final reflection

I found this course to be extremely beneficial. Looking at the news has changed many of my perspectives in a positive way. These changes of my perspective have allowed me to be more open-minded and confident in my viewpoints. This class also allowed me to get in touch with my own writing. I was able to put my voice in which made the creative process go a lot smoother. I will definitely be able to apply my knowledge of the news towards future essays, conversations, and situations I may be involved in. I've gotten into the habit of checking various news sites at least once a day and that's a lot better than refreshing Facebook compulsively.

short essay 2

People have been hearing the clichéd expression “a picture is worth a thousand words” for years; however, in regards to news articles in the media circulation this is a valid point. A picture can make or break a story depending on how the audience perceives that image. The picture is meant to evoke emotions from the reader and create a harmonious relationship between the texts. The author of a certain article must choose a picture that they believe will not only attract attention to the piece, but also create a visual representation for their words.

            While browsing the Huffington Post I came across an article titled “Eric Filipe Gaskin, Kitten ‘Mauler-Declawer’, Sentenced For Animal Cruelty”.  The caption to the picture remarked “Horror: Man Sentenced For Shocking Kitten Abuse” and underneath was a picture of two small kittens playing in a flower field. The immediate reaction to such an image would be one of disgust towards the perpetrator. The reader would find himself or herself overcome with sadness for the abused kittens and click on the link to fuel their curiosity of how a human being could perform such an act. These photogenic kittens do not represent the ones that Gaskin had abused, but rather the idea of animal abuse in general.

            The article is likely to get a lot of attention throughout the web because of the picture associated with it. Pictures of baby animals often cause people to stop what they’re doing and examine the creature’s features. In this case, one may be astonished to learn that such an innocent and picturesque animal could possibly be “mauled”, as the caption suggests. This type of article and picture duo is, as morbid as it sounds, perfect for sharing with other’s on the Internet and will ensure quite a bit of traffic because of the shocking topic. Upon further inspection of the story, the reader will discover that the kittens in the photo have nothing to do with the kittens in the article other than the fact that they’re both from the same species. Gaskin, the kitten mauler, was sentenced because of the imminent death that pursued his declawing of his daughter’s kittens. The article did not take into account whether or not Gaskin was financially able to get the kittens declawed properly at a vet’s or if the act was done out of malice. The reader goes straight to assuming that this man is a criminal and prison is the justice he deserves. Like most articles, the reader is only subjected to one side. We only know what the author wants us to; in this case we are lead to believe that a man has brutally murdered the picturesque idea of kittens.

            I believe that the image beckons a wave of sympathy towards the kittens and anger towards the man who hurt them, whether or not it was intentional. This combination of text and image is a sure fire way for the author to get attention. The fact that a picturesque image was used rather than a realistic portrayal of the kittens that were harmed is slightly concerning. If these kittens were relatively unattractive would the story still get the same amount of attention? Sometimes a picture is worth so much more than the contents it represents.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/02/22/eric-felipe-gaskin_n_2745794.html?utm_hp_ref=crime&ir=Crime#slide=1526335

The article written by Morris deals with the meaning behind a photograph. Morris states "A captionless photograph, stripped of all context, is virtually meaningless. I need to know more." However, I disagree with this. A captionless photograph may not be meaningless to everyone. People often connect their own thoughts and ideas to the unknown. They derive from the familiar and give it a symbol. When I look at old photographs I tend to create a story behind them. I think that a captionless photo has a meaning to each individual...even if that meaning is simply "nothing". Who knows...maybe i'm thinking too much into it. However, I do understand what he's getting at.
True, once we have context the story behind the photograph changes. During our last class we discussed Pistorius and  how he murdered his girlfriend. He had an ad that said "I am the bullet in the chamber" followed by the Nike "Just do it" logo. Without context this would seem like a normal ad. However, when looking at it after knowing he had committed murder you start to surround yourself with questions. Is he notoriously violent? Did he murder his girlfriend with a gun? How will this change the future of advertisements? 
We often give meaning to the unknown and this is called symbolic interactionism. We give meaning to ordinary things, like photographs. Even though this may be the case, I do agree with Morris that we are unable to gather the true meaning of a picture until we know the entirety of the story behind it.


https://www.google.com/search?q=pistorius+nike+ad&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi&ei=aVkkUcrZPMjLqAHS-4HwCQ&biw=1125&bih=559&sei=a1kkUbWnEY79qAHe3YGQAQ#imgrc=yBHr3YjPVZv_mM%3A%3BDH9mZ-digHoMAM%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fi2.cdn.turner.com%252Fcnn%252Fdam%252Fassets%252F130214105230-pistorius-nike-ad-horizontal-gallery.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fwww.cnn.com%252F2013%252F02%252F14%252Fbusiness%252Fpistorius-nike%252F%3B640%3B360

taking an approach.

