Eat. Sleep. Write.

I’m just dumbfounded that the grand jury decided to not even indict either of the police officers in both cases. They were not deciding whether the officers were guilty of the crime; they were deciding whether the case should go to trial. I can see how maybe in Ferguson there was too much speculation to warrant an arrest (although I think there still should have been an indictment), there was a video in the case of Eric Garner. I just don’t understand what reasoning the jury had for thinking the case was not worth going to trial.

I’m going to be writing about how media conglomeration is limiting voices and ultimately hurting democracy. The sound-bite culture we currently live in is perpetuated by consolidation. I think I’m going to focus on the effects on journalism specifically, instead of the entire media industry as a whole. I’ve been reading a lot of different sources, trying to get a grasp on the most popular arguments for consolidation. It seems that most of these arguments look at it from the business aspect, claiming it’s in the public interest, but in essence it is just to increase profits. I’m going to try to interview my media studies professor from Queens College – hopefully our schedules match up and I can do it. She’s worked at NBC previously and became a professor for the specific reason of influencing students to take a stance against consolidation, so I think getting her voice would be interesting. I’m not sure yet who I want my audience to be, I guess maybe the companies themselves – I want to convince them that making ratings their main concern is creating an ignorant public.

Lyon takes a viewpoint on the merger that isn’t popular among consumers, but blames our ignorance of the situation for being blind to the benefits of the merger: “The cable company is one entity everyone likes to hate. Perhaps this knee-jerk animosity is to blame for the rush to condemn Comcast’s proposed….merger.” He argues that Comcast is actually a victim in industry with technology having “eroded the lines between hardware, content and media companies.” Lyon draws a parallel between the proposed Blockbuster-Hollywood Videos merger in 2005 and the Comcast-Time Warner merger. The Blockbuster merger was shut down by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) and soon after both video rental stores declared bankruptcy because they could not compete against the new entertainment sources. Comcast faces a similar situation. Comcast’s biggest threat is not other cable and satellite providers but these new entertainment sources (i.e. Netflix). Furthermore, this threat is viable to the cable industry across the board, thus the merger according to Lyon would actually help the sector to stay alive and relevant to today, instead of crumbling into non-existence.

Lyons, Daniel A. “My Turn: Comcast, Time Warner merger would benefit consumers.” Concord Monitor. 13 June. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2014 http://www.concordmonitor.com/home/12331721-95/my-turn-comcast-time-warner-merger-would-benefit-consumers

I think this assignment helps us to understand better how to use a source and integrate it well into our writing. Often times, we sit in front of the source not sure how to utilize it. This exercise shows us how to use a source to make our writing stronger and help us support our point, instead of just padding our writing and filling up the word count.

In the Introduction to They Say/I Say: The Moves That Matter in Academic Writing, authors Gerald Graff and Cathy Brikenstein present readers with templates to structure their writing. Graff and Brikenstein argue that these templates help put the abstract concepts of how to write into actual practice. They write that “working with these templates can give you an immediate sense of how to engage in the kinds of critical thinking you are required to do at the college level and in the vocational and public spheres beyond” (2). The key to academic writing or any discourse is responding (“I say”) to someone/something else (“they say”). Acknowledging and addressing the opposite side makes your own response stronger and more meaningful. The templates provided in the book help novice writers to understand and apply this strategy to their writing. Although some claim that these templates stifle creativity, Graff and Brikenstein posit that the templates do the opposite. The templates create a base for writers to reach the standard that everyone should at least be at, and then from there writers can branch out and create their own voice.

I think that these templates are indeed useful. As Graff and Brikenstein point out themselves, without a foundation, one cannot reach anywhere. Writing also isn’t a skill that can be just told to you; you have to practice. The templates are a great way to show writers how to structure their sentences, have writers put that knowledge to practice, and form a good foundation. I can see how people might think that this would create the same kind of writing coming out everyone, however, a closer look at the templates shows that they still require the writer’s own thoughts and own voice which automatically triggers individuality.

The main point of Chapter 1 is to address the “they say” in your opening and periodically throughout your paper. Letting readers know what/who you’re responding to gives your writing context and purpose. Readers can better understand your point and why it matters when they know what you are reacting to.

“To keep an audience engaged, a writer needs to explain what he or she is responding to…Delaying this explanation…reverses the natural order in which readers process material – and in which writers think and develop ideas” (20).

“The point is to give your readers a quick preview of what is motivating your argument, not to drown them in details right away” (21).

“Readers won’t be able to follow your unfolding response, much less any complications you may offer, unless you keep reminding them what claims you are responding to” (27).

To what extent should you assume readers know what you are talking about?

What do you think of when you imagine “revising” your writing?

When I think about revising my writing I imagine cutting out and rewriting sentences, reorganizing paragraphs, sometimes rewriting my thesis, and adding more detail. I use revision to provide more clarity to my writing as well as improve the quality of it. I’ve never really seen revising as just adding punctuation, or fixing my spelling errors; revising is more meaningful than that. Papers/articles/stories/any writing achieves their purpose better with the proper revisions.

Write about a time you revised something you wrote: what was your process like and what did you gain (if anything) from the process?

When applying to Northeastern University, I had to write an essay on why I was interested in journalism. The final version of that essay is drastically different than the first draft. There were parts of my first draft that I did like but after having one of my teachers read it was evident that I hadn’t really answered the question – I had written all about what journalism is but not about how any of that sparked my interest or my goals as a journalist. In my second draft I expanded more on these questions focusing specifically on me and journalism rather than the field of journalism at large – but now it exceeded the word limit by hundreds of words. I sat up with my one of my fellow editors from the newspaper helping me edit my essay through Google Drive. I revised, he commented; words were deleted, words were added – it was the most frustrating and most difficult revision I’ve ever had to do. I liked everything I wrote and I hated everything I wrote. Finally after countless hours, I had cut down the essay to meet the max word count. However, all the revisions I had made in that process did in fact make the essay better. The final product conveyed accurately why I was interested in journalism. This experience taught me how to more concisely and accurately express my thoughts.

