The skill that I think I will apply outside of this course will be how to look at a news story with an open mind and try and understand where the story can from and who it changed to become the story that it is now.
Wednesday, March 7, 2012
Reflection
The most interesting part of the course? An interesting question. I think that my answer will be either the blogging aspect of the course or the keeping up with current events. I have never really blogged before and it was a good experience. It created an good environment where I could view others' thought sand opinions almost instantaneously. I also thought that it was really good to keep up with current events. I have always been interested in the news and keeping up with it but this class forced me to listen and try and understand how others' view the same source.
Monday, March 5, 2012
Essay 2
The Multiple Lives of a News Story
The Super Bowl is one of America’s great pastimes. Family and friends gather to eat, drink and watch 300-pound men hit each other at full force. This year’s Super Bowl attracted 111.3 million viewers.[1] It’s not just the game that draws the enormous audience. How many of us can say that we have been engaged in deep conversations during the game but proceeded to hush everyone as soon as the advertisements came on? At 3.5 million dollars for 30 seconds[2] the ads must be good. Every year each ad undergoes scrutiny by families and friends sitting on their couches and lazy-boy chairs. Winners are always crowned and losers scorned.
Among the winners this year was a Chrysler “Halftime in America” ad that played during half time. In this ad, Clint Eastwood, with his raspy cowboy voice, explains how it is half time in America. He compares Detroit with America. Detroit has faced hard times and is turning itself around and so is America -- which has struggled through tough times but, as she has done in the past, will rally and triumph. He tells us that America is strong and will rise from the dust to become a powerful nation yet again. From the moment the advertisement played, the new sphere exploded, and the story flew from site to site changing through uses of Harris’ forwarding, countering and taking an approach and eventually stirring up controversy.
The story begins the morning before the Super Bowl. Early on February 5th, the ad was played at the National Automobile Dealers Association for almost 1000 Chrysler dealers of all race, genders and political affiliations. The ad was met with extreme emotion as people “cried, and then left the room.” One dealer explained “We were all crying, crying and applauding at the same time. We were blown away. We knew what he was talking about. We’d all been through hell and back. No one was more publicly flogged than we were. We were failing. And here we are. We’re making money. ”[3] To these Chrysler dealers there was no political agenda behind the ad, it simply represented what the country had gone through, and how the United States was beginning to pull itself back up. To them the ad had one message -- it represented a recovering America. How wrong they were with their interpretations.
As soon as the Chrysler ad aired the twitter-verse exploded. Michael Moore tweeted, "Your sermon seemed 2 b a call 2 give O his 'second half.” And Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger asked, "WTH? Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???[4]" Both of these individuals are affiliated with a political party, Moore with the Democrats and Malkin with the Republicans. It didn’t seem unusual for either of the two to critique the political agenda of anything but it was very unusual for them to have the same point of view
However, at first most of the responses to the ad followed what the Chrysler dealers saw, and was claimed by many as one of the best ads of the year. By the morning of February 6th, a mere 12 hours after the game ended, the ad was being hailed as great. Forbes said it was the second best ad of the Super Bowl[5] and Business Insider said that the ad “rocked the house.[6]” All seemed well for the ad.
Later on the 6th, in a Fox News interview with two noted republicans, Bill O’Reilly and Karl Rove, Rove used countering to express his concern that the Clint Eastwood ad was a pro-Obama ad. The host, O’Reilly, read the transcript of the commercial, and Rove responded, “I was frankly offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clinton Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago style politics and the President of the United States and his political minions are in essence using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.[7]” In his interview, Rove uses countering of the commercial to critique its political agenda. Rove is alluding to the auto bailout by the Obama Administration to prevent the auto industry from collapsing. Rove accuses Chrysler of using taxpayer money (from the bailout) to promote the Obama Administration. One must analyze not only the advertisement but also the person doing critiquing. Rove is a vocal right-wing Republican who served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007.[8] His background and purpose must be taken into account when reading his interview.
After only 24 hours in the new sphere, the story traveled from the Super Bowl, to social media, to being claimed as one of the greatest ads of the year, to being criticized by the right as politically biased. It seemed like the controversy was gaining traction. Clint Eastwood even felt the need to comment. He told Fox News on the 7th that "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.[9]" Eastwood took what political commentators such as Rove and O’Reilly said and forwarded it when he responded to questions from Fox News. Eastwood, a conservative who supported McCain in the 2008 election, told the country that in no way was the advertisement a political statement. Eastwood wanted to let the country know that it was “just a message.” David Limbaugh, another conservative, got in on the story, not by critiquing the ad itself or the “political agenda” but challenging Eastwood’s political standpoints by saying “Clint Eastwood's credentials as a conservative have been overrated[10]“ After three days of discussion, the attacks were no longer limited to the agenda of the ad but were expanding to the personal integrity of the actor hired to talk in the ad.