According to Harris, taking an approach is not the same idea as picking a side, like with forwarding and countering. Taking an approach is much more stylistic and reflexive. In fact, "you rewrite not passages or ideas from a text but an author writer's mode or style of working" (Harris 95). Harris talks about the three distinctive ways in which one can take an approach on a piece of writing. First, you must acknowledge the influence; look in your own work to see how a certain author has influenced it. Second, you turn an approach on itself by asking the same questions to the author. Third is reflexivity. Reflexivity is about looking back on your text and noting the methods taken in forming it.
Taking an approach can be seen throughout many New York Times articles where the author may question or speculate into a situation. Often times their curiosity or political beliefs transcend into the writing and forms the language they use to create a text. For example, Jonathan Weisman wrote an article called "Texas Senator Goes on Attack and Raises Bipartisan Hackles" . In the article, Weisman takes an approach by painting Cruz in an unfriendly manner. His language suggests that he disagrees strongly with Cruz's political viewpoints, which can be seen by the phrase in the title "raises bipartisan hackles". This leads the reader to be set up for a man who is so bad that even his own party doesn't want anything to do with him.
I believe that taking an approach can be difficult in the reflective manner. We are surrounded by so many forms of writing it's hard to be definitively influenced by one in particular. 

VAWA

            I have chosen to write about The Violence Against Women reauthorization bill to a female-identifying audience. Ideally, this audience would be a blogging community so that they may interact with my statements and remarks. I got the article from the Huffington Post. Jennifer Bendery wrote the piece, titled VAWA: Senate Overwhelmingly Passes Violence Against Women Act. I wanted to recreate the article in a way that young women would be able to understand and feel a sense of empowerment from it.

Hello, my female and female-identifying friends. We no longer need to be afraid of reporting abuse. We do not need to ask ourselves “who will help us?” if something, God forbid, may occur. Finally, I am pleased to inform you all that Washington has recently passed and approved the Violence Against Women reauthorization bill, as well as acknowledging some key amendments that were not accepted last year.

This bill was originally created in 1994 and has helped various programs stay afloat to provide help towards those who have been abused. The reauthorization bill was not passed grudgingly or reluctantly, but with an overwhelming vote of 78 to 22. A handful of republicans who had recently opposed the bill and voted against it put pen to paper and supported us this year. Our voices are finally being heard.  I’m happy to report that the decision to pass this act was achieved by both democrats and republicans; in other words it was a bipartisanship effort. This is a huge step for congress, and shines a hopeful light for victims of abuse. $659 million will be authorized to various Violence Against Women Act programs over the next 5 years.

For the first time, protection will be granted to LGBT and Native American victims. People, with the same rights as you and I, are finally being included and noticed under the eyes of the law. There will be a shift in focus on sexual assault prevention. I am not sure on what types of preventative measures they are planning to enforce, however I hope they stray away from victim blaming. We should not have to worry about the way we dress or act, am I right, ladies? Assault is assault no matter how revealing our clothing may be.

There is also a section of the bill that that pertains to targeting human trafficking and offering grants to children who are victims of trafficking. Of course, congress is far from perfect. Undocumented victims will still be denied protection, even if the perpetrator of their abuse was a citizen of the United States. Senator Leahy states, "If you're the victim, you don't want to think that a lot of us who have never faced this kind of problem, sat here in this body and said, 'Well, we have to differentiate which victims America will protect.'" Even though protection towards undocumented victims will not be appearing in the bill, Leahy is determined to get it through legislation and we should be behind them 100%. Victims deserve protection, no matter what their citizenship status may be. Our fight is not over yet, but we are making progress. Women are slowly but surely being acknowledged by our government, and we should not rest until we are all given the same rights and protections under the law. 

