My most memorable academic insight from English 105 is the importance of crafting an argument that is confident and constructive while remaining sensitive to the feelings of whomever you may be verbally combating. All too often, people choose an extreme of the spectrum and stick with it relentlessly; to unconditionally support or to blindly discredit—that is the question.
I still find writing somewhat of a chore, though the blog posts have taken a considerable toll on how compelled I feel to revise something several times before posting. In the spirit of blogs, I think I’ve gotten used to spitting out what I have to say and being satisfied with it the first time. It’s good practice in articulation to have many small assignments like the blog posts.
I may have developed somewhat of a greater appreciation for how media outlets react to one another. Prior to this class, I might have believed that blogs and newspapers served the same purpose, but after much investigation from both the first and second extended essays, I’ve come to realize that they serve unique and separate functions, and one should not be considered superior to the other.
I’ve also become more conscious of how often news stories surface in everyday conversations; that is, news is discussed frequently with my family and other people where conversation is expected to be somewhat intelligent. With my exercise buddy Michael, however, we rarely discuss the news, instead opting to center conversation on the less globally-interested topics of ourselves.
All in all, I’m thankful for how blogs forced me to think critically—a skill which might have otherwise been forgotten this semester had I not taken English 105 with the great Mr. Leake, our kind-hearted and handsome teacher. Thanks for the good times!
Monday, December 7, 2009
Monday, November 23, 2009
Thursday, November 12, 2009
Countering My Past
On October 27, I wrote:
I could certainly expand upon this point, given my experiences of the past few weeks. Although I initially made a correct statement in my hypothesis that reading the Times is affecting my writing style, I most likely understated its effects. Moreover, as an analysis of how taking English 105, as a whole, is affecting my writing style, there is more to be said yet about how my style is changing, and it isn't all because of the Times.
In addition to the new phenomenon of frequent paragraph breaks occurring throughout my most recent writing assignments and blog posts, I feel that I may go into greater detail with my texts than I have in the past, a feature of both the style of the Times as well as that of Harris, whose book we are working our way through as a class.
For instance, I feel as though I tend to follow a pattern of first making a general statement and then following it with a specific example. As I wrote on October 27:
That is my generalization, followed by specifics:
I don’t believe it’s possible to adequately represent every change in my technique since the beginning of the semester, as some are more subtle than others, but my newfound consciousness of this generalization-to-specific format has made me more aware of when this tendency surfaces.
However, having immediately read the Times before writing this blog post, I suspect that the short-paragraph format of that newspaper may have influenced the frequent paragraph breaks in this post, thereby influencing my writing habits on some small level, even if only temporarily.
I could certainly expand upon this point, given my experiences of the past few weeks. Although I initially made a correct statement in my hypothesis that reading the Times is affecting my writing style, I most likely understated its effects. Moreover, as an analysis of how taking English 105, as a whole, is affecting my writing style, there is more to be said yet about how my style is changing, and it isn't all because of the Times.
In addition to the new phenomenon of frequent paragraph breaks occurring throughout my most recent writing assignments and blog posts, I feel that I may go into greater detail with my texts than I have in the past, a feature of both the style of the Times as well as that of Harris, whose book we are working our way through as a class.
For instance, I feel as though I tend to follow a pattern of first making a general statement and then following it with a specific example. As I wrote on October 27:
Though I have no trouble seeing where he is coming from in his will to explicate the changing relationship between the press and the individual, I feel he oversimplifies to an embarrassing extent.
That is my generalization, followed by specifics:
The press has never been the only filter for news. There have always been observers—if not publically commenting on blog pages, perhaps just injecting their own feelings into a word-of-mouth news account. There has always been a separation between the press and the government whereby the two can be considered distinct entities.
I don’t believe it’s possible to adequately represent every change in my technique since the beginning of the semester, as some are more subtle than others, but my newfound consciousness of this generalization-to-specific format has made me more aware of when this tendency surfaces.
Sunday, November 8, 2009
Countering in Blogging
Countering is the method of establishing one's views in a position alternative to a cited text. Harris places much emphasis on the fact that effective countering is not completely invalidating the source, as little ground is gained in finding flaw in every piece of thought offered by another; instead, it is necessary, in order to be seen with any sense of authority or rationality, to accept part of the text and then simply offer another point of view on the subject. This adds legitimacy by lessening the possibility that one is just being argumentative for sport, as the case was in the silly Monty Python skit featured in Harris's chapter dedicated to the method. But I doubt that serious intellectual circles of today are immune from this same sort of belligerence.
Sullivan, once again, provides a handy example of exactly what I'm looking for. Upon establishing that Mark Noonan is okay with torturing Americans suspected of involvement in the Fort Hood shooting. He doesn't outright cast claims of complete ignorance upon his opponent, but he does assert that he is misled in his conclusion. Sullivan warns against being so hasty to say that it's okay to harshly interrogate people.
