Ferguson & Garner Reaction
s.chowdhury on Dec 4th 2014
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.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ferguson & Garner Reaction
Project Plan
s.chowdhury on Nov 11th 2014
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.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Project Plan
Working with Sources
s.chowdhury on Nov 6th 2014
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.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Working with Sources
“They Say/I Say” Intro & Chapter 1
s.chowdhury on Oct 28th 2014
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?
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on “They Say/I Say” Intro & Chapter 1
Writers Notes: Rhetorical Analysis
s.chowdhury on Oct 14th 2014
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.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Writers Notes: Rhetorical Analysis
Rhetorical Analysis Paper 2: Annotated Bibliography
s.chowdhury on Oct 7th 2014
1.
| Kang, Cecilia. “Comcast, Time Warner agree to merge in $45 billion deal.” The
Washington Post. 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014 <http://wapo.st/1kDtI9M> |
|
| Reflections/Questions
It is quite obvious that The Washington Post is opposed to this merger. The articles focuses heavily on the increased control that Comcast will have over the market, and the resulting limited choices that consumers will have. All of the quotes express people’s concerns with the merger. The article does address what Comcast will say in how the merger is pro-consumer, but even this – the Post frames it in a way to make you think that Comcast will say these things to get the merger past the regulators but the underlying motives are to control the market. The words that the Post uses such as “behemoth” to describe what Comcast would become with the merger are clear indications of their disapproval of the merger. But it’s still subtle – if you aren’t looking for the rhetoric, if you aren’t actively reading the piece, it would never occur to you what the Post has done, and that is convince you that this merger is blasphemy. I think the Post uses rhetoric successfully, and I can use this source to show exactly how. |
Notes/Summary
This the the Post’s initial coverage on the merger. Kang writes that the merger will have “far greater implications for the future of media.” With this merger, Comcast will have more control over internet lines as well as content through its ownership of NBC Universal. According to Kang, the combined companies will have significant leverage over negotiations with network broadcasters. Consumers are concerned with the price jumps that will occur with the expansions of Comcast’s footprint: “A handful of cable providers dominate the market, leaving consumers with little choice but to pay high bills for often unsatisfactory service.” The article also points out that Comcast has a “powerful lobbying operation in Washington,” and so regulators will most likely put the go ahead on the merger. Thus, the concerns posted in Kang’s article will be a reality. |
2.
| Cohen, David L. “Comcast Files Opposition and Response Comments on Time Warner
Cable Transaction.” Comcast. 24 Sept. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014 <http://corporate.comcast.com/comcast-voices/comcast-files-opposition-and-response-comments-on-time-warner-cable-transaction#related-links> |
|
| Reflections/Questions
Comcast takes every argument that the critics have against the merger, and pretty much rips it to shreds by explaining why it’s false and then giving the actual benefits of the merger. Comcast directly attacks the opposition (even naming them “Netflix and Cogent”), taking them head on – a wise tactic, one that lawyers use in the court – disintegrate the prosecutor’s argument bit by bit. I think acknowledging the “enemy,” especially by name, in any situation, makes someone go “woah.” It does two things – one, it implies a high confidence in speaker’s statements, and two, it damages the ethos of the opposite side to an extent, because what the speaker is essentially trying to do is point out the ridiculousness in the criticism. Comcast does in fact do this throughout their post; they discredit the critics, stating over and over again that there are no facts to support the claims. Comcast places quotes from networks and programmers that validate the company’s ethos and support the merger – using credible sources to establish their own credit – successful tactic. These are also programmers that critics say Comcast would be hindering, but the programmers themselves are supporting the merger, so the quotes work as a great counterattack. Comcast is successful in many ways in responding to their critics. |
Notes/Summary
This is Comcast’s accompanying blog post to their 324 page response to critics – often in combative tone and words, over issues ranging from economics to politics to customer service – and stating why its proposed merger with Time Warner Cable should be allowed to proceed. David Cohen, Comcast Executive VP, claims that “virtually all” people who submitted comments to the FCC support the merger whether they know it or not: “Virtually all commenters recognize and concede – either explicitly or through their silence – that the transaction will deliver substantial consumer welfare and public interest benefits to residential and business customers and in the advertising marketplace.” Although several people and organizations are urging the commission to block the merger, Cohen argues that there is no credible opposition to the merger: “The opposing commenters don’t cite any credible, specific facts that refute the extensive evidence of these transaction-specific benefits.” Comcast stands firmly by their belief that the merger will not reduce competition or consumer choice for any of the services they offer. Despite Comcast not competing against Time Warner Cable, the second biggest cable company after itself, Comcast argues to the FCC that it already faces enough competition. |
3.
