Essay two with bibliography

Keegan McGee
Eric Leake
English 105-01
11/18/09
The Life of a Tragic News Story
News stories are everywhere. We hear them on the news, in class, from our friends, and from a number of other areas of our life. They affect us, directly or indirectly. Often times they are stories from overseas, seemingly irrelevant to us personally, but if you consider us to be the entire human race these stories do impact us. They morph our thoughts about the world. They inherently affect our emotions. They force us to contemplate, to reconsider, the world in which we exist. And by doing so they change whom we are. Therefore news stories are a vital part of our lives. Although there are many stories from which I could choose, I chose the story of the Fort Hood shooting. The Fort Hood story has many facets. There are stories on the shooter, his family, the deceased, the families of the deceased, the investigation, and so on and so forth. The point being that this has affected a large group of people, some more so than others. This aspect of the story is enticing to me because of how one man can change the lives of such a large number of people with the simple pulling of a trigger. This news story has had large amounts of media attention so in order to organize these stories, I will first tell the story from the mass media side, the television, newspapers, etcetera, and then move on to the blogs that had posts concerning this story. To begin our journey through the life of this news story we must trace back to the birth of it, the breaking news.
The news broke on November 5, 2009. All across the nation news channels broadcasted, “Fort hood suspect alive; 12 dead” (CNN.com). This was shocking news. There had been a shooting in Fort Hood, Texas at around 1:30 p.m. (CNN.com) “It was one of the worst mass shootings ever at a military base in the United States.” (New York Times) We were initially told by the military that the suspect had been shot and was dead and now already with the breaking news the story has changed. He has been shot but is still living and breathing. He was identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Now was we can already see the news is never static. It constantly changes. Even with the breaking news we can see the shifts in the story. According to CNN he was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in the near future and was very upset about that. Other than that no one seemed to know what his motives could be, not even his family. His family gave a statement expressing their sorrow for the families of the victims. There was also thought that one of the victims was the shooter at one point, which made it more difficult to identify Hasan as the shooter. (Associated Press) There was also a speculation that there may have been a second shooter. Even soon after all of this another change is made. Thirteen were killed and thirty were injured. (BBC NEWS) It’s enthralling how in less than a span of twenty-four hours there have been this many changes to the breaking news. The fact that these changes have been made brings forth the idea that our media may be a bit over zealous on “getting the story first”. Rather than waiting for solid facts, our media has a tendency to go ahead with whatever information can be found in order to keep the audience intrigued. President Obama said it best “We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.” (Washington Post)
To continue with the story we must move forward in time to the next day, November 7, 2009. Now that the initial shock has sunk in more facts continue to emerge about the shooting. Now we begin to have power figures give their condolences to all involved. President Obama gave a speech from the rose garden to discuss the events that had passed and to give his personally condolences. (Washington Post) There was also news concerning the firearms used. “A 5.7-millimeter pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting was purchased legally by suspect Nidal Hasan at a Texas gun shop, law enforcement officials said Friday. Army Col. John Rossi, deputy commander at Fort Hood, confirmed at a news conference late Friday in Texas that the two weapons carried by Hasan were not military arms, but "privately owned weapons ... purchased locally." He said more than 100 rounds were fired during the attack.” (MSNBC.com) There was also new discussion on his motive. This led to discussion of his mental health. Hasan was a military psychiatrist who counseled many soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder. This brought up an interesting discussion on They New York Times. In an opinion section article Chris Figley discussion the possible involvement of secondary stress disorder. He sates “Exposure to case after case of combat-related stress injuries often has negative effects for the caregivers who handle these cases. Yet in many instances, those professionals (not to mention family members) do not get proper attention and care for their emotional needs.” (NY Times.com) This information gives the shooter more human characteristics. It allows us to see how this could have come about and why in his mind this was the only was out of his situation. There were also discussions on the religious issue. Hasan is Muslim and had become a part of the vibrant community at Fort Hood. Many of the leaders of the Mosque were outraged at the accusation of one of their own. ““When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.” (NY Times.com)
As time progressed so did the story of the shooting. Obviously there had to be an investigation. The investigation ruled that there was no strong link to a terror plot. There was more of a confirmation that he had serious psychological problems that were exacerbated by his pending deployment to Iraq. (NY times.com) There were new accounts from heroes at Fort Hood. A particular couple of young soldiers, Smith and Pearsall, saved the lives of five or six other people with their heroic actions. (USAToday.com) Now that the general overview of the story has been covered over the days right after the shooting we can move to the blogosphere’s take on the story. Without the mass medias facts about the story many bloggers would never obtain the opportunity to discuss these ideas in such detail because they simply lack the resources required for research into a story such as this one.
As all of these stories broke bloggers around the United States, and even the world, began to talk about what was happening. They put their own personal spin on the story and their own personal grievances. The blog called “the Lede” written by Robert Mackey covered the story in great detail. His initial post read as so
“Original Post | 4:07 p.m. Seven people have been killed and twelve wounded in a mass shooting at the Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday, according to Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman. Lt. Col. Nathan Banks told my colleague David Stout that the shootings started at about 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time and that the base has been locked down. He added that one person is in custody but there is believed to be at least one more gunman still at large.
The Associated Press reports that the Web site of the base in central Texas has posted an alert that says, “Effective immediately Fort Hood is closed.” The Web site, which became unavailable soon after the shootings were reported, said that units at the base have been ordered to account for all personnel.
The site says: “This is not a Drill. It is an Emergency Situation.”
The A.P. adds that several television stations in Texas have been reporting on the incident at the base, which is located halfway between Austin and Waco.
Patrick Tolbert of the local ABC affiliate KXXV reports:
Fort Hood officials say one person is in custody but are asking people to stay away from windows. We’ve learned an incident has taken place at the sports dome, now known as the soldier readiness area.
We will bring you more information on this incident as soon as it is available.” (NY Times.com)
As the night progressed he continued to update the blog as information was released. There was no time for him to think about the events or to put any kind of personal spin on it so this is a very factual account of the events that occurred at Fort Hood that day. Other blogs have different discussions of the events as well as discussions on the coverage of the shooting. On David Graham’s blog “The Gaggle”, he discusses how the conservative media has tended to jump right in and blame it on Islamic extremism, although they have been a bit more withholding that usually. In the blog Graham quotes Frum Forum’s writer Sean Linnane with an interesting point of view. “Terrorists all the same, regardless of ideological or political stance–that is all posturing. Example: in the 1980s the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya mounted a bombing campaign against U.S. and British targets in Europe. Several of the bombings were carried out on their behalf by the Baader-Meinhof gang, a secular group of Communists...It doesn’t matter whether it’s Islamic-themed, or Neo-Nazi, or Communist-inspired, terrorism is always the same: it is sheer lunacy, plain and simple.” (The Gaggle Blog, Graham) This quote is all too true and just goes to show how the life of a news story can be morphed by personal views.
From this journey through the story of the Fort Hood shootings I have gathered many views on the media and the blogosphere. I have also come to have my own view of the story itself. First of all I will discuss the media. I have come to believe that the media is very antsy to have viewers. The best way to gain viewers and keep them watching is to have a sensational story and to continuously update that story. This often leads them to jump to conclusions about ideas that are not necessarily established as facts. So in that aspect the news media would benefit from a focus on the infallibility of their facts rather than how fast they can gather ideas.
Now on to blogs. Blogs have an interesting role in the presentation of news. Not only are they able to report the facts as they gather them from other news sources but they are also able to have discussions on topics that are closely related to the story at hand, such as in Graham’s blog when he discusses the conservative media’s mode of presenting information. This ability of the blogs to stimulate a conversation while still presenting the facts is ever fascinating to me.
Through my development of these beliefs about the news media and the blogosphere I have also developed my own view of this story. Major Hasan was a troubled man. He counseled numerous troubled soldiers. He listened to the horrific war stories they surely had to tell and helped them through their troubles. Along with this erosion of his psyche, he was a Muslim on an army base. Regardless of what we may like to believe he was ostracized for this beliefs. This would wear on anyone. And when he was informed that he would have to deploy in the upcoming must his mind couldn’t handle the stress. He saw his only way out and that was his shooting spree. He killed innocent people and injured many others because his mind could not handle the stress that had been placed upon him. And as we mourn the families the people who were killed we must wonder, could it have been prevented if the right measures had been taken. We will never know.