What remains the same is that the event is "terrible." (I know, this is a bit of a stretch, but Sullivan doesn't allow for much sympathy in his response--a particularly harsh sample of "countering".) What is gained is the fundamental insight that it isn't okay to torture people to extract information from them. What else is added is the analysis that the phenomenon of this seemingly-increased acceptance of torture as a legitimate means of interrogation is the result of Bush's presidency.
Sullivan, once again, provides a handy example of exactly what I'm looking for. Upon establishing that Mark Noonan is okay with torturing Americans suspected of involvement in the Fort Hood shooting. He doesn't outright cast claims of complete ignorance upon his opponent, but he does assert that he is misled in his conclusion. Sullivan warns against being so hasty to say that it's okay to harshly interrogate people.
What remains the same is that the event is "terrible." (I know, this is a bit of a stretch, but Sullivan doesn't allow for much sympathy in his response--a particularly harsh sample of "countering".) What is gained is the fundamental insight that it isn't okay to torture people to extract information from them. What else is added is the analysis that the phenomenon of this seemingly-increased acceptance of torture as a legitimate means of interrogation is the result of Bush's presidency.
Thursday, November 5, 2009
Forwarding in Blogging
Joseph Harris’s concept of “forwarding” is an ever-present force in the blogosphere. Upon reading the assigned blog prompt and going in search of examples on Andrew Sullivan’s blog, I immediately came upon the perfect example of Harris’s description—and it took no real searching, as the first post at the top of the page was so filled with forwarding, it’s almost absurd.
Sullivan forwards a response made by a reader of The Daily Dish onto the front page of The Daily Dish, a response which was constructed in reaction to an article Sullivan previously forwarded from a person named Rob Dreher. In the post currently on the front page of The Daily Dish, the responder forwards Abraham Lincoln from the time of his debates with Stephen Douglas.
If this isn’t a prime example of what forwarding is, then I’m not sure what forwarding is. But I’m pretty sure I know what forwarding is, and in case I’m not, I will share my impression of the term.
Forwarding is the act of taking information from an infinitely-stretching conversation and adding to the conversation in a way that both provides your own personal thoughts on the conversation as well as incorporates information previously contributed to the discussion. It is how any major subject that requires understanding progresses along the path of knowledge-gaining, and without it, people would get nowhere in the path of knowledge. We would constantly be starting over if we were without what previous generations and even our peers have added to the conversation.
Sullivan forwards a response made by a reader of The Daily Dish onto the front page of The Daily Dish, a response which was constructed in reaction to an article Sullivan previously forwarded from a person named Rob Dreher. In the post currently on the front page of The Daily Dish, the responder forwards Abraham Lincoln from the time of his debates with Stephen Douglas.
If this isn’t a prime example of what forwarding is, then I’m not sure what forwarding is. But I’m pretty sure I know what forwarding is, and in case I’m not, I will share my impression of the term.
Forwarding is the act of taking information from an infinitely-stretching conversation and adding to the conversation in a way that both provides your own personal thoughts on the conversation as well as incorporates information previously contributed to the discussion. It is how any major subject that requires understanding progresses along the path of knowledge-gaining, and without it, people would get nowhere in the path of knowledge. We would constantly be starting over if we were without what previous generations and even our peers have added to the conversation.
Sunday, November 1, 2009
The Times and Blogs in the Press Sphere
Following Think Progress and Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, in addition to reading the New York Times, brings up a few things to consider in response to the question of how they fit in to a new news model. One important point to bring up is that the newspaper is largely the first presentation of the news. It is the slightly-less-filtered news source from which many bloggers probably read up on the topics about which they blog. Conversely, to the question of how often a newspaper bases its information on information first posted in blogs, the answer would almost definitely have to be, modestly, significantly less-frequently.
Perhaps it is just my ill-educated guess, but I would assume that newspaper information-gathering requires much more work and time, often utilizing sources closer to the authority of a primary source than a blogger might use. After all, entire buildings full of people work together in an extremely structured way to discover the newest news and put it together, whereas a blogger is often just one guy reading what he has around him (the newspaper, fellow bloggers, as many news websites as he feels like reading).
Though both newspapers and blogs often contain writing from many different authors, newspapers tend to be far more unified in style from one author to the next than blogs. For example, Andrew Sullivan’s blog offers many contributing blogger posts, but they tend to present information in variable and seemingly-improvised ways. Newspapers, on the other hand, usually make their presentation through short paragraphs—many only a sentence or two in length—and consistently provide a background city as the first word after the title to help set the scene.