| Carr, David. “Growling by Comcast May Bring Tighter Leash.” The New York Times. 28
Sept. 2014. Web. 6 Oct. 2014 <http://nyti.ms/1rDwH5m> |
|
| Reflections/Questions
The Times undermines Comcast’s strategy by pulling direct quotes from the company’s response and then making sarcastic remarks: “Gee, Comcast, don’t sugarcoat it. Say what you really mean.” Carr emphasizes the harsh and hostile tone that Comcast used to prove his point that this will backfire on them. One of my favorite lines of this article is: “The word extortion is usually applied to guys with names like Nicky who wear bad suits and crack their knuckles a lot.” This was in reference to one of the reply comments from Comcast in which they used the term extortion to describe what the opposition is essentially doing. The image that Cohen paints in our head (which is humorous) of the usual person that extortion applies to exemplifies the certain ridiculousness as well as the ferocity in Comcast’s response. The Times phrasing, word choice, sarcastic and mocking undertone, all work towards convincing us how the response is a failed attempt and how now Comcast has exposed themselves to vulnerability, thus their response is only going to create more problems for themselves. |
Notes/Summary
This is The New York Time’s response to Comcast’s comments against their critics. According to the Times, it was uncharacteristic of Comcast to lash out at its critics; the company “has a long corporate tradition of smiling and wearing beige no matter what kind of criticisms are hurled at it.” Carr writes that switching strategies, and calling out their critics instead, might not have been a smart move. The tactic might actually result in the opposite of what Comcast intended. Their “hot rhetoric” only makes the company seem defensive and frantic, which the opposition will take as a sign of weakness. What Comcast has really done is stir the pot to boil more. |
4.
| 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> |
|
| Reflections/Questions
I think Lyon does a better job at explaining why the merger is beneficial than Comcast itself. I think the reason for this though is because the main audience for Comcast was it’s critics and the FCC who are a more formal audience, whereas the audience for the Concord Monitor in the most broadest sense is their readership who are the general public, which is a relatively informal audience. Because Lyon is speaking to the general public, he does a very good job in dismantling our preconceived notions on the situation, and then revealing the truth, or at least what he finds to be the truth. He does all of this in a way that we, the public, can understand and grasp, and thus be persuaded by Lyon. Comcast, on the other hand, used much more complex verbiage that might be confusing to the average person – but in context of their primary audience, the language used was appropriate. Lyon gives us the example of how the FCC rejected the Blockbuster, Hollywood Records merger and how both companies collapsed later, leading us to the conclusion that if the merger had occurred, the video rental store sector would still be alive today. This was a smart strategy on Lyon’s part; drawing parallels between a former situation and the current situation leads us to assume the consequences of the latter will be the same as the former. This parallel essentially sets up the foundation for the rest of his argument and because it has been placed in our heads in the beginning, we remember it throughout the article – the parallel is the primary factor in persuading us of Lyon’s points. |
Notes/Summary
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.” Comcast’s biggest threat is not other cable and satellite providers but the new entertainment sources. And 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 crumble into non-existence. |
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Rhetorical Analysis Paper 2: Annotated Bibliography
Notes on
s.chowdhury on Oct 2nd 2014
| Kang, Cecilia. “Comcast, Time Warner agree to merge in $45 billion deal.” The
Washington Post. 13 Feb. 2014. Web. 30 Sept. 2014 <http://wapo.st/1kDtI9M> |
|
| Reflections/Questions