Bibliography
1. The Editors, “Combat Stress and the Fort Hood Gunman,” November 6, 2009, http://roomfordebate.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/06/combat-stress-and-the-fort-hood-gunman/?partner=rss&emc=rss.

2. BBC News, “Deadly shootings at US army base,” http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/mpapps/pagetools/print/news.bbc.co.uk/go/rss/-/2/hi/americas/8345713.stm.

3. CNN, “Officials: Fort Hood shootings suspect alive; 12 dead,” http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/11/05/texas.fort.hood.shootings/index.html.

4. Barack Obama, “President Obama Delivers remarks from the Rose Garden on the Fort Hood Shotting,” http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/11/06/AR2009110602590.html?wprss=rss_politics.

5. Dan Reed, “Young soldiers show heroism in Fort Hood tragedy,” http://www.usatoday.com/news/military/2009-11-06-heroes_N.htm?csp=34.
6. David Graham, “Conservative Media on Fort Hood Shooting,” http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2009/11/06/conservative-media-on-ft-hood-shooting.aspx.

Reminiscing

I have learned many new ideas about the reading and writing habits of the human race through this course. I have been exposed to many popular writers who I honestly had no clue existed. All of the exposure was a bit of a shock to me. I think my favorite writer that we read was Hedges. This is for many reasons.

First of all Hedges is very provocative. He challenges every American's belief in our intellectual superiority to the rest of the world and that, frankly, pisses people off. This aspect of Hedges is really what grabbed my attention but there are other factors that elevated him to my favorite writer of the class. Not only is he provocative but he is factual. He uses statistics about the literacy of our nation that are very in your face. He doesn't pull any punches. He also, through the use of his shocking facts, forces us to question our views of ourselves and the people around us. By doing so we learn new ideas about literacy and ourselves. These new ideas can allow us to think more deeply about topics that we normally wouldn't. And I love that. I love thinking. So really what it boils down to is that I really enjoy thinking and because Hedges made me think deeply he became my favorite.

Through all of this thinking that I do in my everyday life I have come to some new conclusions about literacy, reading, writing, and communicating thanks to this course. I have come to realize that we are not as advanced as we may like to think. But we are progressing. And that gives me hope. A hope that in the future through the use of the aforementioned topics we can become beings that are not only literate but beings that can excel at communication using our literacy skills through our reading and writing skills. A lofty goal yes. But just IMAGINE.

Extended Essay 2

Keegan McGee

Eric Leake

English 105-01

11/18/09

The Life of a Tragic News Story

News stories are everywhere. We hear them on the news, in class, from our friends, and from a number of other areas of our life. They affect us, directly or indirectly. Often times they are stories from overseas, seemingly irrelevant to us personally, but if you consider us to be the entire human race these stories do impact us. They morph our thoughts about the world. They inherently affect our emotions. They force us to contemplate, to reconsider, the world in which we exist. And by doing so they change whom we are. Therefore news stories are a vital part of our lives. Although there are many stories from which I could choose, I chose the story of the Fort Hood shooting. The Fort Hood story has many facets. There are stories on the shooter, his family, the deceased, the families of the deceased, the investigation, and so on and so forth. The point being that this has affected a large group of people, some more so than others. This aspect of the story is enticing to me because of how one man can change the lives of such a large number of people with the simple pulling of a trigger. This news story has had large amounts of media attention so in order to organize these stories, I will first tell the story from the mass media side, the television, newspapers, etcetera, and then move on to the blogs that had posts concerning this story. To begin our journey through the life of this news story we must trace back to the birth of it, the breaking news.

The news broke on November 5, 2009. All across the nation news channels broadcasted, “Fort hood suspect alive; 12 dead” (CNN.com). This was shocking news. There had been a shooting in Fort Hood, Texas at around 1:30 p.m. (CNN.com) “It was one of the worst mass shootings ever at a military base in the United States.” (New York Times) We were initially told by the military that the suspect had been shot and was dead and now already with the breaking news the story has changed. He has been shot but is still living and breathing. He was identified as Major Nidal Malik Hasan. Now was we can already see the news is never static. It constantly changes. Even with the breaking news we can see the shifts in the story. According to CNN he was scheduled to be deployed to Iraq in the near future and was very upset about that. Other than that no one seemed to know what his motives could be, not even his family. His family gave a statement expressing their sorrow for the families of the victims. There was also thought that one of the victims was the shooter at one point, which made it more difficult to identify Hasan as the shooter. (Associated Press) There was also a speculation that there may have been a second shooter. Even soon after all of this another change is made. Thirteen were killed and thirty were injured. (BBC NEWS) It’s enthralling how in less than a span of twenty-four hours there have been this many changes to the breaking news. The fact that these changes have been made brings forth the idea that our media may be a bit over zealous on “getting the story first”. Rather than waiting for solid facts, our media has a tendency to go ahead with whatever information can be found in order to keep the audience intrigued. President Obama said it best “We don't know all of the answers yet, and I would caution against jumping to conclusions until we have all of the facts.” (Washington Post)

To continue with the story we must move forward in time to the next day, November 7, 2009. Now that the initial shock has sunk in more facts continue to emerge about the shooting. Now we begin to have power figures give their condolences to all involved. President Obama gave a speech from the rose garden to discuss the events that had passed and to give his personally condolences. (Washington Post) There was also news concerning the firearms used. “A 5.7-millimeter pistol used in the Fort Hood shooting was purchased legally by suspect Nidal Hasan at a Texas gun shop, law enforcement officials said Friday. Army Col. John Rossi, deputy commander at Fort Hood, confirmed at a news conference late Friday in Texas that the two weapons carried by Hasan were not military arms, but "privately owned weapons ... purchased locally." He said more than 100 rounds were fired during the attack.” (MSNBC.com) There was also new discussion on his motive. This led to discussion of his mental health. Hasan was a military psychiatrist who counseled many soldiers with post-traumatic stress disorder. This brought up an interesting discussion on They New York Times. In an opinion section article Chris Figley discussion the possible involvement of secondary stress disorder. He sates “Exposure to case after case of combat-related stress injuries often has negative effects for the caregivers who handle these cases. Yet in many instances, those professionals (not to mention family members) do not get proper attention and care for their emotional needs.” (NY Times.com) This information gives the shooter more human characteristics. It allows us to see how this could have come about and why in his mind this was the only was out of his situation. There were also discussions on the religious issue. Hasan is Muslim and had become a part of the vibrant community at Fort Hood. Many of the leaders of the Mosque were outraged at the accusation of one of their own. ““When a white guy shoots up a post office, they call that going postal,” said Victor Benjamin II, 30, a former member of the Army. “But when a Muslim does it, they call it jihad.” (NY Times.com)

As time progressed so did the story of the shooting. Obviously there had to be an investigation. The investigation ruled that there was no strong link to a terror plot. There was more of a confirmation that he had serious psychological problems that were exacerbated by his pending deployment to Iraq. (NY times.com) There were new accounts from heroes at Fort Hood. A particular couple of young soldiers, Smith and Pearsall, saved the lives of five or six other people with their heroic actions. (USAToday.com) Now that the general overview of the story has been covered over the days right after the shooting we can move to the blogosphere’s take on the story. Without the mass medias facts about the story many bloggers would never obtain the opportunity to discuss these ideas in such detail because they simply lack the resources required for research into a story such as this one.