Perhaps it is just my ill-educated guess, but I would assume that newspaper information-gathering requires much more work and time, often utilizing sources closer to the authority of a primary source than a blogger might use. After all, entire buildings full of people work together in an extremely structured way to discover the newest news and put it together, whereas a blogger is often just one guy reading what he has around him (the newspaper, fellow bloggers, as many news websites as he feels like reading).
Though both newspapers and blogs often contain writing from many different authors, newspapers tend to be far more unified in style from one author to the next than blogs. For example, Andrew Sullivan’s blog offers many contributing blogger posts, but they tend to present information in variable and seemingly-improvised ways. Newspapers, on the other hand, usually make their presentation through short paragraphs—many only a sentence or two in length—and consistently provide a background city as the first word after the title to help set the scene.
Thursday, October 29, 2009
Jarvis vs. Sullivan
Because Jarvis refuses to take a standpoint on either side of the goodness or badness of the new news model debate, it is difficult to compare Sullivan’s overtly optimistic attitude with that of the press-sphere advocate. Regardless, it is clear that both writers are very conscious of the changing times for how the news comes to us as well as how we react to it.
Both writers give much credit to the all-powerful hyperlink for providing a quick means of connecting information to form a story with many contributing sources and without very easily-defined boundaries. Both highlight the phenomena of a link’s tendency to transform a reader into a collaborator with very little effort on the part of the reader, which, as Jarvis articulates, “changes the essential structure of a story.”
That Sullivan describes the blogging world as “a conversation, rather than a production,” is echoed in Jarvis’ simple diagram of the “me-sphere.” Unlike Jarvis’ model of traditional news-gathering, which consists of arrows pointing in only one direction, his new model consists of a person in the midst of many external sources of information, the many multi-directional, reciprocating arrows only being implied, for the sake of a clean, uncluttered diagram.
In another point of commonality between Sullivan and Jarvis, neither one allows himself to select one news outlet—the new, internet-dominated outlet or the old, paper-dominated outlet—as the superior, both authors instead accepting both outlets as serving separate and unique purposes in how we experience the news today.
Sullivan and Jarvis are on the same page with regard to the topic of the changing news, the greatest disparity being the one between Sullivan’s passion and Jarvis’ apparent impartiality.
Both writers give much credit to the all-powerful hyperlink for providing a quick means of connecting information to form a story with many contributing sources and without very easily-defined boundaries. Both highlight the phenomena of a link’s tendency to transform a reader into a collaborator with very little effort on the part of the reader, which, as Jarvis articulates, “changes the essential structure of a story.”
That Sullivan describes the blogging world as “a conversation, rather than a production,” is echoed in Jarvis’ simple diagram of the “me-sphere.” Unlike Jarvis’ model of traditional news-gathering, which consists of arrows pointing in only one direction, his new model consists of a person in the midst of many external sources of information, the many multi-directional, reciprocating arrows only being implied, for the sake of a clean, uncluttered diagram.
In another point of commonality between Sullivan and Jarvis, neither one allows himself to select one news outlet—the new, internet-dominated outlet or the old, paper-dominated outlet—as the superior, both authors instead accepting both outlets as serving separate and unique purposes in how we experience the news today.
Sullivan and Jarvis are on the same page with regard to the topic of the changing news, the greatest disparity being the one between Sullivan’s passion and Jarvis’ apparent impartiality.
Tuesday, October 27, 2009
The "Press-Sphere"
Jarvis defines the “Press Sphere” as the more accurate model for describing the relationship between the “press” and “us.” Unlike the familiar model of yesteryear, in which we are fed the news through the nearly-inescapable filter of the press, the Jarvis model—which may well have been illustrated by a toddler—places the individual amid a sea of alternative sources of news in addition to the press.
Foremost, what does he mean by the “press”? I feel that he cannot be limiting the definition of the word only to popular newspapers. Instead, he must be talking about conventional sources of news in general, including both print sources as well as major, televised, network news. What is the difference between a paper and a TV news broadcast, really?
Another question I have is whether Jarvis is trying to say that sections are “out of date” because they are more integrated than they used to be. If that is so, then why did they work for so long?
Though I have no trouble seeing where he is coming from in his will to explicate the changing relationship between the press and the individual, I feel he oversimplifies to an embarrassing extent. The press has never been the only filter for news. There have always been observers—if not publically commenting on blog pages, perhaps just injecting their own feelings into a word-of-mouth news account. There has always been a separation between the press and the government whereby the two can be considered distinct entities.
I feel he is right in his diagnosis that the “press stands in a different relationship to the world around it.” A concrete example of this fact is that we’re frequently getting news about the news outlets today, making them less of the unspoken, enigmatic beasts that, in their prime, could once practically control public sentiment. The perspective of the popular media is, now more than ever, met by many with a careful attention to intent.