It is fascinating to follow how these news stories changed within a matter of days. Right after the “Halftime in America” ad played for 111.3 million viewers, many were inspired and some, such as the Chrysler Dealer, were in awe. Political commentators were tweeting right away but it wasn’t until almost 24 hours later when the condemnation of the ad really began. The next day, however, the main topic of conversation in all the morning shows was which was the best Super Bowl ad. All praised Halftime in America. Later that day, political commentators had a chance to form their arguments. Most of them used the literary technique of forwarding and countering to label the ad as left-leaning and promoting Obama. The next day (the 7th) gave way to a response by Eastwood, criticizing the criticizers. The response was then followed by a character attack on Eastwood.
It is astounding following the growth of a news story for a 72-hour time period. After the critique of Eastwood’s character, the arguments remained similar, only traveling from one news sources to the other. After the first few days of the story, the controversy seemed to die out and give way to other stories.
Personally I was fascinated by the life of the story, particularly how short lived it really was. Yes, it was talked about for a few weeks but the new sphere exploded in the first few days. It was amazing to see the transition of the story. It took political commentators about 24 hours to come up with their response to the ad. The other facet of this story that stood out to me was how this news story changed from an attack on Chrysler and the ad as being left leaning to a full on criticism of Clint Eastwood. The character attack seemed both unnecessary and unproductive to the argument.
Overall, following the story was enticing and eye opening to see how critical the media and individuals can be. I was one of the 111.3 million views who were watching the Super Bowl when this ad came on. Frankly I loved the ad. When I heard Clint Eastwood’s raspy voice I new right away that it was going to be a great ad. I was engaged for the entire two and a half minutes that the ad played, and I was inspired. It succeeded in giving me hope for our country. I saw absolutely no left-leaning bias or pro Obama message within the script. In contrast, I thought that the ad was implying that because it was halftime in America, we needed someone new to lead us up onto the field. Overall I thought it was an incredibly powerful message that most of the country could relate to. We all have suffered in some way or another in the past five years but the “Halftime in America” showed us that if Detroit could pull itself out of the gutter, then the country could do the same.
[1] Reuters. "Super Bowl, Madonna set new TV audience records | Reuters." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
[2] Newsday. "How much does a Super Bowl commercial really cost?." Newsday - The Long Island and New York City News Source . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[3] STEWART, JAMES B.. "How Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Ad Stirred Politics - Common Sense - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[4] "Clint Eastwoods Chrysler Ad Draws Divided Political Response ." Houston weather, traffic, and news | MyFoxHouston.com | FOX 26. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[5] Forbes. "The Winners and Losers of Super Bowl Commercials in 2012 - Forbes." Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[6] Business Insider. "Super Bowl Ads 2012: Here Are The Winners And Losers - Business Insider." Featured Articles From The Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[7] O'Reilly, Bill . "chryslers super bowl commercial nod obama?." O'Reilly Factor. Fox News, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
[9] Kenneally, Tim. "Clint Eastwood speaks out on Super Bowl ad - Yahoo! News." Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
Monday, February 27, 2012
Halftime in america
Ben Faustine
2/27/12
Professor Leake
Essay 2
The Multiple Lives of a News Story
The Super bowl is one of America’s great past times. Family and friends gather to eat, drink and watch 300-pound men hit each other at full force. 2012’s Super bowl attracted 111.3 million viewers [1]. How many of us can say that we have been engaged in deep conversations during the game but proceeded to hush everyone as soon as the advertisements came on. At 3.5 million dollars for 30 seconds[2] the ads must be good. Every year each ad under goes scrutiny by families and friends sitting on their couches and lazy-boy chairs. Winners and losers are always crowned. Among the winners this year was a Chrysler “halftime in America” ad that played during half time. In this ad, Clint Eastwood, is his raspy cowboy voice, explains how it is half time in America. He shows us that America is strong and will rise from the dust to become a powerful nation yet again. From the moment the advertisement played, the new sphere exploded and the story flew from site to site changing through uses of Harris’ forwarding, countering and taking an approach and eventually stirring up controversy.