As all of these stories broke bloggers around the United States, and even the world, began to talk about what was happening. They put their own personal spin on the story and their own personal grievances. The blog called “the Lede” written by Robert Mackey covered the story in great detail. His initial post read as so

“Original Post | 4:07 p.m. Seven people have been killed and twelve wounded in a mass shooting at the Army base at Fort Hood, Texas, on Thursday, according to Lt. Col. Nathan Banks, an Army spokesman. Lt. Col. Nathan Banks told my colleague David Stout that the shootings started at about 1:30 p.m. Eastern Time and that the base has been locked down. He added that one person is in custody but there is believed to be at least one more gunman still at large.

The Associated Press reports that the Web site of the base in central Texas has posted an alert that says, “Effective immediately Fort Hood is closed.” The Web site, which became unavailable soon after the shootings were reported, said that units at the base have been ordered to account for all personnel.

The site says: “This is not a Drill. It is an Emergency Situation.”

The A.P. adds that several television stations in Texas have been reporting on the incident at the base, which is located halfway between Austin and Waco.

Patrick Tolbert of the local ABC affiliate KXXV reports:

Fort Hood officials say one person is in custody but are asking people to stay away from windows. We’ve learned an incident has taken place at the sports dome, now known as the soldier readiness area.

We will bring you more information on this incident as soon as it is available.” (NY Times.com)

As the night progressed he continued to update the blog as information was released. There was no time for him to think about the events or to put any kind of personal spin on it so this is a very factual account of the events that occurred at Fort Hood that day. Other blogs have different discussions of the events as well as discussions on the coverage of the shooting. On David Graham’s blog “The Gaggle”, he discusses how the conservative media has tended to jump right in and blame it on Islamic extremism, although they have been a bit more withholding that usually. In the blog Graham quotes Frum Forum’s writer Sean Linnane with an interesting point of view. “Terrorists all the same, regardless of ideological or political stance–that is all posturing. Example: in the 1980s the Great Socialist People’s Libyan Arab Jamahiriya mounted a bombing campaign against U.S. and British targets in Europe. Several of the bombings were carried out on their behalf by the Baader-Meinhof gang, a secular group of Communists...It doesn’t matter whether it’s Islamic-themed, or Neo-Nazi, or Communist-inspired, terrorism is always the same: it is sheer lunacy, plain and simple.” (The Gaggle Blog) This quote is all too true and just goes to show how the life of a news story can be morphed by personal views.

From this journey through the story of the Fort Hood shootings I have gathered many views on the media and the blogosphere. I have also come to have my own view of the story itself. First of all I will discuss the media. I have come to believe that the media is very antsy to have viewers. The best way to gain viewers and keep them watching is to have a sensational story and to continuously update that story. This often leads them to jump to conclusions about ideas that are not necessarily established as facts. So in that aspect the news media would benefit from a focus on the infallibility of their facts rather than how fast they can gather ideas.

Now on to blogs. Blogs have an interesting role in the presentation of news. Not only are they able to report the facts as they gather them from other news sources but they are also able to have discussions on topics that are closely related to the story at hand, such as in Graham’s blog when he discusses the conservative media’s mode of presenting information. This ability of the blogs to stimulate a conversation while still presenting the facts is ever fascinating to me.

Through my development of these beliefs about the news media and the blogosphere I have also developed my own view of this story. Major Hasan was a troubled man. He counseled numerous troubled soldiers. He listened to the horrific war stories they surely had to tell and helped them through their troubles. Along with this erosion of his psyche, he was a Muslim on an army base. Regardless of what we may like to believe he was ostracized for this beliefs. This would wear on anyone. And when he was informed that he would have to deploy in the upcoming must his mind couldn’t handle the stress. He saw his only way out and that was his shooting spree. He killed innocent people and injured many others because his mind could not handle the stress that had been placed upon him. And as we mourn the families the people who were killed we must wonder, could it have been prevented if the right measures had been taken. We will never know.

Taking an Approach on Taking an Approach

In Harris' chapter "Taking an Approach" he describes two kinds of it. He leads with the type of "taking an approach" that is used in art. He describes it as "weak". This type of taking an approach is often used to contradict the original idea. The other type of taking an approach was the intellectual one. The main difference was that rather than taking a contradictory view, the intellectual one focuses on using the idea to question the idea, not necessarily contradict, simply question. Using the idea to further the thoughts on that idea. This is a very interesting concept, which can end up very confusing, but also very enlightening. By using a text to justify itself I feel like we begin to validate it. And through this validation we allow ourselves to use this idea to further our own thinking. Taking an approach focuses on the how rather than the what.

Taking an approach seems to me to be most useful in intellectual papers. In papers that discuss ideas, where they came from, how they came about, and even more importantly why they came about. So in searching for examples of this in news articles and my blogs I found it rather hard to apply these ideas. I don't know if this is due to some blindness on my part or if it is because these particular sources are more based upon facts of the day than ideas that people are discussing. But anywho I made an attempt to procure some examples. Because I found it so hard to make this connection I decided to search in the Opinion section. I did this because I felt that although most articles are factual, opinion articles may have some ideas that are that of the author. I found my example here. This is a discussion on the reasoning behind why Hobbes' "Leviathan" was not published in Hebrew until recently. Rebecca Goldstein uses Hobbes' idea that religion was ""man's terror at his own mortality" to further her idea that religious leaders use their religious texts to stir up our "inner demons".

Some Slam Poetry

This is one of my favorite poets.

Sparring With Myself

There should not be this many illiterate people, period. Especially not people who have graduated high school. Clearly our school systems are failing at their most basic duty. Yes, in fact out school systems should being doing a better job of educating our society, but we as the students are also responsible. From experience I know that a majority of students are lazy, especially in high school. And who can blame them. They are forced to take classes that they, to be frank, couldn’t give a shit about. They go to school early in the morning; eyes still half closed from sleep and are subjected to the drones of teachers in high school. (I know that is a sweeping generalization, but bear with me for this point.) All these factors cause these students to be lazy but in the end it is still their job to obtain the education required to thrive in our society. If students were more alert, attentive, and overall driven (as they should be) to learn the material presented. If students were to take this initiative then the literacy rates among our population would soar. After all the most powerful motivation is intrinsic.

I chose a rather short passage from one of my blogs to counter for the sake of simplicity. If I were to counter an entire post I may as well write my second essay. I chose this section of my blog to revise and counter because it boldly states a point a view. This point of view has an opposition that I would imagine is strongly backed by frustrated parents, teachers, and administrators. By offering an acceptance that the schools could probably do better I strengthen my opposing view because through acceptance we can affirm our views while still being respectful of the other side of the debate.

Countering

Countering according to Harris "is not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking." This is very different from an argument such as was demonstrated in the italics that began the chapter. To me a counter may stem from an argument. But unlike an argument, a counter has a purpose. A counter is almost more parallel to a debate than it would to an argument. Because in a debate your points must be raised in a respectable way that does not infringe upon your opponents rights as a debater. This is very much like the countering approach Harris discusses. In a counter you are expected to recognize the value of the oppositions point of view. You are forced to respect it, if you are to make a valid point yourself. So by recognizing the validity of the opposition in a respectful way you pave a path that allows you as the "counterer" to propose your idea in a way that may "argue the other side", "uncover values", or "dissent". By conveying your opposition to the previous idea in these ways you provide yourself with a means to provide a respectable counter without seeming argumentative.