In general, I think the implications of the “me-sphere” are not so far-reaching as Jarvis suspects. People have always been capable of exploring the details of a story before its beginning and past its end. The internet has just made the process a little easier.
Foremost, what does he mean by the “press”? I feel that he cannot be limiting the definition of the word only to popular newspapers. Instead, he must be talking about conventional sources of news in general, including both print sources as well as major, televised, network news. What is the difference between a paper and a TV news broadcast, really?
Another question I have is whether Jarvis is trying to say that sections are “out of date” because they are more integrated than they used to be. If that is so, then why did they work for so long?
Though I have no trouble seeing where he is coming from in his will to explicate the changing relationship between the press and the individual, I feel he oversimplifies to an embarrassing extent. The press has never been the only filter for news. There have always been observers—if not publically commenting on blog pages, perhaps just injecting their own feelings into a word-of-mouth news account. There has always been a separation between the press and the government whereby the two can be considered distinct entities.
I feel he is right in his diagnosis that the “press stands in a different relationship to the world around it.” A concrete example of this fact is that we’re frequently getting news about the news outlets today, making them less of the unspoken, enigmatic beasts that, in their prime, could once practically control public sentiment. The perspective of the popular media is, now more than ever, met by many with a careful attention to intent.
In general, I think the implications of the “me-sphere” are not so far-reaching as Jarvis suspects. People have always been capable of exploring the details of a story before its beginning and past its end. The internet has just made the process a little easier.
Thursday, October 22, 2009
Has The Times Changed My Style?
Thus far, my readings of the New York Times (which I access via the Times website) have been surprisingly pleasant. I never noticed how easily I enjoy reading the news until I had to read interesting news articles for an assignment and experienced how painless the process is.
The stories that capture my attention are invariably the ones that appear on the top of the main page. Because the structure of a newspaper normally maintains an order arranged by importance, the case is usually true that the big stories — and often the most entertaining and well-written — are the ones that require little searching.
Consequently, chances are good that I’ve completely overlooked stories that may be popularly seen as less relevant, but that I might happen to appreciate even more than the stories featured on the front page.
Reading the Times probably hasn’t affected my habits very much. I have already been reading Yahoo! articles for quite some time. For a person like myself who may not be quite as refined in the art of analyzing sources, the Times doesn’t seem so very different from Yahoo!.
However, having immediately read the Times before writing this blog post, I suspect that the short-paragraph format of that newspaper may have influenced the frequent paragraph breaks in this post, thereby influencing my writing habits on some small level, even if only temporarily.
The first article I read today was Part 5 in an ongoing story about a journalist captured by the Taliban and the narrative of his escape. Being a part of “Generation Y,” naturally I’ve heard about journalists being kidnapped in the Middle East on more than one occasion throughout the past two decades. But until today, I had yet to read a detailed, first-person account.
I could easily see how reading such articles could give people a better sense of what it might be like to experience what the authors experienced. Articles like what I read are effective because storytelling is, by nature, one of the most easily-retained ways of absorbing information. Through reading this particular article today and writing about what I’ve learned in doing so, I have come to better-understand the value of injecting feeling into the learning process.
The stories that capture my attention are invariably the ones that appear on the top of the main page. Because the structure of a newspaper normally maintains an order arranged by importance, the case is usually true that the big stories — and often the most entertaining and well-written — are the ones that require little searching.
Consequently, chances are good that I’ve completely overlooked stories that may be popularly seen as less relevant, but that I might happen to appreciate even more than the stories featured on the front page.
Reading the Times probably hasn’t affected my habits very much. I have already been reading Yahoo! articles for quite some time. For a person like myself who may not be quite as refined in the art of analyzing sources, the Times doesn’t seem so very different from Yahoo!.
However, having immediately read the Times before writing this blog post, I suspect that the short-paragraph format of that newspaper may have influenced the frequent paragraph breaks in this post, thereby influencing my writing habits on some small level, even if only temporarily.
The first article I read today was Part 5 in an ongoing story about a journalist captured by the Taliban and the narrative of his escape. Being a part of “Generation Y,” naturally I’ve heard about journalists being kidnapped in the Middle East on more than one occasion throughout the past two decades. But until today, I had yet to read a detailed, first-person account.
I could easily see how reading such articles could give people a better sense of what it might be like to experience what the authors experienced. Articles like what I read are effective because storytelling is, by nature, one of the most easily-retained ways of absorbing information. Through reading this particular article today and writing about what I’ve learned in doing so, I have come to better-understand the value of injecting feeling into the learning process.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
News Sources
Overall, my news sources are fairly similar to my classmates'. I rely heavily on the internet for my news-gathering needs, especially websites that happen to be integrated into non-news-centered sites that I frequent, namely Yahoo and Google. The internet partiality struck me foremost in reading the comments of my classmates.