Forwarding isn't always rewarding

Forwarding is basically like creating a new conversation about some old news. A writer will take an idea, or work from another author, and use that content to create a new idea for their readers. They are forwarding a message to a different audience. It takes a public approach towards a personal opinion. Instead of voicing your opinion to the original source, you're shouting it to multiple people who may express a similar or opposite viewpoint; this gives them a chance to forward their thoughts as well.

I went to the Huffington post and browsed the entertainment book section because I figured that would be the best place to find an example of forwarding. Sure enough I found an article that took the words of Shakespeare and transformed them into a new thought for a specific audience.

Amy Helmes made a post titled "Can Shakespeare Help You Score This Valentine's Day?" to give her readers some (really lame and in some cases illegal) advice. One of her points "Ah, young love. Juliet Capulet was a mere 13 years old when she did her "amorous rites" with Romeo, who, presumably, wasn't too much older than she." is very concerning and definitely frowned upon by modern society. This just goes to show what kind of uproar forwarding can cause! It does not always work in your advantage. She could have easily written about the cliché "forbidden love because of their families" but nope. She had to go for the underage aspect. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/amy-helmes/can-shakespeare-help-you-_b_2639538.html?utm_hp_ref=books

Who needs the press?

In modern society, we rely more on the middleman rather than the press itself to gather news information. We can’t be bothered to check reliable news sites every 30 minutes to find out what is happening in the world. Instead, we go on Facebook, check our twitter feed, and watch the simpsons. We don’t really know what is going on until an individual posts a status, a tweet, or our television program is interrupted with a breaking news story. We live in a world where we are spoon fed everything. Our phones get push notifications, which is a perfect representation of how news is pushed towards us. We only need the press to make the story. We don’t need them to give it to us. I agree with Jeff Jarvis overall. I saw how this played out with the whole Kony 2012 situation. Everyone on my Facebook feed was posting “Stop Kony!” and sharing images of the children forced into being soldiers. How many of these people actually saw such a thing on the news? None of them. How many heard a celebrity or friend talk about it? All of them. I’m not going to get into the gritty details of Kony 2012 because it holds some controversy. I just wanted to share it as an example of how the press isn’t as important as it used to be for a way to get news information. We use the middleman, people, social media, and word of mouth, to find our news stories. 

Keeping up with the Times

While reading through the New York Times, I have come to realize how little I actually know about the world. I can barely locate places on a map. It’s sad, really.  I could blame it on my lack of schooling from 1^st through 6^th grade but it probably has more to do with the fact that I was generally uninterested in other places. Of course, all that changed once I started traveling and reading the news. Ever since I’ve been keeping up with the New York Times I feel like not a lot has changed but I can bring up little tidbits of information to make myself appear smarter. I like to call up my father, who is very informed and literally a genius, and tell him about what I read in the news. I’ve been keeping up with gun laws because it is a topic that interests me. I’m from Texas, so obviously I’m very particular about my guns. We keep one in every room, every car, nook, and cranny. I like to go out with my pops and shoot the gun in the country. It’s like a Texan staple. However, I do consider myself a liberal and I know a popular liberal agenda is gun control laws. So lately I’ve been doing a lot of soul searching to try and decide whether or not I am willing to part with my guns. I have decided that the soul searching must continue. I don’t give a hoot about semi-automatic rifles. I don’t think people need those. But taking away a Texan’s shotgun is like taking away a part of yourself.

the news

I noticed that most people recieved their news from online sources. Most admitted to relying on social media websites such as Facebook, Twitter, and some blogging websites. A few did check legitimate news sites such as Huffington Post and The New York Times. Barely anyone got their news from tangible newspaper articles. It just goes to show how drastically the times are changing. Why bother with flipping through pages of a newspaper when you can get push notifications sent to your phone? You can even type in a simple google search and have the top story right in front of your eyes in a matter of seconds.

Bad news tends to be way more appealing to audiences than good news. Often times it's the gruesome and heart wrenching stories that break the barrier between news sites and social media. Facebook, Twitter, and other social media sites often get people to look up news articles to find out what’s being discussed. Arguments arise from opinionated statuses and individuals are urged to research so they can put their two cents in so they don't look like a total (well, i'll let you fill in the blank).