To be honest I had trouble finding a good example of countering in my blogs but this is the best one I could come up with. On 538 by Nate Silver he discusses the "establishment survey". He states that the "market tends to trust [the establishment survey]" over the "household survey". He recognizes that although this survey did end up in the Dow going up for the time being, he still believes that it is overvalued.

Reduce, Reuse, Recycle.... Ideas

Harris' "forwarding" is used everyday by nearly everyone, in nearly every mode of discourse. We use it in our conversations, our emails, our essays, and even in our own thoughts. We are constantly taking new ideas that we read or watch and using them to our own benefit. This benefit in terms of "forwarding" takes the ideas and uses the positive sides of them. Rather than bashing an idea for its downfalls, "forwarding" takes the positives and utilizes them. We, through "forwarding", further our understandings of ideas. Not only are using it to help ourselves to understand new ideas, but we also use "forwarding" to help people understand our ideas. So I guess my definition of "forwarding" would be the use of an ideas positive aspects to further either our understanding of the outside worlds ideas, or to encourage the understanding of our ideas by the outside world.

The blog that I read which contains the most "forwarding" from what I can tell is fivethirtyeight. One very strong example of this is Nate Silver's 15 questions to help predict the outcome of a close election. This idea was borrowed by Silver from Bill James' "Keltner list". Although the "Keltner list" was a list of question designed to decide whether or not a baseball player who was on the line for the the hall of fame would get in or not, the idea is the same. By taking James' idea and applying it to another aspect of the world he was "forwarding" the idea or more specifically "borrowing" the idea.

In this particular case of "forwarding" Silver altered more than he lost or gained. The realm of sports and the realm of politics are so very different that it would be difficult for Silver to directly use the questions posed by James. But by altering the questions to fit his needs, while still keeping the same format, Silver "forwards" the idea of the 15 questions to help decide borderline predictions. Obviously since this questions are for predictions and not facts they cannot be held to a factual standard. They can only be regarded as a tool for political analysts to help discuss the close political races. In this case Silver "borrowed" the idea that James' created to help further his ability to predict political races.

The Cave That Never Ends

http://www.treehugger.com/files/2009/10/worlds-longest-cave-keeps-growing-longer.php

This is an article on a cave that keeps growing. I thought it was kinda neato.

The Relationship of My News Sources

The relationship between the blogs that I read and the New York Times is an interesting one. When I first read the prompt I was doubtful that I was going to be able to pull any strings to make a connection between them. After I reread the question multiple times I began to realize that while the blogs and the New York Times might not have any direct connection, they do interact with each other within the press sphere.

The New York Times is obviously part of the press. And the blogs that I follow (Treehugger and FiveThirtyEight) are also part of the press but they also incorporate other parts of the sphere into them. This makes the blog more dynamic than the Times. For instance, the New York Times is a newspaper. Newspapers do not leave much room for discussion. The news is presented in story form and we read it to extract what knowledge we can from it. But the blogs on the other hand invite discussion. They encourage the debate between the readers and the writers. They entice the highly opinionated by offering the an opportunity to voice their thoughts. In this sense I think that the blogs and the Times compliment each other well. The Times provide us we the information we need, as do the blogs. And then opinions are posted on the blog. This opinions are then discussed through comments or other blogs. This interaction allows people to affect the news that is being read.

I have also noticed that while the New York Times covers a plethora of topics daily, blogs generally are more focused. They often zero-in on a particular subject such as the environment or politics. This one topic aspect of the blog allows the blogs to delve more deeply into the subject matter which can provide with even more information than we could have gathered simply reading the New York Times.

The Narcissism of the "New Press Sphere"

Andrew Sullivan saw blogging as immediate and personal. He, as a blogger, finds it hard not to include his personal thoughts and feelings in his blog. This is due to how immediate blogging is. There is no time for retrospection, only reaction. And this is how Jarvis' "Me sphere" is. The "Me sphere" puts us as the intakers of the news at the epicenter of the news. We are the heart and soul of the news. Now not only are we effected by the news but we affect the news. The news morphes to suit the public, while the public morphes with the news. It is a very symbiotic relationship, one cannot survive without the other.

By placing us in the middle of the press sphere it becomes narcissitic. I think that both Sullivan and Jarvis' see this, but do not find it troubling. We are all narcisstic. I don't know if its inate, or if we've developed it over time but its true. We can't get over ourselves. By involving us in the news process the "new press sphere" feeds our narcissism. It gives us that feeling of power and control that we thrive on. Not only do we thrive on this involvement but we also involve ourselves more by choice. Since we can see and feel the changes we make in the press we begin to be more proactive. To write in to papers and magazines more asking for what we want because at the end of the day any text has to have readers so they will please us.

I have had this experience many times. The more I feel like I effect a situation the more I will become involved in the situation. I will be more willing to exert the energy required if I can see the progress being made. I personally have never had any true interest in changing the press but I do have examples from my life of my shift to proactivism due to the recognition of my influence. For instance I enjoy riding my bike, but i abhor riding a stationary bike. This is simply because on my bike I can see and feel my impact on the environment. I am moving through space, changing my surroundings. On a stationary bike I am just that, stationary. I don't feel the effects of my effort. This is much how the readers of news have come to change the press. The feel their role in the press so we have progressively become more proactive.

Interpretation of Jarvis's Press-Sphere

Jarvis' definition of the press-sphere is very broad. He seems to see the sphere to be nearly all encompassing. The press is no longer confined to modes like newspapers, it now encompasses the witness, the readers, companies, the government, etc. This for me leads to a very confusing and convoluted press-sphere. The more additives that the news acquires the more information there is. The more information that is readily available, the more we have to shift through. This overload of information allows us to have more sources of reliable information. Although we may have to put more effort into gathering our news, we have more access to good sources of news. This is simply because of sheer amounts of news sources.

I did in fact find his definition of the press-sphere to be confusing. "The way it was" is a very simple model which lends itself to quick acquisition of information. This old way is also very limited though. It did not allow for interaction between the new source and the news gatherer. With this dynamic out of the picture we could not influence the information we receive. This means we are forced to accept whatever the news presents us. This is not conducive to an enlightened society. The "new sphere" incorporates the interaction of the source with the receiver. By incorporating this dynamic we can gather more information that is reliable and factual.

I guess what I am gathering from this is that the new sphere is leading to good things. We will be more informed about the world and have more reliable news. This will be a plus. We just have to muddle through this at first until we can understand the "new sphere".

The Blogs I Will Follow

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/

http://www.treehugger.com/

Analysis of the Birth of My Intake of News

As I have begun to read the news in a consistent manner I have noticed that a few specific aspects of news stories draw me to them. First of all is the relevance to me. For instance I pick the blog treehugger.com to read. I chose this blog because I am interested in the environment and what little changes in my life I can make in order to better the environment. So as I read this blog I search for stories that will help me such as using efficient light bulbs. I guess as of right now I can't really change my light bulb uses due to living in the dorm but when I do eventually get my own apartment then I will have information that can help me make decisions that will allow me to feel content with my lifestyle. Another example of how I choose stories due to the relevance to me is when I read the NY Times I tend to gravitate to the music section because I am very interested in music (although sadly enough I can't play a single instrument). So I read this blog to further my knowledge of an area I am interested in.

Another reason I picked stories is their worldliness. I am much more interested about what is going on around the world than what is going on with the Stock market. This leads me to stories about Iran's nuclear power or a woman being recognized for hiding hundreds of Jews in her basement during the Holocaust.

