Hollywood is just an indication.

This week we had 2 online readings and one praxis reading assigned to us. Both online readings had to do with the racial insensitivities that we a4re currently having in Hollywood. While reading these articles, I tried an exercise to see how many film stars I could name, and what their ethnicities are. And as it turns out, most actors I have seen in film and in movies are mostly white men. White men tend to fill the main role and there are characters around the main character who can sometimes be non-white men. I don’t watch a great deal of T.V. or movies, but most of the T.V. While I was thinking about the characters in the movies I have seen I couldn’t help but notice that I watch almost exclusively American T.V. shows and movies, all of which I think pander to a largely white male audience. There are some women, and other minorities on T.V. and they have done great things, but I think that most people who have a reputation for sitting around and watching movies are middle aged white guys after they get home from work and have nothing better to do. People throughout all of history have liked seeing people like themselves do things, and people have always been slightly put off by people who were like them doing things that they were watching. By the number of actors who are non-white men I would have to say that Hollywood is at least trying to include people from different occupations, even if they are doing a terrible job at it. Hollywood, actors, and movie production studios are all businesses, all of them, and all of Hollywood must make money to keep going and to keep producing stories that entertain the American people. In business, a good strategy to stay profitable is to follow the outline that has done well by other people before, kind of that whole if it isn’t broke don’t fix it idea. Consistently throughout history the highest grossing movies have been movies that were filled with whites, or at least focused on whites. Avatar the highest grossing movie of all time had a main character who was a white guy. Titanic, the movie that is second for highest gross of all time had a cast filled with white men, and some white women. Game of thrones, breaking bad, and walking dead have all had casts that were mostly white, and more so than not male. Some of this leads me to believe that Hollywood directors aren’t intentionally racist or sexist, but rather just intend to sell. I think if we are ever going to fix the issue of a racist Hollywood, we must first fix the issue of a racist and sexist American population.

     After reading the assigned readings for the week, I couldn't help but notice the parallels between "Anziz Ansari on Acting, Race, and Hollywood" by Ansari and the reading from Praxus titled "Understanding the Effects of Mass Media's Portrayals of Black Women and Adolescents on Self-Image" by Cherish Green. Both pieces of rhetoric focused on the impact of mass media on race. Although the two essays/articles had different arguments, they were rooted in the same thought-- minorities are not accurately represented in the media.

     Green ultimately argued that women who have a greater ethnic identity, identify more with the body images of ethnic media than mainstream media. This cause is rooted in the fact that mainstream media does not accurately reflect the ideal body shape of Black women in modern day America. Rather, it reflects the ideal shape of thin, fair skinned, White women. This point was highlighted by using a quote from Duke that points out that "mainstream media is not a looking glass, but rather is a way mirror into White America" (Duke, 2000, p.383). This is a problem because unrealistic ideals are made in mainstream media for women who can’t live up to them because of their biological differences.

     Similarly, in Anziz Ansari’s piece, he argues that the media, specifically TV and Movie, does not correctly reflect the ethnic diversity of the world. Most of the casting for dramas include White men and women even if they are playing a character from another culture. Therefore, most of the casted roles are culturally insensitive and cause an inaccurate representation of the culture as a whole.

     Ansari’s argument was intended to persuade the reader to consider the shortcomings of casting in popular media and, if they can make a difference, consider making more authentic casting decisions. He did this by presenting a personal experience and tying in other instances where White actors overshadowed minorities. From another perspective, Cherish Green used rhetoric to present the facts of comparison between the impact of ethnic media and mainstream media. Her goal was not to persuade the audience to make a change, but just to be aware of the cultural differences.

     The two writers had similar topics, but they delivered their argument in two completely different ways. This proves the power of rhetoric and the variety of ways it can be used in literature. Our writing in class will be a mixture of the two. We will need to use the factual information like presented in Green’s case along with the persuasive power of Ansari’s argument to make an effective piece of rhetoric.

Chelsea DiValerio 2/27

This week we read about rhetorical writing in Praxis.  We learned about the importance of recognizing the rhetorical situation, and how to respond in each situation.  Social media, op-ed, and research paper all create different rhetorical situations.  We have already talked a lot about research papers in this class so I am going to focus on social media and op-ed. 

              Social media is something we all use every day, but I believe that we take for granted the different outlets in which we can express our opinion.Social media can be a more laid back, casual platform, or a very professional platform.  With all the different sources, there are so many ways to express yourself.  For example, Facebook allows you to make longer posts about personal topics; they tend to be more opinionated.  LinkedIn is more professional and allows you to share your work experience and skills.  Social media gets a bad reputation sometimes among writers and more professional people.  However, it allows individuals to strengthen their flexibility in writing styles.  Laura Klocinski writes, “By using multiple platforms and becoming fluent in a number of styles, you will have an easier time switching gears for different writing assignments” (Clark 167).  The more platforms you write on, the more rhetorical situations you will be able to understand and respond to.

