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 6^th, 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 6^th 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 7^th 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 7^th) 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.

[8] Rove, Karl . "Biography | Karl Rove." Welcome | Karl Rove. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 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

[10] I.B.I.D

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 13^th 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. 

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.

How they all relate.

           There are two blogs that I have read over the past few weeks. The first one is the CNN political blog and the second one is the beyond the box score blog. These two blogs are pretty different. The CNN blog, which is arguable biased, focuses on the politics in our country. It is a good time to be following a political blog because of the the primary season. There have been a lot of candidate-to-candidate attacks that provide a lot of interesting news stories. The second blog satisfies my nerdy need for baseball statistic. The beyond the box score blog provides extremely interesting information that the casual baseball fan does not know. For example, last week one of the posts was a data table about the most players to bat seventh in the batting order over their career. Who does that? This is a completely unnecessary stat, but provides a fix for my baseball needs.

            I feel that the CNN blog relates more to the New York Times then the baseball blog does. The CNN blog is more of a prominent and professional news sources that supply the reader with current news that is applicable to the present day. I am sure that the New York Times has an equivalent political blog of there own that probably mirrors the one supplied by CNN. The stat blog that I also follow does not really relate too much to the New York Times because I feel that it is not as applicable, and while arguable more interesting, doesn’t inform the reader about what is going on at that hour all across the world.

            The blogs are for sure part of a press sphere. The CNN and the New York Times are part of the sphere and I am sure they have cited, contradicted and argued with each other on many occasions. The baseball blog is in a different press sphere but in undoubtedly in and for sure gets cited by many other statistically driven blogs.

IT NEVER ENDS!

I think that Jarvis’ press sphere is trying to express that news is no long a simple A to B process like it used to be. News doesn’t go from the world to the press and then to us in an uninterrupted chain with no room for deviating braches and other sources. In our present day, due the technological rise that our society has experienced, the news is not received in this straight chain. Instead this chain has curves and twists and many other chains branching off of it connecting to other chains.

Jarvis’ press sphere is just this. “Witnesses can join in the process directly. Background might come via links to archives. Commentary from observers may add perspective. An accumulation of data may alert us to news or augment it. All of these elements add up to news” The press does not just feed us the news anymore, but instead there is so much commentary on the news that its becomes a sort of never ending cycle. People can comment on the story, links can be provided for background in formation, and more data can be used an evidence. All of this creates the sphere of press that is vastly different then what we experienced a few decades ago. It hard to avoid the news anymore, because it is everywhere!

What wasn’t confusing about this model? I really did not like the way he worded his article I felt that he was trying, unnecessarily, to sound intelligent which ended up making the article even more confusing. I sort of understood what he was trying to describe with his images in that the news in no linear, but is now a crazy combination between many different sources.

His opinion does relate to my personal experiences with the news. When I read the news I can see what Jarvis is talking about. Every article provides links to other sources for background information, data tables, numbers or charts. Along with this, if you scroll down to the bottom of every article there is always a space where other people comment on the article and express their opinion. In addition to expressing their own opinions often they we provide a link to another site, which starts the whole cycle over. It just seems like this sphere is never ending.

If you ask the folks over at the CNN political blog I'm sure they would explain how there blog does not have a bias. But in reality CNN is a left leaning news outlet. Like most news sources they have some kind of agenda or purpose. The purpose seems to be to paint Mr. Obama in a more positive light then the other GOP candidates. The big news on other news sights was how Obama "broke" his promise of reducing the dedicate by 50% by the end of last year, but this was not mentioned at all on the CNN political blog. It seems to me that CNN does appeal more the left-ist followers of political news. The blog generally seems to post in the same style. It will include a few images with a semi-short article with an occasional video.

What Blog?

 CNN political tracker blog

The CNN political tracker is a very interesting blog to follow especially during election season. There are multiple post a day and it is very informative about the political stories. It gives insight on all candidates the the momentum ( or lack there of) a candidate has.

New York Changing

I like to consider myself an avid follower of the news. However, before this class I really only looked to CNN and my local sfgate for news. When reading the description for this class I added the NY Times to my safari bookmark bar and now it have become one of the sites on my daily rotation. I really enjoy reading the New York Times because it gives me a different perspective on the same news stories. I also enjoy the way that they have been covering the 2012 primaries. I think that they do an excellent job both covering and analyzing the elections.

Because I look at CNN and NYT multiple times a day, I feel that I have seen a lot of the recent stories. Most recently, the ruling in the circuit 9 court in California (best state ever) ruled that prop 8 is unconstitutional. This is very interesting and it will certainly be interesting to see where the case ends up, (supreme court?). Some of the stories that have been really interesting to follow were/are the elections, the Italian cruise ship disaster, stock market trends and developments in Iran among others.

I think that the stories that I have been following the most have been stories on the economy and the stock market. Personally, I have invested money in the stock market and the whole financial sector and economic struggles are really interesting to me. I have also been following the primaries very closely because I am interested in who will be my man Obama’s opponent later this year.