Now that I have written those two reasons down I realize that they are somewhat contradictory. Nonetheless that is what draws me to read news stories. These two reasons will also lead me to miss United States news, which in the end is more relevant to me.

I don't feel like these readings have begun to change my writing habits yet but I believe that over time, the more I read, the more worldly my views will become. I will also be more well versed in subjects which will allow for me to carry on more meaningful conversations about the contemporary world.

The Ever-present "Word of Mouth"

Nearly all college students have one attribute in common (besides being in college). That attribute is being sociable. We are young adults who are just beginning to be exposed to an infinite amount of new ideas, so naturally we discuss these ideas. This discussion of ideas helps to encourage the discussion of news. Since we already have a platform for conversation we begin to converse about a multitude of topics, one of which is news. So the one source of news that nearly everyone of us has is "word of mouth". We learn most of what we know about current events from hanging out with our peers and hearing stories about the goings on of the world. Although this may be true, the stories must have a source. So this must mean that there is at least a small group of our peers who do in fact search out news. They take the time to watch it, read it, and discuss it. This group is vital to the spread of news among us. They enable our conversations about current news to occur. Although this group is relatively small from what I can tell due to my limited knowledge, there is a large number of them in our class. I would say this is due to the fact that we are honors students. In general, I would see an honors student as more likely to be up to date on current events than a non-honors student.

I believe that Hedges would see this as a total negative. He would view the fact that we no longer can motivate ourselves to gather news as an example of the decline of society. Carr may have a similar view but in a less pessimistic way. I think he would see this trend as a contributor to the "water-skiing" reading approach we have developed.

My Sources of News, Or Lack Thereof

To being I would just like to say that I don't not pay nearly enough attention to any source of news. That is one aspect of myself that I would like to change because to me in order to be an intelligent, productive member of society you must know what is going on in society.

That being said lets delve into my news sources. There are many types of news sources for me. Some provide me with news about what my peers are doing. Some provide me with news about the nation and world. Some provide me with news about pop culture (or underground culture).

The least important source, which is sadly enough my most frequent news provider is that of the news of peers. Some sources for this are Facebook. By getting on Facebook I can know what anyone is doing, whether I really care or not. That is the most basic source of that. Then there are my direct sources such as talking to friends or texting with them.

The other not so important source, which I visit probably second most is that which provides with news of pop culture, or not so pop culture. I often check Pitchfork in order to see what types of new music I may like. Pitchfork also lets me know how bands/artists that I already know of are doing. I also check Wiskate which just keeps me up to date on skaters in Wisconsin. Seems pretty ridiculous right? None of this is really going to help me be a better citizen or person for that matter. Which is why I would really like to start utilizing the many other sources of relevant news.

The true news sources that would truly provide me with information that would be beneficial to me are the sources I utilize least. I will occasionally watch the morning or even news, usually on network television because I never had cable until college. Along with those television sources, I will occasionally check the headlines on websites like MSN or CNN, but with absolutely no regularity.

Anyway, I guess what it really boils down to is that I do not intake enough news. And my hope from this unit is that it will help me begin to delve into these much more relevant sources.

Extended Essay, Once more

Keegan McGee
Eric Leake
Honors English 105-01
10/3/09
The Information Age’s Effect on Our Literacy
Growing up in the information age I had never really questioned whether or not the Internet and other immediate information sources have affected the way that I read and write. Now I have. Obviously the information age has greatly affected the way we are a society read, write, and communicate. This is due to three main characteristics of the information age: immediacy, availability, and simplicity. These three factors have changed our culture in many ways. For example, we are a much more image-based society, which leads us to skim texts rather than “read for a deeper meaning”. These factors have also caused us to be apathetic towards information, which in turns leads us to be superficial in our communication activities. Although these changes are apparent, the question I pose is whether or not we should fret about them. On one hand we have become a society obsessed with flashy images and concise texts. This funnels us all to the same superficial believes that our minds are barraged with. On the other hand we have become a society more knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects and are very aware of our audiences.
In order to discuss these ideas there must be a clear definition of literacy established. The dictionary definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. This is a very limited definition. According to Hedges literacy is the ability “to separate illusion from truth”. This opens the idea that you much be able to not only read a text, but also be able to decipher what is fact and what is fiction. From Thompson’s viewpoint we are becoming more literate because today we not only “think of writing as good or bad”, rather we think of it as “knowing who you’re writing for and why you’re writing”. This idea extends literacy to include the audience’s ability to understand what we are trying to communicate. The definition of literacy that I believe to be the most encompassing is this: literacy is the ability to decipher the meaning of texts, write in an analytical way, and communicate to a particular audience. This definition not only includes the relatively easy process of reading and writing, but also the ability to understand and decipher the ideas conveyed in a text. The communication factor of this definition allows for literacy to also include the ability to not just convey ideas, but also convey them in a way that your particular audience can decipher.
Having established a definition for literacy allows for my expansion upon the reasons behind the change in literacy. In Melanie Wallendorf’s article, “Literally Literacy” she states “literacy is typically regarded as an individual skill that tends to remain stable in adulthood.” I believe this to be untrue. Literacy, as she states, is an “interaction between culture and the mind”. This interaction causes each individual’s literacy to change throughout his or her lifetime due to the cultural experiences. This is evident in our culture. Due to technological advances such as the Internet and television our culture has become very impatient. We expect our information to be presented here and now. This forced news and media companies to provide our information in an immediate fashion. Which lead to the immediacy of information we have today. Availability has also been enhanced by the emergence of technology. Now rather than waiting for the 6 o’clock news we can surfing the web for the news stories we want. These two faucets of information have pushed our information to be very simplistic. Because we want our information to be immediately available newspapers and other sources of news are forced to “dumb it down”. They must appeal to the masses in order to stay in business. So rather than doing in depth stories on important news they produce stories about car wrecks and drug deals. These flashy stories draw people to watch the news. But is this really news? I don’t believe so. News should be facts about relevant stories in the world, such as wars, international affairs, and other such ideas. Stories that are more in depth force us to open our minds to new ideas. This new ideas allow us to become “literate”. Since these stories are rarely produced we are exposed to the superficial “news” that gets good ratings and entertains the masses.
These ideas of the immediacy, availability, and simplicity of our news media has greatly affected our literacy. For instance, when newspapers were the only form of news available people read the whole paper. Taking in all the ideas presented and deciphering the news of the day. Now that newspapers are on the wane and we primarily use television and the Internet to gather information we tend to be “water skiers” on the “sea of words”. In other words we never decipher texts for a deeper mean. We don’t “scuba dive” into our readings. The type of reading we do today leads us to take ideas at face value. Delving deeply into ideas is somewhat of an alien idea in our mainstream culture. The lack of this “deeper reading” has forced our society into an image-based age. Our information is acquired through flashy images and catchy tag lines. While flashy images and catchy tag lines are great ways to catch an audience’s attention, they should not be the meat of the information we are presented as they have become. Because these things have become our main source of information, our society has learned to loathe the idea of reading for a “deeper meaning”. We have become content to accept the flashy images presented and fear the idea of having to shift through ideas for the true meaning. This fear has led us to be superficial in our readings and writings. And this superficiality has spread into our everyday life. When we read texts for face value, we read people at face value. So the only way to make a good impression is to present yourself in a manner that “the other America” can understand and relate to. This is best exemplified in politics. As Hedges stated in “America the Illiterate”, “American political campaigns…eschew real ideas and policy for cheap slogans and reassuring personal narratives.” Also in that article Hedges shows the diminishing literacy through the reading level of the political debates. “During the 2000 debates, George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7) and Al Gore at a seventh-grade level (7.6).” In comparison to the Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debates where Lincoln spoke at an 11.2 level and Douglas at a 12.0 level. This difference accentuates the trend toward superficiality in our society. The fact that our political system is forced to “dumb it down” draws attention to the fact that our society has become very superficial in its communication.
The change is our society is apparent. There has been a shift toward image-based information that has caused us to become superficial in some regards. The question is: Should we try to change? On the one hand this trend has been “dumbing us down” for years. By becoming less “literate” we have become blind to media tricks. We take headlines for fact. We no longer question what we read or see on television. We are puppets to anything and everything that the media tells us. When we accept everything that our media presents as fact we lose the ability to think for ourselves. We rarely can synthesize ideas to form our own conclusions. We are generally presented two sides and must pick between the two. This is not how the world is. The world is not only black and white; it is black and white and every shade in between. By giving up our right to think for ourselves through our decline in literacy we are giving up our basic human right. On the other hand the changes have not all been so bleak. We have become able to read more simply because there is so much more availability. We are exposed to millions upon millions of ideas, if we choose to be. We are more aware of our audiences and our purposes. But are these positive changes enough to sacrifice the ideas that we can produce from within our own minds if we would only read more deeply? I think not.
We, as a society, have changed due mainly to technological advances. The Internet and television have given us immediate availability that was only in our imaginations years ago. These advances have given us opportunities to expose ourselves to many ideas, but have also given us the opportunity to access flashy images and personable catch phrases. These flashy texts have directed us to be “jet skiers” rather than “scuba divers”. In my opinion this is an almost tragic trend. We as people in society need to push back against the superficiality that has presented itself due to our choices of information sources. We need to read whole texts, decipher those texts, and come out with our own ideas on the text. By doing this we allow ourselves to stimulate our minds and form our own unique views of the world. We can once again begin to more literate. We will be able to decipher texts more easily, write analytically, and communicate to any audience that we choose.
To sum it all up, the information age has changed our literacy. It has made it more available, but also more simplistic. It has allowed us to skim rather than read for a deeper meaning. It has caused a type of superficiality that must be pushed against. For if we allow this trend to continue we will be at the mercy of the media industry to tell us how to think. But we can very easily push back. By taking the time to read whole articles, watch full newscasts, and analyze all texts we can reverse this trend and in the end become a much more free thinking, educated, and literate society. A freethinking educated and literate society will, in the end, be the most successful society.