It is quite obvious that The Washington Post is opposed to this merger. The articles focuses heavily on the increased control that Comcast will have over the market, and the resulting limited choices that consumers will have. All of the quotes express people’s concerns with the merger. The article does address what Comcast will say in how the merger is pro-consumer, but even this – the Post frames it in a way to make you think that Comcast will say these things to get the merger past the regulators but the underlying motives are to control the market. The words that the Post uses such as “behemoth” to describe what Comcast would become with the merger are clear indications of their disapproval of the merger. But it’s still subtle – if you aren’t looking for the rhetoric, if you aren’t actively reading the piece, it would never occur to you what the Post has done, and that is convince you that this merger is blasphemy. I think the Post uses rhetoric successfully, and I can use this source to show exactly how. |
Notes/Summary
This the the Post’s initial coverage on the merger. Kang writes that the merger will have “far greater implications for the future of media.” With this merger, Comcast will have more control over internet lines as well as content through its ownership of NBC Universal. According to Kang, the combined companies will have significant leverage over negotiations with network broadcasters. Consumers are concerned with the price jumps that will occur with the expansions of Comcast’s footprint: “A handful of cable providers dominate the market, leaving consumers with little choice but to pay high bills for often unsatisfactory service.” The article also points out that Comcast has a “powerful lobbying operation in Washington,” and so regulators will most likely put the go ahead on the merger. Thus, the concerns posted in Kang’s article will be a reality. |
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Notes on
Rhetorical Analysis Formal Proposal
s.chowdhury on Sep 30th 2014
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.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Rhetorical Analysis Formal Proposal
Ideas for Rhetorical Analysis Project
s.chowdhury on Sep 25th 2014
Topic 1: Media Consolidation – Comcast & Time Warner Merger
- Comcast Petition: http://corporate.comcast.com/images/2014-09-23-REDACTED-Comcast-TWC-Opposition-and-Response.pdf
- Netflix Petition: https://pmcdeadline2.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/netflix-fcc-comcast-twc.pdf
Topic 2: Do Muslim Women Need Saving?
- Lila Abu-Lughod “Do Muslim Women Really Need Saving? Anthropological Reflections on Cultural Relativism and Its Others” http://org.uib.no/smi/seminars/Pensum/Abu-Lughod.pdf
- Marnia Lazreg Questioning the Veil: Open Letters to Muslim Women “Letter 5: Why Women Should Not Wear the Veil” – Hardcopy
Filed in Uncategorized | One response so far
Ferguson Article Comparison
s.chowdhury on Sep 18th 2014
Democracy Now:
The main argument is that the police force is abusing the military equipment that they have possession of. The purpose is to alert the public of the issue and have more regulations and restrictions put on access and usage of the equipment. The primary audience are the public who can protest and ask for change. The secondary audience are politicians. The exigence is the increasing militarization of the police. A possible constraint is the police force, as they would defend their actions or take offense to it. The article utilizes pathos especially with the story of the toddler that was injured by the flashbang grenade. It’s a horrifying thing to hear that an innocent child was injured because of police militarization – it causes anger and empathy in the readers. The article also provides us with a statistic, that only 7% of raids are for genuine emergencies which is an extremely low percentage and shows that the military equipment is not necessary. Kara Danksy is the woman who did all of the research and so bringing her on to speak on it establishes creditability.
Fox:
The main argument is that some schools are using the Ferguson shooting to connect to the radical movements (as seen by Fox) of the Black Panther and Malcom X. The purpose is to show the extreme end that the schools are using and the ridiculousness of it. One of the quotes reads, “The issue of police brutality in communities of color has a long history and the Panther platform gives an example of how to turn grievances into a clear set of goals for meaningful change.” The use of the word “grievances” make the issue seem almost petty and unnecessary. The primary audience are the parents and the secondary audience are the schools. The exigence is schools are taking a radical approach to educating children on the situation. A possible constraint would be supporters of these movements and minority groups.The article defines the platform of The Black Panther Party and Malcolm X. The use of logos tries to exemplify the radicalness of the platform, hence also that of the curriculum.
Filed in Uncategorized | Comments Off on Ferguson Article Comparison