WHAT WOULD THEY THINK:

·      Hedges would probably shake his head disapprovingly at me. He would feel that word of mouth or news from social media sites do not count on keeping one informed and he’s probably right. However, if you do look it up and form an opinion of your own I think it would be totally okay.

·      Sullivan would get most of his information through blogging. Many bloggers release different tidbits of a news story that covers the general idea. He would definitely search the web to gather ideas of his own to distribute as news.

·      Carr would be right next to me opening up tabs of Yahoo news

bad news is good news?

Real talk...I usually hear about breaking news from people chatting to each other or asking me if I "heard about what happened" in a heartbreaking tone. It seems like lately the news has been covered in awful stories. Or at least that's all i've been hearing about. Granted, these gut wrenching news stories are important and extremely relevant to young adults. It's often the gruesome tales that help us develop our viewpoints and question what type of government we wish to live under. Whenever I check a news site, such as yahoo (i know, i know...more of a celebrity site) or the new york times, it seems as though the biggest stories are about scandals, murder, and other horrible acts of man. Truth be told we strive off bad news. Without those articles hardly anybody would care. I think it's important for us to remember that good things are happening in the world too!

I try to look at a healthy balance of the good news and bad news. Most of the time I check online. I hardly ever look at a newspaper. The idea itself is nice but I can never remember to pick one up. I suppose I just like the convenience of being able to have all the information I need accesible on my laptop!

Another place I often get news is from a blogging site i'm on. Usually people will reblog stories or make a post about an event going on. After reading what they have to say i'll do a quick search if the topic interests me and read up on it. So I guess what i'm trying to say is I get all of my news from other people talking or online. 

Literacy Within An Adapting Society

Literacy Within An Adapting Society

            Do you really believe that we are becoming illerate? Or are we just developing different methods and styles to maintain the status of literacy we’ve acquired while allowing it to adapt to modern society? Throughout the readings I’ve come to the conclusion that literacy cannot be easily defined. It holds a different value to every individual. How many hours a week do you spend sifting through your Facebook newsfeed, reading over multiple comments left on a picture of your ex? You may not be consuming the words of an award-winning novel but you’re still reading. We live in an age that feeds off of negativity. Our brains, with a little help from the media, have been wired to believe that bad news is good news.  The tiniest hint that technology is destroying the minds of society would surely have a snowball effect. I’d be willing to bet that you became so enthralled with such a story that you missed the obvious; humans have been adapting their standards and methods of literacy since the very beginning. Why would such a detrimental human instinct change now? New technologies have benefited society in such a way that allows us to be adaptable in both reading and writing settings. As the “longitudinal study of writing at Standford” showed, we are fully capable of transitioning from informal to formal (Lunsford).  Let our generation check Facebook and Blog; we may be more literate than you suspect and I’m going to prove it to you.

            I’ve watched you hunched over the computer, devouring Hedge’s words from his ridiculous article. It’s a little ironic that you’re falling into his stereotype of an illiterate American by reading his words online. Simply because you are not holding a tangible, print-based book in your hands you would fall into Hedge’s category of “the other America, which constitutes the majority, exists in a non-reality-based belief system. This America, dependent on skillfully manipulated images for information, has severed itself from the literate, print-based culture” (Hedges). Hedge’s entitlement has completely blinded his faith for America. Since our generation is surrounded by technology I suppose he would categorize our class as illiterate. Now, I don’t know about you, but I see a group of talented writers who just so happen to blog. He sees the majority of us as mindless robots that “cannot differentiate between lies and truth” and are “thrown into confusion by ambiguity, nuance and self-reflection” (Hedges). If you’re going to sit there and agree with this type of argument, you may as well delete your twitter account and start purchasing the entire works of Ernest Hemmingway, whose writing “style is simple, direct and somewhat plain” and was often riddled with grammatical errors (Cooper). Hedge’s connections with literacy and political campaigns are rather insulting to the entirety of America. You would think because of how well read and scholarly he is that he’d understand that humans have not necessarily changed, we’ve only adapted to our environment. He would also know that those who do fall under the widely accepted definition of illiterate often couldn’t help it.  Shribner asks, “Does the prevailing distribution of literacy conform to standards of social justice and human progress?” (Shribner). I would argue yes. Condemning individuals as illiterate is in fact oppressive. Schools within America are incredibly disproportioned due to tax dollars and the social status of certain areas. The small percentages of American’s that are actually illiterate are often unable to fix their situation because they do not have the means or legality to do so. If you’re going to side with Hedge’s and toss around such an oppressive word as a blanket term to describe people who interact with social media than I suggest you do some research on how different your life may have been if you were born in East St. Louis, New York.