Many of us claim never to read the newspapers anymore, and I would be in that boat if it weren’t for one particular section I love; I save the newspapers for reading Annie's Mailbox, an amusing slot on the Features section of the C-J in which emotionally distressed people complain about how conflicted they are by cheating on their husbands, after which the authors, two middle-aged women, retort with very predictable comments. Whether or not this could be considered news is questionable, but it could be worth a discussion. I learn from it, and it comes out periodically, but it is probably not “necessary” to read such an article in order to be a responsible, involved citizen.
Before delving into the topic of whether or not we are capable of being considered “civically literate”, I want to say that to deny anyone from our class of this title does not make much sense to me. Being capable of carrying on the pressing discussions we find ourselves discussing in class and in these blogs is enough for me to overlook the possibility that we aren’t civic literates.
From our behavior, as we have blogged about it, I believe that we are not in nearly as bad of shape as Hedges might make out our age-group to typically be in. If someone were to walk into class and drop a topic on us, we could almost certainly discuss it intelligently, cite historical connections, etc. There’s nothing illiterate about us or our activities.
Many of us claim never to read the newspapers anymore, and I would be in that boat if it weren’t for one particular section I love; I save the newspapers for reading Annie's Mailbox, an amusing slot on the Features section of the C-J in which emotionally distressed people complain about how conflicted they are by cheating on their husbands, after which the authors, two middle-aged women, retort with very predictable comments. Whether or not this could be considered news is questionable, but it could be worth a discussion. I learn from it, and it comes out periodically, but it is probably not “necessary” to read such an article in order to be a responsible, involved citizen.
Before delving into the topic of whether or not we are capable of being considered “civically literate”, I want to say that to deny anyone from our class of this title does not make much sense to me. Being capable of carrying on the pressing discussions we find ourselves discussing in class and in these blogs is enough for me to overlook the possibility that we aren’t civic literates.
From our behavior, as we have blogged about it, I believe that we are not in nearly as bad of shape as Hedges might make out our age-group to typically be in. If someone were to walk into class and drop a topic on us, we could almost certainly discuss it intelligently, cite historical connections, etc. There’s nothing illiterate about us or our activities.
Sunday, October 18, 2009
News Sources
I usually get my news from the embedded newsfeeds of my Yahoo Mail account. When checking my email, I tend to first read the attention-grabbing headlines that rotate in a cycle on the main page. These vary a great deal in their focus.
The second-most common source of my news comes from word-of-mouth. As a bagel shop employee, I occasionally make small-talk with the customers to pass the time, and they, in turn, gather their information from sources including (but not limited to) the internet, provided via a wireless internet hotspot, as well as newspapers, all of which are available for free public use at the bagel shop. The newspapers we carry include the Leo, Velocity, The Courier-Journal, and The New York Times; wireless access points, on the other hang, unlock limitless possibilities for web searches. Finally, a bulletin board allows for local events to be easily displayed, yet another form of information transfer. The bagel shop is, therefore, a bustling hub of the news, both around town and in the world at large.
I generally do not seek out the newspaper as a form of news-gathering, while the internet is one that is very convenient given my daily routine. School requires frequent use of the internet. Consequently, I find myself searching the web more frequently than I did in high school.
In my place of residence, I ordinarily stray away from television as a form of entertainment. Instead, I watch it with friends, and while we do not watch the news all that often, we do watch amusing shows that sometimes mention world events; this could be considered a form of news-gathering. For instance, a comedian discussing the recent spike in tobacco product prices could be the first source to inform me of the new legislation.
That is part of the magic of the internet. You can learn about what is going on in the world without even setting out to search for it. Even the Google homepage could be considered a very basic source of news, as significant days in history are sometimes honored with specially-themed Google logos.
The second-most common source of my news comes from word-of-mouth. As a bagel shop employee, I occasionally make small-talk with the customers to pass the time, and they, in turn, gather their information from sources including (but not limited to) the internet, provided via a wireless internet hotspot, as well as newspapers, all of which are available for free public use at the bagel shop. The newspapers we carry include the Leo, Velocity, The Courier-Journal, and The New York Times; wireless access points, on the other hang, unlock limitless possibilities for web searches. Finally, a bulletin board allows for local events to be easily displayed, yet another form of information transfer. The bagel shop is, therefore, a bustling hub of the news, both around town and in the world at large.
I generally do not seek out the newspaper as a form of news-gathering, while the internet is one that is very convenient given my daily routine. School requires frequent use of the internet. Consequently, I find myself searching the web more frequently than I did in high school.