The story begins before the Super bowl. Early on the morning of February 5th, at the National Automobile Dealers Association the ad was played for almost 1000 Chrysler dealers of all race, genders and political affiliation. The ad was met with extreme emotion as people “cried, and then left the room.” One dealer explained “We were all crying, crying and applauding at the same time. We were blown away. We knew what he was talking about. We’d all been through hell and back. No one was more publicly flogged than we were. We were failing. And here we are. We’re making money[3].” To these Chrysler dealers there was no political agenda behind the ad, it simply represented what the country had gone through, and how the United States was beginning to pull itself back up. To them it represented a recovering America. How wrong they were.
As soon as the Chrysler ad aired the twitter-verse exploded. Michael Moore tweeted, "Your sermon seemed 2 b a call 2 give O his 'second half.” And Michelle Malkin, a conservative blogger asked, "WTH? Did I just see Clint Eastwood fronting an auto bailout ad???[4]" (8) Both of these individuals are affiliated with heavily with a political party, Moore with the left and Malkin with the right. I didn’t seem unusually for either of the two to critique the political agenda of anything. For the most part the responses to the ad followed what the Chrysler dealers saw, it was claimed by many as one of the best ads of the year. By the morning of February 6th, a mere 12 hours after the game ended the ad was being hailed as great. Forbes said it was the second best ad of the super bowl[5] and business insider said that the ad “rocked the house.[6]” All seemed well for the ad.
Later on the 6th in a fox news interview with Bill O’Reilly, a noted republican, Karl Rove, another noted republican used countering to express his concern that the Clint Eastwood ad was a pro-Obama ad. The host, O’Reilly read the transcript of the commercial and Rove responded, “I was frankly offended by it. I'm a huge fan of Clinton Eastwood. I thought it was an extremely well-done ad. But it is a sign of what happens when you have Chicago style politics and the President of the United States and his political minions are in essence using our tax dollars to buy corporate advertising.[7]” In his interview Rove uses countering of the commercial to critique its political agenda. Rove is alluding to the auto-bail outs that the Obama administration gave out to help to auto industry from collapsing. He accuses Chrysler of using taxpayer money (from the bail out) to promote the Obama administration. One must analyze not only the advertisement but also the person doing critiquing. Rove is a vocal republican who served as Senior Advisor to President George W. Bush from 2000–2007.[8] His background and purpose must be taken into account when reading his interview.
After only 24 hours in the new sphere the story traveled from the Super bowl, to social media, to being claimed one of the greatest ads, to being criticized by the right as being politically biased. It seemed like the controversy was gaining traction. Clint Eastwood even felt the need to comment on the controversy. He told Fox news on the 7th that "I am certainly not politically affiliated with Mr. Obama. It was meant to be a message ... just about job growth and the spirit of America. I think all politicians will agree with it.[9]" Eastwood took what political commentators such as Rove and O’Reilly said and forwarded it when he responded to questions from fox news. Eastwood, a conservative who support McCain in the 2008 election, told the country that in no way was the advertisement a political statement. Eastwood just wanted to let the country know that it was “just a message.” David Limbaugh, another conservative got in on the story, not by critiquing the ad itself or the “political agenda” but challenging Eastwood’s political stand points by saying that, “Clint Eastwood's credentials as a conservative have been overrated[10]” While following this news story it is evident that after 3 days of discussion no longer are the attacks limited to the agenda of the ad but are expanding to the person integrity of the actor hired to talk in the ad.
It is fascinating to follow how these news stories changes within a matter of days. After the “halftime in America” ad played for 111.3 million viewers, many were inspired and some were in awe. Because of out instantaneous connection with the Internet the social media scene blew up. Political commentators were tweeting right away. The next morning, however, the main topic of conversation in all the morning shows was what the best Super Bowl ad was. All praised halftime in America. Later that day, after political commentators had a chance to form their arguments. Most of them used the literary technique of forwarding and countering to label the ad as left leaning and promoting Obama. The next day (the 7th) gave way to a response by Eastwood, criticizing the criticizers. The response was then followed by a character attach on Eastwood. It is astounding following the growth of a news story for a small 72 hour time period. Since the critique on Eastwood’s character, the arguments have remained similar only traveling from one news sources to the other. After the first few days of the story, the controversy seemed to die out and give way to other stories.
