the coal industry is making alot of progress in cleaning up coal plants and making coal a clean source of fuel. They seem to overlook environmental damages caused right now in the hopes that one day clean coal will be fully realized. They also argue that coal is too abundant and cheap to not use it as a main source of energy for America. Reality.org on the other hand has taken the stance that the coal industry is deceiving Americans with a false notion of "clean coal." They state that there is no clean coal right now and that coal industries are simply looking for profit. They would like to see Americas energy resources diversified into other renewable and truly clean options such as solar and wind power. reality.org suggests reducing the use of coal to stop harmful pollution until a truly clean coal can be obtained. They are interested in creating a 100% renewabale and clean fuel source for America.

The audiences for both websites also differ. reality.org's websites layout and message seem to be geared towards a younger maybe more idealistic audience that is environmentally conscious . An audience that is also fairly hip or saavy. Politically I would assume the audience for Reality is left leaning if not entirely liberal. America'sPower seems more geared toward "middle America" and its audience seems to be a little older and more moderate based on its layout and basic messages. This audience is probably concerned with the environment but the advantages of cheap energy for them outweigh the negatives of a not entirely clean coal. These people are probably a little less idealistic and see the changes being made by the coal companies as progress. Politically this audience is more moderate or right leaning.

The sponsors for Reality.org include the Sierra Club the Alliance for Conservation and the Wildlife Federation and their interests are definitely alligned to conservation of the enivronment. AmericasPower on the other hand is sponsored entirely by coal producing corporations whose alliances are based in their business. Due to this, I believe that Reality.org has a more pure ethos because their sponsors are not entirely in the fight for money. All the sponsors for Reality are nonprofits looking to help clean the environment which is hard to argue is a bad cause. Americas Power seems more intent on convincing people of the advantages of coal simply to maintain their current business level and profits. Their ethos in this case is tarnished by self interest.

Emotional appeal is used by both websites. Americas power is appealing to the average hardworking American by saying that coal is cheap and abundant and thus is a perfect source of fuel for America. They also say that in an economy such as ours, cheap energy is important for Americans concerned with financial security. Another tactic they use is subtle. They keep reiterating the dependence we have on coal throwing facts that over half the electricity produced is from coal. They play this off in a way that suggests America is run on coal and alwyas has been so why get rid of it? AmericasPower seems to suggest the advantages of coal outweigh any negative environmental impacts. Reality is the opposite of AmericasPower. Reality accuses the coal industry of sugarlining the "clean coal: debate and suggests that clean coal is a myth. The coal industries are simply out for profit. The other major emotional appeal for Reality is the environmental damages which they portray in hundreds of quotes by reputable sources about damages in the environment caused by coal. This appeal is animated in the flying yellow bird who runs violently into every fact which pops up on the screen, suggesting that coal is killing our birds (environment).

Visual representations for Reality parallel the audience it is attracting. They are basic, clean cut and simple. No frills just facts. There are pictures of average American's smiling, probably thinking about clean cheap coal. Reality's visual images are bold and ominous, portraying all the damages that coal has done to our environment. A flying, cute yellow bird is killed by the fact that coal is harmful to the environment.

Finally, I believe that the Reality site is more appealing to me. I like the presentationa nd color schemes of the site. The site is cooly presented and delivers a strong message. Americas Power to me is pretty cookie cutter and boring. I also align my beliefs more with the viewpoints on Reality.org so that website is more appealing to me.