Recently I feel that I have missed out on the crisis in Syria. I don’t know why this is but I feel like I don’t know as much about that situation then I do others. Maybe it is because I don’t want to read articles about dying children. It is something that I should become more informed on. To be honest I don’t really think that read the NYT had really changed my interactions that much. I feel that I already did a lot of news reading, and adding the NYT certainly broadened my perspective but I don’t really think that it impacted the way I read, write and work.

5 word blurb

Reading through all of my classmates’ blogs from a few days ago it seems like for the most part news is obtained through the use of the Internet.  In our current collegiate environment it seems unrealistic that a student will read the newspaper or watch the 11 o’clock news every night. When using the Internet the news is a click away and is constantly being updated. No longer do we have to wait days to find out what is going on over sees.

For the most part it seems like the students in our class rely on the same sources for news. The most commonly viewed sites seemed to be yahoo, cnn, and New York times. I think that the amount of news we view is pretty significant because it is apparent that for the most part people are keeping up of their current events.

I think Hedges and Carr would not be surprised at all by the trend that appears to be prevalent within our class. Hedges and Carr argue that the technology we are immersed in has changes the way that we read. Looking at the articles and stories that are on CNN and NYT they are short and often supplemented with pictures and videos. The biggest example of Hedges and Carr’s theory is yahoo news. Hedges and Carr argued that our over uses of technology has made up more easily distracted and constantly craving an ever changing environment. With yahoo news one can scroll through all of the news stories, reading the 5 word headlines with out actually reading the article. How many of us can actually say we do not do this multiple times a day. It provides the fix to our addiction.  Yahoo provides and image and an enticing blurb and soon after you read it, you become bored and move on to the next story. If you do end up reading the story, for the most part they are short, a few pages at the very most. Almost always ether videos and/or pictures supplement them. Yahoo news is a perfect example of Hedges and Carr’s opinions.

Final essay

            I chose to write this essay to anyone who will listen. I think that this essay may be tailored more to the older generations who have not been immersed in the technological world as much as we are. This essay gives an insider perspective on the effects that our generation is going through. I feel that present an interesting opinion about how our current over use of technology affects not only our literacy levels but also our country as a whole.

Technology is everywhere today. One has to take a step back to realize how much it affects everyday life. From the first moments of the day waking up to the deathly buzzing of the alarm on a smart phone or to the voice of the beautiful Lady Gaga playing out of the new iHome alarm clock, we are surrounded by technology. On the surface it seems indisputable that technology has a positive effect on literacy levels in America. Everything is right in front of us; the Internet enables us to do and find whatever we desire. We can read and write with the tap of a keyboard or the click of a mouse. “Research that once required days in the stacks or periodical rooms of libraries can now be done in minutes” (Carr 1). It seems ridiculous to even think that the advancement in technology could have a detrimental effect on the literacy rates of Americans.

How wrong we are. Yes, technological developments have changed our society in countless ways. However, the literacy of Americans has been drastically and negatively impacted because of these developments: literacy rates have declined, reading is no longer necessary, the American society as a whole has to be talked down to, and people’s ability to focus has noticeably decreased.

The United States of America, the land of opportunity, is the perfect example of John Wilthrop’s city on a hill… from the outside. If a closer look is taken it can be seen that America has some troubles of its own. Currently the United States of America ranks forty-fifth in the world literacy standings[1]. Although appalling, the significant discovery is the correlation between technological advancement and literacy rates. A test conducted by the Department of Education compared the differences in literacy rates in America in 1992 and 2003. It was discovered that in 1992, 40 percent of Americans who graduated from college scored in the proficient level on a literacy test. In 2003 this number dropped to 30 percent. A 10 percent drop in 11 years is astounding. The study also showed that almost one million college graduates scored in the below basic literacy category.[2] The epidemic does not only pertain to high school dropouts, more and more college graduates are becoming less literate because of the constant connection to technology. One of the test overseers, Grover J. Whitehurst, concluded that the drop in literacy was because a  “rising number of young Americans in recent years had spent their free time watching television and surfing the Internet” and because of  “substantial declines in reading for pleasure.”[3]

Americas have become lazy. We are a nation whose youth spends almost 8 hours a day watching TV, playing video games, or surfing the web.[4] It’s unbelievable, no longer do we read a book for fun, instead we stare at our computer screens fixated on a relentless steady stream of information. Even on our blogs many people commented on how they were surprised with the time they spent doing nothing online instead of reading. Nobody reads books anymore. How many of us can truly say that we would rather read a book then go online? “A third of high school graduates, along with 42 percent of college graduates, never read a book after they finish school. Eighty percent of the families in the United States last year did not buy a book”(Hedges 1).

It’s a sad, yet unsurprising fact that will only continue to get worse unless we, as a county, make drastic changes to both our educational system and how we live our lives. Is it really the child’s fault if he or she grows up in a house where neither of his or her parents read?  You are a product of your environment; if the environment is book-less, how is the child supposed to become a reader? It can be argued that the lack of tangible reading – of books made of paper that you can hold in your hands -- is compensated by the superfluous amount of reading that is done online. But realistically, reading status updates and stumbleupon does not compensate for that literary knowledge that is gained from reading a book. How many of us can remember the last year we went out to the bookstore to find a good book to read. Yes, we read, but it is not for pleasure, it is for school. If we do not change our habits we are going to go out into the real world lacking serious literary skills.