Hedge’s need to mark this technological age as something new and frightening just goes to show how stubborn he truly is. He states, “Political leaders in our post-literate society no longer need to be competent, sincere or honest. They only need to appear to have these qualities” (Hedges). I’m sorry, I was under the impression that politician’s have always been like this. American’s wouldn’t have had so many mudslingers back in the 1800s if our politicians had been so saint-like. Granted, there will be groups of people who are gullible and easily influenced by these individuals of power but this is nothing new. Do you honestly believe that we all became sheep because of the iPad release? The possibility that we are changing the way we read and analyze a text is far more likely and agreeable than Hedge’s extremity of illiteracy.

Nicholas Carr writes about his personal experience from technology. He reflects, “My concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do” (Carr). Carr’s own narrative proves my point that our brains are constantly adapting to our environment. Can’t you see that we’re not becoming wordless savages? We haven’t lost the ability to comprehend a text we’re just changing how we access it. Technology is not some inherent evil; it’s a useful tool that has allowed us to preform tasks as ease. Just as the cavemen discovered fire, technology has allowed for “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes. A few Google searches, some quick clicks on hyperlinks” and you’re done (Carr). Think about our class; we use technology for it almost every day through the forms of blogging, looking up news stories, and reading articles. I doubt all of that time online is causing our brain to dumb itself down. Sure, we might open up a tab to check what the score for the game is…but why shouldn’t we? If the option to do so is there and we can still be ensured a solid grade I see no problem in the matter. Andrew Sullivan considers blogging to be a legitimate form of writing and expressing ideas. He argues, “writing in this new form is a collective enterprise as much as it is an individual one—and the connections between bloggers are as important as the content on the blogs. The links not only drive conversation, they drive readers” (Sullivan). I completely agree with Sullivan. Our weekly blog posts have not only fueled us to write and interact with a piece of text, but they have also allowed us to read what others have to say and gather information from their perspectives. Do you still consider us illiterate just because we’ve adapted to this new and conventional world of technology? Why I Blog also discusses the marriage between reading from the Internet and tangible text. Blogging “has exposed a hunger and need for traditional writing” (Sullivan). So if you still don’t believe me, feel free to meet up with Hedge’s at Starbucks and cry about the illiterate America over a copy of “Fahrenheit 451”.

The effects of technology have not caused society as a whole to struggle through a text, the effects have actually given us the ability to stylize, add tone, and bring our writing to life.  In the study that Lunsford and her colleagues conducted, they found that the students “were increasingly aware of those to whom they were writing and adjusted their writing styles to suit the occasion and the audience” (Lunsford). Such ability has risen thanks to our interaction with technology. We live in a world where we approach people and situations differently depending on their relationship to one another and the same rule applies to writing. In fact, “young people are for the most part aware of the context and audience for their writing- and they make the adjustments necessary to address them effectively” (Lunsford). Would you go up to your professor and hand them a beer in front of the entire class? Of course not, that would be an example of breaching formal with informal. We have the wherewithal to distinguish when it is appropriate to use a smiley face in a text and when we have to break out the semicolon.  Not only have we developed the ability to adapt to our writing audiences, but we have also developed a sense of tone in all writing pieces. Blogging “will inevitably be formed by the blogger’s personality. The blogosphere may, in fact, be the least veiled of any forum in which a writer dares to express himself” (Sullivan). I truly believe that we, as a society, have adapted to this technology and used it to our advantage. So you think we’re easily distracted? Maybe we are. However, to call a majority of American’s illiterate is offensive to people of all reading levels. As I’ve stated on my blog, As long as formal writing is taught in school and the education system reforms itself to provide sufficient means to ensure literacy I don't think we have a problem. We have the ability to switch our writing from formal to informal. As a whole, society is fully capable of grasping writing requirements for their audience. Google isn't making us stupid. Social media isn't ruining our writing. Text messaging won't make us fail our written final exam. We aren't calling our professors "bro" and inviting them to a sick party. We are a literate America simply transforming the way we write.