Personally I was fascinated by the life of the story, particularly because of how short lived it really was. Yes it was talked about for a few weeks but the new sphere exploded in the first few days. It was amazing to see the transition of the story. It was interesting how it took political commentators about 24 hours to come up with their response to the ad. The other facet of this story that stood out to me was how this news story changed from an attack on Chrysler and the left-leaning ad to a full on criticism of Clint Eastwood. The character attack seemed, both unnecessary and unproductive to the argument. Overall the following the story was very enticing and really eye opening to how critical the media, and individuals can be.
I was one of the 111.3 million views who were watching the Super bowl when this ad came on. Frankly I loved the ad. When I heard Clint Eastwood’s raspy voice I new right away that it was going to be a great ad. I was engaged for the entire two and a half minutes that the ad played and I was inspired. It succeeded in giving me hope for out country. I saw absolutely no left leaning bias, or pro Obama message within the essay. In contrast, I thought that ad was implying that because it was half time in America, we needed someone new to lead up onto the field. Overall I thought it was an incredibly powerful message that 99% of the country could relate to. We all have suffered in someway or another in the past five years, but the “halftime in America” showed us that if Detroit could pull itself out of the gutters, then the country could do the same. However inspiring the ad was, the story changed as traveled from one source to another. As it traveled through the press sphere it was over analyzed and over criticized and the ad was ruined.
[1] Reuters. "Super Bowl, Madonna set new TV audience records | Reuters ." Business & Financial News, Breaking US & International News | Reuters.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
[2] Newsday. "How much does a Super Bowl commercial really cost?." Newsday - The Long Island and New York City News Source . N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[3] STEWART, JAMES B.. "How Clint Eastwood's Chrysler Ad Stirred Politics - Common Sense - NYTimes.com." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[4] "Clint Eastwoods Chrysler Ad Draws Divided Political Response ." Houston weather, traffic, and news | MyFoxHouston.com | FOX 26. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[5] Forbes. "The Winners and Losers of Super Bowl Commercials in 2012 - Forbes." Information for the World's Business Leaders - Forbes.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[6] Business Insider. "Super Bowl Ads 2012: Here Are The Winners And Losers - Business Insider." Featured Articles From The Business Insider. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012.
[7] O'Reilly, Bill . "chryslers super bowl commercial nod obama?." O'Reilly Factor. Fox News, n.d. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.
[9] Kenneally, Tim. "Clint Eastwood speaks out on Super Bowl ad - Yahoo! News." Yahoo! News - Latest News & Headlines. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb. 2012
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Taking and Approach
Harris’ idea of “Taking an Approach” seemed very simple to me. Taking an approach, in simple terms, is about taking someone else’s work and making it your own. It is different then countering because the goal is to “transform… not replace or rebut” (74). You are not trying to take some else’s work and make them look further the discussion by arguing, you are changing the meaning to fit you ideals. The best example that Harris used to describe what taking an approach was, was a cover song. A cover song is and ideal example. It involves taking some else’s work and injecting your own meaning into it. “Think of Aretha Franklin turning Otis Redding’s macho demand for “Respect” into an assertion of female independence” (75). A perfect example. Franklin took someone else’s creation and made it her own powerful song.
Taking an approach is not limited to song; it also can involve taking another’s plot or story line. How many times have we seen the Romeo and Juliet plot arise? Harris explains that there are three different ways to take an approach. These three approaches are; acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself and reflexivity. The first one implies somehow telling where you influence came from. The second one is about flipping the question on the writer and the third one about “reflection on key choice” (79).
Acknowledging influences are used a lot when article are being writing. In a New York Times article about Iran, they use a quote from an official. While quoting the man they say according to an I.A.E.A official. This is a prime example of Harris’s taking an approach. The author mentions exactly where he gets his influence. Another example of the acknowledging influences was observed in the CNN political blog. Again, they mentioned exactly where who their source was stating, “According to a CNN/Time/ORC International poll released Tuesday.” In these news stories it is really easy to find an example of taking an approach.
I think that a lot is gained when taking an approach. I feel that it supplies the reader with a different perspective on the same concepts. To understand an idea fully one must view it from both sides of the argument. I feel that taking an approach enable the reader to understand different sides of a story.
Change is good
This blog post was probably the hardest one for me so far. I had trouble understanding how to forward something that I have already written. Because of this I looked for one of my blog post that I no longer agreed with. I did nor agree with what I said about the unit 1 post about Hedges, Carr, Scribner and Thomson’s writing. I chose a paragraph to counter.