The decline in reading and the eight hours the youth spends with digital devices has forced the general media to adapt. Our society is no longer treated as mature, intelligent individuals, but instead we have to be talked down to. “Television programs add text crawls and pop-up ads, and magazines and newspapers shorten their articles, introduce capsule summaries, and crowd their pages with easy-to-browse info snippets” (Carr 4). Technology has changed our society, our constant Internet use has destroyed out attention span and we are constantly bombarded with a changing media while surfing the web. Consequently, loud pop-ups, shortened ads and articles must be used to retain the users’ attention. Media has had to adapt, shorten, and dumb down their articles, ads, and stories to keep the attention of the reader.

There is a direct correlation between the uses of technology and the ability to retain attention. From 2003 to 2007, the amount of time youth spent in front of TV, Internet, or computers increased almost 2 hours[5]. During the same time period, the number of youth diagnosed with ADHD increased 22 percent.[6] The correlation is clear; the more one becomes immersed in technology the harder it is for that individual to stay focused. Because our society has become easily distracted we have lost the ability to read like we used to and have consequently become less literate.

The decline in literacy has forced the media, ads, public officials, and political candidates to speak down to us.  In their famous debate, John Kennedy and Richard Nixon spoke at an average grade level of about 10. In the Bush-Gore debates the candidates spoke at an average grade level of about 7 (Hedges 2). In just 50 years, in direct correlation with the advancement of technology, the literacy level of our country has changed so drastically that presidential candidates now have to speak with the literacy of middle schools so that the people in our country can understand. These debates are no longer intellectual, but have become a way for the candidates to use short catchy phrases to grab the attention of their audience.

What has our society become? Can it really be argued that technology has taken one of the strongest countries in the history of the world and made it less and less economically significant over the past 20 years? It sounds like I am America bashing, but I am not. I love my country and most of the things that we stand for. It is intriguing, could technology really be hurting our country rather than helping? In my mind technology has undoubtedly changed the way that we read and absorb information. For the most part we have become easily distracted and easily bored. The Internet has really contributed to this phenomenon. The Internet provides a platform for an ever-changing media where ones ADD can be satisfied. You can go from playing a game to watching Jersey Shore to wandering aimlessly through the black hole that is youtube. It is this never-ending distraction that has downgraded the literacy level of our society.

                        The negative effects do not stop with just literacy; one also has to take into account what happens more broadly when there is a decrease in literacy. “Individuals who have below-basic English literacy skills are more likely to be unemployed than individuals in the intermediate and proficient literacy categories.”[7] Below-basic literacy causes unemployment. Unemployment rates are currently higher then they have been in decades, partially because of our countries literacy crisis. Illiteracy is not just causing unemployment but is costing our nation “tens of billions of dollars per year.”[8] The facts are unbelievable: “two-thirds to three-quarters of adults receiving public assistance exhibit the lowest levels of literacy; the average health care cost for adults with low literacy skills was four times the amount of the average American. The United States prison population has tripled since 1980 and seventy percent of those inmates are either functionally illiterate or read below the eighth grade level.”[9]

                  The declining literacy levels in this country are costing us. They are causing unemployment, crime, and the need for public assistance. It does not seem like this trend will end soon and will only get worse. Is it really that much of a surprise that our country is experiencing this economic crisis when so much money is being lost because of illiteracy? Something has to be done; literacy seems to be behind most of the problems in our country. It causes unemployment, economic discrepancies and is slowly eroding our beautiful country. What is behind the drastic changes in literacy levels? Technology. This spiral does not seem to be stoppable in this world that is exponentially becoming more and more dependent on the use of technology to survive in everyday life.

---

[1] "Literacy Rates of the World." World by Map: Statistics, Maps and Charts. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://world.bymap.org/LiteracyRates.html>.

[2] DILLON, SAM. "Literacy Falls for Graduates From College, Testing Finds - New York Times." The New York Times - Breaking News, World News & Multimedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/16/education/16literacy.html?incamp=article_popular&pagewanted=print>

[3] I.B.I.D.

[4] Reinberg, Steven. "U.S. Kids Using Media Almost 8 Hours a Day - BusinessWeek." Businessweek - Business News, Stock Market & Financial Advice. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyle/content/healthday/635134.html>.

[5] I.B.I.D.

[6] "CDC - ADHD, Data and Statistics - NCBDDD." Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html>.

[7] "'See Spot run' befuddles fewer Americans / The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com." The Christian Science Monitor - CSMonitor.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/1216/p02s01-legn.html>.

[8] " ProLiteracy “ Improving lives and communities through adult literacy  ."  ProLiteracy  “ Improving lives and communities through adult literacy  . N.p., n.d. Web. 30 Jan. 2012. <http://www.proliteracy.org/NetCommunity>.

[9] I.B.I.D