Works Cited
Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid? - The Atlantic (July/August 2008).” 3 Oct 2009 .

Hedges, Chris. “Truthdig - Reports - America the Illiterate.” 3 Oct 2009 .

Sullivan, Andrew. “Why I Blog - The Atlantic (November 2008).” 3 Oct 2009 .

Thompson, Clive. “Clive Thompson on the New Literacy.” 3 Oct 2009 .

Wallendorf, Melanie. “JSTOR: The Journal of Consumer Research, Vol. 27, No. 4 (Mar., 2001), pp. 505-511.” 3 Oct 2009 .

Extended Essay, Again

The Information Age’s Effect on Our Literacy

Growing up in the information age I had never really questioned whether or not the Internet and other immediate information sources have affected the way that I read and write. Now I have. Obviously the information age has greatly affected the way we are a society read, write, and communicate. This is due to three main characteristics of the information age: immediacy, availability, and simplicity. These three factors have changed our culture in many ways. For example, we are a much more image-based society, which leads us to skim texts rather than “read for a deeper meaning”. These factors have also caused us to be apathetic towards information, which in turns leads us to be superficial in our communication activities. Although these changes are apparent, the question I pose is whether or not we should fret about them. On one hand we have become a society obsessed with flashy images and concise texts. This funnels us all to the same superficial believes that our minds are barraged with. On the other hand we have become a society more knowledgeable in a wide variety of subjects and are very aware of our audiences.

In order to discuss these ideas there must be a clear definition of literacy established. The dictionary definition of literacy is the ability to read and write. This is a very limited definition. According to Hedges literacy is the ability “to separate illusion from truth”. This opens the idea that you much be able to not only read a text, but also be able to decipher what is fact and what is fiction. From Thompson’s viewpoint we are becoming more literate because today we not only “think of writing as good or bad”, rather we think of it as “knowing who you’re writing for and why you’re writing”. This idea extends literacy to include the audience’s ability to understand what we are trying to communicate. The definition of literacy that I believe to be the most encompassing is this: literacy is the ability to decipher the meaning of texts, write in an analytical way, and communicate to a particular audience. This definition not only includes the relatively easy process of reading and writing, but also the ability to understand and decipher the ideas conveyed in a text. The communication factor of this definition allows for literacy to also include the ability to not just convey ideas, but also convey them in a way that your particular audience can decipher.

Having established a definition for literacy allows for my expansion upon the reasons behind the change in literacy. In Melanie Wallendorf’s article, “Literally Literacy” she states “literacy is typically regarded as an individual skill that tends to remain stable in adulthood.” I believe this to be untrue. Literacy, as she states, is an “interaction between culture and the mind”. This interaction causes each individual’s literacy to change throughout his or her lifetime due to the cultural experiences. This is evident in our culture. Due to technological advances such as the Internet and television our culture has become very impatient. We expect our information to be presented here and now. This forced news and media companies to provide our information in an immediate fashion. Which lead to the immediacy of information we have today. Availability has also been enhanced by the emergence of technology. Now rather than waiting for the 6 o’clock news we can surfing the web for the news stories we want. These two faucets of information have pushed our information to be very simplistic. Because we want our information to be immediately available newspapers and other sources of news are forced to “dumb it down”. They must appeal to the masses in order to stay in business. So rather than doing in depth stories on important news they produce stories about car wrecks and drug deals. These flashy stories draw people to watch the news. But is this really news? I don’t believe so. News should be facts about relevant stories in the world, such as wars, international affairs, and other such ideas. Stories that are more in depth force us to open our minds to new ideas. This new ideas allow us to become “literate”. Since these stories are rarely produced we are exposed to the superficial “news” that gets good ratings and entertains the masses.

These ideas of the immediacy, availability, and simplicity of our news media has greatly affected our literacy. For instance, when newspapers were the only form of news available people read the whole paper. Taking in all the ideas presented and deciphering the news of the day. Now that newspapers are on the wane and we primarily use television and the Internet to gather information we tend to be “water skiers” on the “sea of words”. In other words we never decipher texts for a deeper mean. We don’t “scuba dive” into our readings. The type of reading we do today leads us to take ideas at face value. Delving deeply into ideas is somewhat of an alien idea in our mainstream culture. The lack of this “deeper reading” has forced our society into an image-based age. Our information is acquired through flashy images and catchy tag lines. While flashy images and catchy tag lines are great ways to catch an audience’s attention, they should not be the meat of the information we are presented as they have become. Because these things have become our main source of information, our society has learned to loathe the idea of reading for a “deeper meaning”. We have become content to accept the flashy images presented and fear the idea of having to shift through ideas for the true meaning. This fear has led us to be superficial in our readings and writings. And this superficiality has spread into our everyday life. When we read texts for face value, we read people at face value. So the only way to make a good impression is to present yourself in a manner that “the other America” can understand and relate to. This is best exemplified in politics. As Hedges stated in “America the Illiterate”, “American political campaigns…eschew real ideas and policy for cheap slogans and reassuring personal narratives.” Also in that article Hedges shows the diminishing literacy through the reading level of the political debates. “During the 2000 debates, George W. Bush spoke at a sixth-grade level (6.7) and Al Gore at a seventh-grade level (7.6).” In comparison to the Abraham Lincoln and Stephen A. Douglas debates where Lincoln spoke at an 11.2 level and Douglas at a 12.0 level. This difference accentuates the trend toward superficiality in our society. The fact that our political system is forced to “dumb it down” draws attention to the fact that our society has become very superficial in its communication.