What’s the difference between revising, editing, and proofreading?

Revising is when you make the most drastic changes because this it the part of the writing process that you work with the good things, either work on the bad things or just throw them out completely. Editing and proofreading is when you concentrate more on grammar and the mechanics of the writing.

What’s your response to Brock Dethier’s piece on revision?

I think an area that Dethier did really well in, was explaining how revision is all around us. I especially loved his music reference. I’ve never really consciously thought about how covers of songs are revisions to the original song, but they are, and I think realizing that really makes you aware of how much presence revision has, that even with works deemed great, revision occurs. His own example of revising his poem was great in showing how professionals go through the process too. I loved that he said that he isn’t addressing just novice writers, but all writers because everyone revises, and everyone has a resistance to revision initially.

Describe your response to the resistances to revision he discusses on pages 2 and 3, especially specific ones you may agree with and why you agree with them.

I think the resistance to revision that Deither discusses are real for everyone. There are two however that I especially agree with. “Revision is a sign of failure, and criticism a personal affront” – I think holds the most true and is the most common reason people resist to revision. I know, that I personally have a difficult time accepting criticism sometimes, but I ultimately come to realize that it is for my benefit. The revisions, the suggestions, the criticisms are all coming from a positive place and are aimed to help me, not to humiliate me. “Revisions make things worse” – this is another one I agree with. Oftentimes I do find myself hesitant to revise because I feel that the original is good already and I don’t know if the revisions will make it better.

After having read through both articles, I have noted the rhetorical strategies that each uses to persuade the audience of their claims. I first annotated on the articles directly and then categorized the annotations by the strategies. The Washington Post primarily utilizes diction to get their point across. Their word choice is very interesting to look at cause there are other ways to express the same thing but their words all have negative connotations thereby painting a negative image of Comcast. On the other hand Comcast in their response, heavily utilizes ethos and logos to make their point. They actually not only build their own creditability but they also destroy the credibility of their critics. They have a significant amount of facts and statistics to back to their claims. I think at this point what I’m trying to figure out which specific aspect of the two articles I’m going to focus on.

1.

2.

3.

4.

I want to investigate media consolidation, specifically the Comcast and Timer Warner merger. Being a journalism major, this topic speaks directly to me and it’s one that I am very passionate about. I have strong feelings on the topic of media consolidation, and I am going to thoroughly enjoy writing the third paper when I can insert my own opinion. I actually remember the morning that the news broke about the merger, and I’ve been following the coverage since. I was originally going to use initial coverage of the New York Times on the merger, but I’ve decided to use The Washington Post instead. The Post’s article was actually how I had found out about the merger, and it just feels right to use this one rather than the NYT, though both have the same approach. As the counter piece, I’m going to use Comcast’s argument published on their respective site justifying the merger. Comcast argues that the merger  is pro-consumer, pro-competitive, and in the public interest, while the Washington Post focuses on the increase in size of Comcast that will occur with the merger and thus the potential increase in power that they will have over the industry. I think it’ll be an interesting analysis to show how The Post from the lede puts in our head that this merger should be shut down, while Comcast tries to assure the public and stakeholders that this merger is beneficial.

In “The Rhetorical Situation,” Bitzer emphasizes the importance of the contextual situation that surrounds rhetoric. He really hounds at the idea that the situation is what brings the rhetoric into being. He uses the example of the fisherman (4) to show how on the most basic level, the situation drives the speech. Rhetoric is just empty words otherwise, the situation is what gives the speech impact. Further when analyzing rhetoric, identifying the exigence, audience, and constraints helps to establish the situation, and then conclude if the rhetoric is appropriate to the situation, and thus successful.

I think to some level or another we all know that the situation is important, but I don’t think we realize that the famous rhetorical speeches that we now study and discuss (i.e. Gettysburg Address, JFK’s Inaugural Address, etc.) would not exist without the respective conditions surrounding them. The situation controls the response; the significance is given by the situation. Bitzer does a good job in bringing this to the forefront, and really highlighting why the situation is so essential to understand and analyze when looking at rhetoric. I think often times we look at rhetorical writing without taking in in the context as well and we lose the full meaning.

At one point Bitzer says that rhetoric is created to have positive outcomes, however, there is a lot of rhetoric that calls for negative actions – how does Bitzer define positive?

******

Emma Watson’s Speech at the UN

The exigence for Emma Watson’s speech is the low rate of women that define themselves as feminists as well as the the lack of men who identify themselves as advocates for equal right. There’s a certain negative connotation that has formed around the term “feminism” that has really been around since the origins of the movement several years ago but more prevalent now. Emma addresses the real meaning of being a feminist and why it is important for both men and women to stand up for it. Her primary audience was the United Nations but her secondary audience was everyone else who saw the speech and are now advocating HeforShe (celebrities, average people). The constraints would be antifeminist who are going to see everything wrong in her speech and tear it apart, and also just her ethos. As far as I know, (I don’t really follow her closely) she does have a good reputation but she is still known as the “Harry Potter girl.” This is something she even addressed in her speech, that she herself doesn’t know if she is qualified to speak and I think her addressing it actually made her speech stronger. However, the constraint still exists.