The first paragraph of the post reads:
“Hedges and Carr present the negative literary statistics that are omnipresent in our society. They spend time focusing on the negative, blurting out random and un-cited evidence. Speculation and antidotal evidence is used in both Hedges and Carr’s articles without using literary techniques of analysis. These two articles are just plan annoying and not well written in the opinion of a 13th grade student. Hedges and Carr don’t spend time in their texts discussing literacy they simply present their one-sided opinion without delving into the multiple perspectives of what literacy actually is and how it can be defined in many different ways.”
Response via countering:
Yes, Hedges and Carr do “spend time focusing of the negative” but have you ever taken a step back and realized that all this negativity may be true? Hedges and Carr do seem to be critical of the literacy level in the US but their opinion as valid. Just take a look at the last presidential debate and you will realizes that even the most intellectual people in our country have to speak at a middle school level just to be understood by the general public. Our candidates have to use short catchy phases to keep Americans engaged. Ever hear “yes we can” or “change.” America is stupid, or at least more stupid then we used to be.
You argue that using “antidotal evidence” is bad. I think you are referring to when Carr explains how he can no longer stay concentrated for long periods of time. You argue that this is a poor way to argue a point. Yet, I want you to take a step back and think about the last time you read a book, cover to cover, that was not for school. Think about it. Just because Carr uses antidotal evidence doesn’t mean it is not an appropriate use of evidence in the essay. He is obviously using it to invoke emotion within the reader. To shut him down because of this must stem from the denial of the truth behind the statement.
Sunday, February 19, 2012
Countering? I think not!
Before I started to read Harris’ chapter on countering I thought countering would be a literary technique used to promote oneself by shutting down another’s work. But as in all Harris’ literary terms and strategies, countering is used to progress and deepen the understanding of a text or opinion. It is “not used to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking” (56). When using countering the objective is not to “refute what has been said before, to bring the discussion to an end, but to respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions” (56). It is not about shutting up your opponent or winning the argument but it is about bring in new evidence and new analysis to change the way in which the argument is going.
Harris believes that there are three ways that countering can be used. The first one involves “showing the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized” (57). The second is about bringing new information to light, and the third “Identifies a shared line of thought” (57). All three of these facets of countering do not end the argument but simple enhances it by offering a different perspective.
Counter is certainly an interesting literary strategy. Following the CNN political blog might seem like the perfect place to find golden examples of countering because of the many GOP presidential debates that are happening. The contrary is true, the debates and rhetoric are full of ridiculous comments that are not meant to further the discussion but are meant to completely shut down and humiliate the other opponents. A prime example of this was in a article about birth control. In response to a question about birth control Bachman does not further the argument but instead uses the opportunity to rail on Obama and end the discussion.
It is truly sad that this is what politics in our country has come down to. But it’s the truth, these political candidates could not care less about further the discussion through countering. Instead they use countering to make somebody else look bad.
The losses of forwarding
The idea of “forwarding” is very intriguing and enlightening. Harris begins his definition of forwarding by describing how writing as a conversation pushes the discussion forward. That’s what forwarding is to Harris; taking another’s idea and absorbing, analyzing, and rewriting it to forward the original idea. Forwarding is about opening a conversation or discussion, “you add to it, push it ahead, keep it going” (36). These additions are not meant, for the most part, for the original writer, but are created to “persuade a third reader” (36).
According to Harris there are four different ways of forwarding. The first one, illustrating, involves taking others text as a source for your own writing. Authorizing is when you “invoke the expertise or status of another writer to support your thinking” (39). Borrowing is just that, when you borrow someone else’s ideas. The final one is expanding, which is when the author adds his or her own opinion to what was taken from the original writer (39). All four of these categories involve a reader/writing taking and idea, concept, or image from another writer and adding a different opinion, using it as supporting evidence, or expanding on the work so it can be forwarded to yet another reader/writer where the process can be repeated.
The blog that I am currently following is the CNN political blog. This blog provides great insight into the current political news. It provides news on the primaries as well as the presidency of Obama. While reading this blog I saw quite a few examples of Harris’ forwarding. In almost all of the articles that I read on this blog there are quotes from a GOP presidential candidate and then the author provides insight into what they are saying. For the most part this is an example of borrowing and expanding. The author takes the quote from another source and adds his or her own opinion to it to forward the text and entice other readers to do the same.
In this blog at least, the forwarding that is used can take the quotes out of context. The author takes a snippet of a speech and then critiques it. The quotes that are used can then be taken out of context by the third or four reader. So, the point from the original can be lost or diluted through forwarding.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)