The change is our society is apparent. There has been a shift toward image-based information that has caused us to become superficial in some regards. The question is: Should we try to change? On the one hand this trend has been “dumbing us down” for years. By becoming less “literate” we have become blind to media tricks. We take headlines for fact. We no longer question what we read or see on television. We are puppets to anything and everything that the media tells us. When we accept everything that our media presents as fact we lose the ability to think for ourselves. We rarely can synthesize ideas to form our own conclusions. We are generally presented two sides and must pick between the two. This is not how the world is. The world is not only black and white; it is black and white and every shade in between. By giving up our right to think for ourselves through our decline in literacy we are giving up our basic human right. On the other hand the changes have not all been so bleak. We have become able to read more simply because there is so much more availability. We are exposed to millions upon millions of ideas, if we choose to be. We are more aware of our audiences and our purposes. But are these positive changes enough to sacrifice the ideas that we can produce from within our own minds if we would only read more deeply? I think not.

We, as a society, have changed due mainly to technological advances. The Internet and television have given us immediate availability that was only in our imaginations years ago. These advances have given us opportunities to expose ourselves to many ideas, but have also given us the opportunity to access flashy images and personable catch phrases. These flashy texts have directed us to be “jet skiers” rather than “scuba divers”. In my opinion this is an almost tragic trend. We as people in society need to push back against the superficiality that has presented itself due to our choices of information sources. We need to read whole texts, decipher those texts, and come out with our own ideas on the text. By doing this we allow ourselves to stimulate our minds and form our own unique views of the world. We can once again begin to more literate. We will be able to decipher texts more easily, write analytically, and communicate to any audience that we choose.

To sum it all up, the information age has changed our literacy. It has made it more available, but also more simplistic. It has allowed us to skim rather than read for a deeper meaning. It has caused a type of superficiality that must be pushed against. For if we allow this trend to continue we will be at the mercy of the media industry to tell us how to think. But we can very easily push back. By taking the time to read whole articles, watch full newscasts, and analyze all texts we can reverse this trend and in the end become a much more free thinking, educated, and literate society. A freethinking educated and literate society will, in the end, be the most successful society.

Extended Essay

My extended essay can be found here.

Let me know if it has any coherence at all. I have trouble keeping my thoughts organized.

Literacy Article

This article is about literacy in general. It has some definitions of literacy and some discussion of literacy and comsumption.




http://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0Bx_sIy8j-_egYzdjNWVlNjQtMDE4ZS00ODlhLTljZTEtNTVkNmY4NWQzMzZm&hl=en

The End

Blogging, for me, presented its difficulties in the same form as all other writing forms do. That is organization. I can never take my thoughts and put them in a coherent sequence to convey my ideas well. So the blog to me wasn't much different than any other form of writing. The most exciting part was the expression involved. The wide breadth of the blog allows for the writer to not only convey facts, but to convey facts in a way that is creative and interesting. So rather than being forced to conform to one setup, I was able to vary my style and use literary devices that are often hard to use in a strictly academic paper.

For the most part my internet habits have not changed. I am simply more aware of them. I still visit Facebook regularly, I still check certain blogs, and all that good jazz. But now rather than mindlessly doing so, I consider the effects that this may have on my mind, in terms of reading, writing, and communicating in general. I almost feel like I am obliged to visit more educational websites to balance out the pointless surfing I partake in. This experience has also encouraged me to do less "surfing" and more "reading for a deeper meaning". I find myself reading whole articles rather than checking headlines. I tend to view a whole video, rather than the highlights. I never did this before. I was very much a "jet skier" on the "waters" of the web. So I'm happy to say that has changed.

I feel like this was a very eye opening experience in terms of my view of a blog, and in terms of my view of the internet in general.

The Wane of Journalist and the Rise of the Socialite

First I'd just like to say that Hedge is quite the negative Nancy. He has the most pessimistic view on the modern age I could imagine. But anywho.

Although I do find Hedge to be a wee bit off the deep end in terms of the negativity, I do think that he raises some interesting points. They are pretty much the same kind of points he made in "America the Illiterate". The fact that we as a society are much too easily swayed by the accessibility of images and short blurbs. The only real difference this time is that he focuses more on how it effects the journalists and newspapers. And he is right. Newspapers suffer from the internet. People don't have time to sit and read through a newspaper. So instead we skim the front page of a website, find the most interesting stories, and skim them. By doing this we tend to focus on the exciting but shallow news stories. Not only do we only "read" certain articles but we also only go to web pages that confirm our beliefs. The human race loves confirmation of their beliefs. When our beliefs are challenged we get confused, or even scared. It is much easier for us to reinforce our beliefs, so we don't shock ourselves too much.

Even though I do agree with these ideas and believe that they need to be discussed, I also see the validity in Thompson's article. The idea of a "new literacy" is very innovative. Most people look at our shift in literacy habits as negative. Lunfords study on our writing and reading habits put a new spin on this shift. Rather than pointing out the flaws, she points out that we know "who we are writing for" and "why we are writing" which leads to very "good" writing. Often people judge writing on its academic merit, but she recognizes that writing should be judge not solely on how well its written, but also on what context it was written.

That's all for now folks.

Frightening Revelations on the Illiteracy of America

Hedge's idea of literacy is the ability to "function in a print based" world combined with the ability to "cope with complexity" and "separate illusion from truth." This is a fair way to describe literacy in my opinion. Although this may be true, this definition of literacy raises, and rightly so, a red flag among Americans. Because as Hedge said, the majority of Americans "exist in a non-reality-based belief system." These people do not possess the "intellectual tools" required to be literate. It is a sad state of affairs when there are "42 million American adults, 20 percent of whom hold high school diplomas, who cannot read." This in essence sums up Hedge's critique of American culture. There should not be this many illiterate people, period. Especially not people who have graduated high school. Clearly our school systems are failing at their most basic duty. And since there is such a high illiteracy rate in our nation we are failing in other facets of life, such as political participation, intellectual advancement, ect.

To me the whole idea that this article had to be written is troubling. When our nation is having such a problem with literacy that there is an article written to wave the red flag, then something is horribly wrong. The whole basis of the society is communicate. Literacy to communication is like water to living organisms, essential. So with literacy on the wane its no suprise that we have become a image-based culture. Even though this image-based culture is more easily accessible, it neglects our intellect. Our minds are no longer stimulated by political debate. Rather our minds are stimulated by "cheap slogans" and "reassuring personal narratives." Although I agree that this trend is troubling, I do not see the "awful reality" that Hedge does. I believe that if intellectuals begin to push back, demanding a more literate culture with more stimulating information sources, the trend can be reversed.

The correlation that I fould between Hedge's article and Carr's was the topic itself. The idea that this instant age of flashy information rather than meaningful information is simliar to Carr's speculation on our shallow reading habits. That being said I believe that Hedge sees the "awful reality" as inevitable. On the other hand Carr seems to believe that there is a chance for us to revert back to reading for deeper meaning and being more literate.