In my place of residence, I ordinarily stray away from television as a form of entertainment. Instead, I watch it with friends, and while we do not watch the news all that often, we do watch amusing shows that sometimes mention world events; this could be considered a form of news-gathering. For instance, a comedian discussing the recent spike in tobacco product prices could be the first source to inform me of the new legislation.
That is part of the magic of the internet. You can learn about what is going on in the world without even setting out to search for it. Even the Google homepage could be considered a very basic source of news, as significant days in history are sometimes honored with specially-themed Google logos.
Saturday, October 10, 2009
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Sunday, September 27, 2009
Blogging - How I Felt Then; How I Feel Now
In contemplating my experiences with blogging thus far, the greatest personal challenge I’ve encountered has been adapting to the necessity of having to rely on the internet for completing my homework assignments. I’m not quite used to having assignments due on the internet yet, so remembering to get online and contribute posts the morning before the class in which we’ll discuss the posts does not come naturally. I’ve developed a habit for doing easy assignments in the wee hours of the morning before class, but due to the peer-response-oriented nature of our blogging activities, this does not leave ample time for the peer response part.
I’ve been surprised how easily writing online has come to me. Once I start, the easy-going, participation-centered setup of our class posting activities is very stress-free and open. I can talk as though I were rambling to a friend.
At the beginning of this semester, my opinion toward personal-reflection blogging was limited to narcissistic rants about how depressing life is and how nobody understands, reminiscent of some “livejournal” pages. In reading the responses of my peers and through the process of writing my own responses, I better realize how blogging can aid in the selfless and noble expression of ideas by providing another means of communicating thought. Everyone has his or her own preferences toward the various means of expression; some express themselves through paintings, and others through published essays. But for an ever-growing portion of the world population, the accessible and simplistic medium of blogging has become their preference.
I’ve been surprised how easily writing online has come to me. Once I start, the easy-going, participation-centered setup of our class posting activities is very stress-free and open. I can talk as though I were rambling to a friend.
At the beginning of this semester, my opinion toward personal-reflection blogging was limited to narcissistic rants about how depressing life is and how nobody understands, reminiscent of some “livejournal” pages. In reading the responses of my peers and through the process of writing my own responses, I better realize how blogging can aid in the selfless and noble expression of ideas by providing another means of communicating thought. Everyone has his or her own preferences toward the various means of expression; some express themselves through paintings, and others through published essays. But for an ever-growing portion of the world population, the accessible and simplistic medium of blogging has become their preference.
A Link! - "A Tale of Two Tasks"
A Tale of Two Tasks: Editing in the Era of Digital Literacies
This article, written by a teacher, questions the legitimacy of quickly dismissing Wikipedia as a legitimate source and justifying the stance by saying, "But ANYONE can edit it!" Is that quality not what makes it so powerful?
This article, written by a teacher, questions the legitimacy of quickly dismissing Wikipedia as a legitimate source and justifying the stance by saying, "But ANYONE can edit it!" Is that quality not what makes it so powerful?
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Hedges vs. Thompson
Hedges likes to get us riled up. In our next installment of his beliefs, he reinforces some aforementioned concepts such as life in a “post-literate world,” one where knowledge spreads through images rather than printed writing, while also presenting more statistics to make us cringe, the validity of which is rather questionable. “Nearly all reporting—I would guess at least 80 percent—is done by newspapers and the wire services. Take that away and we have a huge black hole” (Hedges, Bad Days for Newsrooms). As a man who publishes his work with the motivation of degrading non-print media, he is far too biased to make a fair statistic I can accept, regardless of how insignificant his claims are, because Hedges has gone a little too far in his unfaltering ideology, and I am hesitant to accept much of what he says because it’s so sensationalized. If print journalists must rely on tactics like his to sell periodicals, perhaps the death of the newspaper will benefit American society by weeding out the crazies who work only to make themselves sound prophetic and aware of societal disasters before they strike.
Clive Thompson holds opposing views, ones which are admittedly along the same lines as my beliefs. His article is optimistic and refreshing, using actual professionally-examined analyses of the writings of kids these days. The technological revolution, he claims, is resulting in an effect akin to a writing renaissance. Students who spend hours a day on Facebook aren’t just wasting time; they are learning to better understand the notion of adapting ones writing to the target audience, an enormously helpful skill essential to provocative writing.
Clive Thompson holds opposing views, ones which are admittedly along the same lines as my beliefs. His article is optimistic and refreshing, using actual professionally-examined analyses of the writings of kids these days. The technological revolution, he claims, is resulting in an effect akin to a writing renaissance. Students who spend hours a day on Facebook aren’t just wasting time; they are learning to better understand the notion of adapting ones writing to the target audience, an enormously helpful skill essential to provocative writing.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Hedges is kind of an asshole.