The Idiocy of the Internet Age

I think that Carr's metahpor, "Once I was a scuba diver in the sea of words. Now I zip along the surface like a guy on a jet ski.", sums up the idea of his article. I see his answer to the title as a very ambiguous one. In one sense he feels as if the internet is taking away from our ability to read deeply and forcing us to skim across the surface of multiple sources of information. By doing the the internet doesn't necessarily makes us stupid, but it does in fact limit our ability to interpret the deeper meaning of some readings. Even so he doesn't believe that the way we read has changed so much as the way we "think" has changed. We now take all of our readings at face value. We don't delve into the deeper meanings. We simply take the facts (or fiction) as the are without stopping to say (or think), "Wait, what does this really mean?" Through this change in our thought process we may limit our abilities to see deeper meanings, which in turn limit our abilities to think newer and better thoughts. Now not only do we judge a book by its cover, we judge it by its length. We don't necessarily care how it looks, rather how long it looks. If the book or whatever it is we may be reading seems too long we blow it off, by either skmming it or not reading it at all. By doing this we miss many important ideas and points of view.


In relation to our internet activities I think this trend to only skim is quite apparent. Most people visited many websites but only spent a few minutes on each. At most we may have spent fifteen minutes reading an article. But even we do that, we also have many other windows open and surf around, never giving our full attention to any one of the websites or articles that are pulled up. Therefore I believe that this "change" in our thought process due to the internet is a valid concern. I myself often have trouble focusing on one piece of literature for a long period of time. Much like Carr said I can only read a few pages before my mind begins to wander.

With that being said, I think it is our duty as future intellectuals to fight this change and to think more deeply about what we read. To look past the initial meaning and search for the deeper meaning, the one that must be worked for. If we don't, we as society will eventually, in my opinion, forget what it is to think deeply, and lose all intellectuality that is left in us.

Blogging as Writing

In Harris's, Coming to Terms, he describes the relationship between the reader and writer and what duties each has to the other. He says that "coming to terms" is the most important step to being a successful academic reader and writer. As a reader he feels that a you have a responsibility to respect and appreciate the writer's work. Contradiction and discussion only viable when the writing being responded to is recognized as respectable. For example the "generosity" in Gilligan's passage on Freud, shows respect for the ideas of Freud but also expresses that she feels his passage is "deeply flawed". So by recognizing the validity of Freud's statements from his perspective, she strengthens her view that from a woman's standpoint she has a better idea of what the development of relationships is like for a woman. This also applies to the writers standpoint. Obviously by transferring thoughts to paper we are taking this method of reading and comprehension and sharing it with other people.

In Sullivan's, "Why I Blog", he states, "You end up writing about yourself." This is exactly what Harris says that our writing must be but he expands upon that idea. He explains that not only does it have to be about you, but it also must express your views in the topic being discussed in the paper that you are writing in response to. Harris also uses the metaphor of the "forwarding" of ideas. Rather than "responding" directly to a paper, we tend to (or need to at least) forward our thoughts about the paper. And that is all that we should state. An entire contradiction of an idea in a paper with no recognition of validity only wrecks the validity of your ideas. We can't argue that our ideas are "right". All we can do is put them up for discussion.

A Reflection Upon the Patterns of Web Surfing

After reading through my classmates blogs, I have concluded that the internet activity of a person can really say a lot about who that person is, or at least what their interests are. Each person has sites that are unique to their interests and/or hobbies. Some people surf the web for news, sports, music, weather, and a multitude of other subjects. For instance on Chris Fargen's blog he posted a few sites that were strictly for comedy purposes. This says to me, Chris is a funny guy, or he at least has somewhat of an interest in comedy. This little tidbit of information gives me an insight to who Chris may be. I feel like that is part of the beauty in a blog. The ability to get to know a person through their blog is what really sets it apart from other forms of writing. Other blogs had more websites that were news related and show an interest in current events, such as politics or sports. Another example of getting to know people through their blogs were some of the local websites noted on the blogs. Local websites such as louisvillehotbytes.com, are less likely to be known by a person from somewhere other than Louisville. Therefore I assume (making an ass out of you and me, I know), that the people who had visited local websites are from Louisville. Just another little insight from the small amount of internet activity posted. For my blog I mentioned a skate website and a music blog which would let people know that I like to skateboard and listen to music. So I guess one of the main points that I noticed through this exercise was how our internet activities really demonstrate our unique interests.

Although our internet activity did show some unique interests, there were also some websites that were or were almost on every single persons blog. Websites such as Facebook, Ulink, MySpace, and other email sites show that although each individual has their own interests, we also have certain sites that tie us together in a way. Facebook is the best example of this. Since we all do use Facebook we have the ability to network with each other, hence tying us together.

To conclude I have found that our web surfing creates a window into the individual, but it also brings us together on websites like MySpace and Facebook. By creating the window into the person, the web allows the connection that can be made on those social networking sites much easier to obtain.

Thank you and goodnight.

My Escapades of the Web

This is my internet activity from Saturday at 10:00 AM until Monday at 10:00 AM.


Activities on the Internet
Facebook 10:00 AM Sat.
Social Networking

Checked my friend requests.
Chatted with friends from High School. Checked updates and upcoming events.

Wiskate.com 10:08 AM Sat.
Skate Blog

Looked at new posts on the site.
Watched the new skate videos and looked
at pictures.

Ulink 10:15 AM Sat.
UofL's Student Site

Checked my email.
Looked on Blackboard for Articles.

Facebook 5:45 PM Sat.
Social Networking

Checked for updates. No updates.

Pitchfork 5:45 PM Sat.
Music Blog

Listened to some of the "Forkcast".
Checked out New Albums.
Looked at Top 500 Tracks of the 2000's.

Facebook 11:45 AM Sun.
Social Networking

Talked to friends.
Surfed through friends pages.
Looked at tagged photos and friends photos.

Google 12:15 PM Sun.
Search Engine

Searched for maps of Europe and Asia for
World History map test. Searched for bands playing in Louisville.

Ulink 1:00 PM Sun.
UofL's Student Site

Checked email and checked for homework.
Emailed adviser and parents.

Fackebook 8:00 PM Sun.
Social Networking

Chatted with friends about the night.
Confirmed attendance to an event.
Messaged my brother to see how he is.

Thats about it. I don't use the internet a whole lot except for Facebook and school related things. I occasionally check Wiskate or Pitchfork but not religiously.

The Immediacy of Blogging

In Sullivan's article, the main answer for the question posed, "Why I blog?", is how immediate the blog can be. As Sullivan states, "We blog now - as news reaches us, as facts emerge." This makes blogging the most versatile mode of writing. It allows for ever-changing posts and "hourly writing" rather than "daily writing". This means that the blog will not only change as the news of the day, or of the hour changes but the blog will also change with the hourly feelings of the author. Now in saying that blogging is the most versatile mode of writing I am by no means discounting other modes of writing. Other modes of writing do not need to be ever-changing as the blog is. The fact that they are so static makes them more permanent, more meaningful if you will, than a blog. The blog gives these more permanent publications a "greater premium" and puts the writer, who can sift through all the chaotic ideas of the "blogosphere" and put the few coherent ones into a logical, orderly publication in a much higher esteem, than most of the bloggers who are simply throwing random ideas out onto the web.

Although I think the main answer to the question is what I stated above, I also feel that Sullivan appreciates the personal aspect of the blog. He recognizes that it is impossible for a blogger to conceal every single one of his or her personal feelings in a blog. So the blog exposes the writer to the reader in a way that can only condone a type of friendship. That friendship is not found in other forms of writing. It is exclusive to blogging and blogging depends upon that friendship. "These friends, moreover, are an integral part of the blog." This line by Sullivan means to me that without the human connection that a blog allows, the entity of the blog would disintegrate. I say this because that connection is what sets the blog apart from other modes of discourse. "When readers of my blog bump into me in person, they invariably address me as Andrew. Print readers don’t do that. It’s Mr. Sullivan to them." This line really shows how connected to the writer the blog really makes the reader feel.

So I guess to sum it up, the immediate and ever-changing aspect of the blog combined with the human connection it encourages enable the blog to be a valid and permanent mode of writing.