Hedges’s opinion of the American public is best defined as cynical. He lacks faith in the decision-making abilities of the majority of the nation’s population, and he simplifies our image into something that unfairly represents us as a whole. In his eyes, we are big, mindless children.
People aren’t without their own unique experiences to shape their feelings, completely independent of political rhetoric. A single mother doesn’t need literacy to convince her that one politician is more sensitive toward her specific situation than another, and will therefore be a better candidate in her opinion.
Maybe if everyone were brought up as motivated to learn as Hedges, the problem would not be as broad-spanning. But people are largely a product of their environment, and if the tools aren’t there to use and the people aren’t there to encourage them to be politically-active citizens, it isn’t their fault, and it should be looked at with more sympathy than derision.
The definition for literacy supplied in this article loosely requires a person to be grounded in a text-based world of news, not merely capable of reading. In his opinion, one can be literate but still rely on the image-based world of FOX News and campaign slogans to make their decisions for them.
Hedges quotes a statistic describing the percentage of American families who did not buy a book last year. Although impressive, what the statistic fails to consider is the amount of those individuals who perhaps appreciate the joy of reading but not to the degree of being willing to buy a book, instead opting for library books or a subscription to a favorite magazine. Maybe it is true that few read the sort of sophisticated documents that are as intellectually stimulating as he would prefer, but this does not make them illiterate.
People aren’t without their own unique experiences to shape their feelings, completely independent of political rhetoric. A single mother doesn’t need literacy to convince her that one politician is more sensitive toward her specific situation than another, and will therefore be a better candidate in her opinion.
Maybe if everyone were brought up as motivated to learn as Hedges, the problem would not be as broad-spanning. But people are largely a product of their environment, and if the tools aren’t there to use and the people aren’t there to encourage them to be politically-active citizens, it isn’t their fault, and it should be looked at with more sympathy than derision.
The definition for literacy supplied in this article loosely requires a person to be grounded in a text-based world of news, not merely capable of reading. In his opinion, one can be literate but still rely on the image-based world of FOX News and campaign slogans to make their decisions for them.
Hedges quotes a statistic describing the percentage of American families who did not buy a book last year. Although impressive, what the statistic fails to consider is the amount of those individuals who perhaps appreciate the joy of reading but not to the degree of being willing to buy a book, instead opting for library books or a subscription to a favorite magazine. Maybe it is true that few read the sort of sophisticated documents that are as intellectually stimulating as he would prefer, but this does not make them illiterate.
Thursday, September 10, 2009
Internet Habits of My Peers
Many of my classmates accessed social networking websites, such as Facebook and Myspace, as I did. Our reading habits are difficult to generalize, as the websites visited by my peers ranged across the spectrum. However, I found that, as in our class discussion, these websites could be narrowed down to a few broad categories, including sports/entertainment (including music), product research, general information research, email/messaging, and miscellaneous interests.
In addition, my classmates were online for less time than I had originally predicted. Perhaps this is the result of just having entered college, as the case has been for me. I find myself constantly trying just to get organized in the real world, leaving me less time for the internet than I had in my more carefree days of high school. Then, I might have spent four hours a day playing a first-person shooter online. Now, I use the computer mostly for instant messaging my friends, for keeping up with loved ones who have left town, and for the occasional flash video.
I found that a lot of people use Louisville.edu, which makes sense. It’s pretty much a requirement for academic success at our university. In that light, I would say school is affecting kids’ internet habits in many ways, as teachers update blackboard on a nearly-nightly basis. How convenient organizing life is becoming!
Though it may seem like a no-brainer, Facebook makes it so that most of my classmates do their online writing to the specific audience of their already-established friends and acquaintances rather than general interest articles or blogs that just anyone might stumble upon online. This means their writing medium is more akin to letters than to newspapers or magazines. I guess that was not profound, though.
In addition, my classmates were online for less time than I had originally predicted. Perhaps this is the result of just having entered college, as the case has been for me. I find myself constantly trying just to get organized in the real world, leaving me less time for the internet than I had in my more carefree days of high school. Then, I might have spent four hours a day playing a first-person shooter online. Now, I use the computer mostly for instant messaging my friends, for keeping up with loved ones who have left town, and for the occasional flash video.
I found that a lot of people use Louisville.edu, which makes sense. It’s pretty much a requirement for academic success at our university. In that light, I would say school is affecting kids’ internet habits in many ways, as teachers update blackboard on a nearly-nightly basis. How convenient organizing life is becoming!
Though it may seem like a no-brainer, Facebook makes it so that most of my classmates do their online writing to the specific audience of their already-established friends and acquaintances rather than general interest articles or blogs that just anyone might stumble upon online. This means their writing medium is more akin to letters than to newspapers or magazines. I guess that was not profound, though.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
Friday, September 4, 2009
Andrew Sullivan
Sullivan rattles off a list of qualities essential to blogs, most of which have some sort of associated disadvantage that can only be overlooked with good faith. For instance, he recommends "embracing hazards" such as spontaneous posting, an act that often results in emotionally-charged but rationally-hollow writing. Perhaps the reason why Andrew Sullivan blogs is the very reason others do not.
Acknowledging the lack of finish characteristic of a blog post, he advocates his preferred medium by championing the “risk of error” closely associated with the one-step process. To him, making mistakes in front of the whole world is not so bad because it is built into the medium—presumed to be the case. For others, making mistakes is not something so easily dismissed. His relaxation at the thought of being called out shows the resilience of a many-times-burned writer.
All in all, blogging’s disadvantages, which Sullivan may find endearing, are only overlookable when considering the sheer power and relative ease that goes along with instant, online publication. For many, the pros (such as the potential for broad audiences) may not outweigh the cons.
I guess spending years writing for a traditional, paper periodical and having to go through the arduous publication process is enough to give anyone a taste for the simple things, and blogging is most certainly a simple thing. It can be with little effort by anyone with internet access, almost as easily as checking email. But if this simple method of getting ones word out is held highly even by a professional writer as a favorite form of communication, I think it deserves our attention.
Acknowledging the lack of finish characteristic of a blog post, he advocates his preferred medium by championing the “risk of error” closely associated with the one-step process. To him, making mistakes in front of the whole world is not so bad because it is built into the medium—presumed to be the case. For others, making mistakes is not something so easily dismissed. His relaxation at the thought of being called out shows the resilience of a many-times-burned writer.
All in all, blogging’s disadvantages, which Sullivan may find endearing, are only overlookable when considering the sheer power and relative ease that goes along with instant, online publication. For many, the pros (such as the potential for broad audiences) may not outweigh the cons.
I guess spending years writing for a traditional, paper periodical and having to go through the arduous publication process is enough to give anyone a taste for the simple things, and blogging is most certainly a simple thing. It can be with little effort by anyone with internet access, almost as easily as checking email. But if this simple method of getting ones word out is held highly even by a professional writer as a favorite form of communication, I think it deserves our attention.
Monday, August 31, 2009
How Making A Blog Really Makes Me Feel
Creating blogs is easy! So easy, in fact, I contend that almost anyone could do it with very little practice. Indeed, the thought occurs to me that there must be millions of blogs floating around the internet, most of which are only read by their own authors. This thought is depressing.
I guess most people have less room to listen than they have room to talk about themselves. I wonder if anyone peruses blogspot for hours a day, enthusiastically roaming through all the random and uninteresting posts that almost certainly hold no significance to the rest of the world.
At the same time, maybe blogging provides a real service even for the authors of the those most boring stories ever. Regardless of how often others look at their blogs, perhaps just the fact that their innermost thoughts are out there for the world to see (if the world wanted to, which it doesn't) is exciting enough to get them through the sorriest days of their monotonous lives. After all, I figure, the top fifty most popular blogs in the universe probably account for the majority of blog views, leaving the other billion gajillion with practically no patrons to speak of.
But other than that sad thought, which was a funny joke for your entertainment, I enjoyed the blogging adventure, which took all of about four minutes to complete. Typing up a post is hardly different from writing a paper except that I'm motivated to make it fun for the amusement of my peers. Making this page was self-explanatory; I just logged in with my Gmail account (because the internet is so nice and accommodating these days) and said what was on my mind! How satisfying blogs are!
I guess most people have less room to listen than they have room to talk about themselves. I wonder if anyone peruses blogspot for hours a day, enthusiastically roaming through all the random and uninteresting posts that almost certainly hold no significance to the rest of the world.
At the same time, maybe blogging provides a real service even for the authors of the those most boring stories ever. Regardless of how often others look at their blogs, perhaps just the fact that their innermost thoughts are out there for the world to see (if the world wanted to, which it doesn't) is exciting enough to get them through the sorriest days of their monotonous lives. After all, I figure, the top fifty most popular blogs in the universe probably account for the majority of blog views, leaving the other billion gajillion with practically no patrons to speak of.
But other than that sad thought, which was a funny joke for your entertainment, I enjoyed the blogging adventure, which took all of about four minutes to complete. Typing up a post is hardly different from writing a paper except that I'm motivated to make it fun for the amusement of my peers. Making this page was self-explanatory; I just logged in with my Gmail account (because the internet is so nice and accommodating these days) and said what was on my mind! How satisfying blogs are!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