              Another rhetorical situation is the Op-Ed.  Op-Eds create opportunities for everyday people to articulate and share their opinions on different media outlets.  Most of the time these are written by men, which is what the Op-Ed Project addresses.  The project is meant to cultivate and teach different writing skills so more women get published in major media sources.  The Op-Ed Project gives six tips to write Op-Eds.  The first tip is to own your expertise.  Understand why your experience and knowledge makes you an expert.  Second, stay current by following the local, national, and international news.  The third tip is that perfect is the enemy of the good.  Don’t worry about making your argument perfect.  With hot-button issues, you may only have a limited time to get your opinion in.  In this case, good is good enough.  Fourth, cultivate a flexible mind by looking out for other news hooks that may help you make connections.  The fifth tip is to use plain language.  This allows you to get your point across quickly and efficiently, and it also makes it easier for your readers to understand.  The last tip is to respect your reader.  It can be difficult to not underestimate your reader’s intelligence, yet not overestimate you reader’s level of information.  It is your job to be the expert on the topic and to make a compelling argument to your readers. 

Jordan Donze 2/26

            The reading from Praxis this week covered a variety of topics to help the readers write rhetorically.  The chapter starts off by entering the conversation through writing and responding to rhetorical situations.  To be an effective rhetorician, create a dialogue or conversation.  “It was through dialogue that rhetoricians such as Aristotle, Isocrates, and Cicero taught their students rhetoric skills” (Praxis 164).  Today, a rhetorical text can be responding to ideas that have been presented, using paraphrases and quotes from other compositions to strengthen their argument.  People respond to rhetorical situations without even realizing it; responding to a simple text message from a friend to get dinner exemplifies this.  A rhetor uses words to alter reality by engaging an audience and persuading the audience to make a change.

            The OpEd Project gives a way of approaching a rhetorical paper.  To start, the author should include a hook to get the reader invested in the concepts.  A thesis must be clearly stated to address the argument that is either explicit or implied.  Next, the author must write about the argument based on evidence, such as news, reports from credible organizations, expert quotes, history, and articles.  Each point should have more than one piece of evidence and a conclusion that can end the paragraph with a lead into the following paragraph. 

            A research-based argument utilizes skills the author has accumulated over time.  The argument in the paper is an ongoing conversation on the topic carried on by research sources.  Some sources will agree with each other, and others may oppose the idea.  Paraphrasing and quoting sources can change the stance on the issue written about.  The goal of a research-based argument is persuasion.  The introduction should clearly state the author’s position on the issue.  Typically, academic research-based arguments rely on logos – reasoning and evidence – as the primary appeal.

            “A research paper, by definition, makes use of source materials to make an argument” (Praxis 202).  It is important that the argument is carried in the own words of author while incorporating quotes and paraphrases from source material to support the argument.  “After you have attracted the interest of your audience, established your thesis, and given background information and definitions you will next begin to give reasons for your position, which further develops your argument” (Praxis 203).  The reasons need to be supported by reliable and valid evidence.  The author must include the opposing arguments because it is important to anticipate the audience’s possible questions or objections.  The author must also vary their strategies or patterns of development, as well as including effective transitions.

Readings 2/20

The readings for this week were in three parts: the Praxis text, the Rosenberg article regarding how to read scholarly articles, and the Stedman article regarding the annoyances of writing scholarly articles. I will address the readings in this order as well.

The Praxis text was quite dense this time around and very heavy with examples of different scholarly articles or excerpts from scholarly articles. The reading was more focused on how to write and develop research articles, which at this point, I find I have a lot of experience in. This stems from many years of being forced to write these types of papers and teachers in my more formative years feeling the need to reteach these very same skills to me. The book did not suggest anything that I haven't heard before and I don't feel the need to write in depth about most of it.

The Rosenberg article I found much more entertaining and brought to light a perspective that I have not often heard when instructed on how to read and interpret scholarly articles. I find that often when teachers have assigned scholarly articles it has often been in more of the capacity that I was assigned to find them as examples and less taught how to read them or sift through the plethora of information. Rosenberg states in the article something that I found quite intriguing and that made me realize that it is often how you approach the article that dictates what kind of information you will get from the article. Rosenberg says "Your job-and one for which you'll get plenty of help from your professors and your peers-is to locate the writer and yourself in this larger conversation." A scholarly article is never completely individual as many people contributed their information, opinions, and findings in order to help the author to come to their conclusions. I particularly like reading scholarly articles because I find that they remind me of reading case materials for law, my major and (hopefully) future career. I like to scrutinize and manipulate information to my needs, or as Rosenberg so eloquently put it, "...sucking the marrow from the texts."

The Stedman's article focused on the different semantics of actually and the subtle nuances or "annoyances" of writing research papers. The Stedman article I found was a perfect mix of the first two readings. It uses the more straight forwards techniques of addressing the issues like the Praxis text does but also the anecdotal aspects of the Rosenberg article. There is, however, one point in particular that I particularly relate to that I have seen in my own papers and others: quote bombing. Quotes that "come out of nowhere" can be ineffective or even confusing for the reader and serve an overall disservice to the paper itself. The most effective way that I have found to avoid the dreaded quote bomb is to think of my paper like a story. Did I set the stage/scene for my character? Then I introduce my character. Then, and only then, am I able to explain how my character plays a part in the larger plot.

Overall, I thought the two articles outside of the Praxis text were unique and invited a new perspective into the writing process for research papers but the Praxis reading I found somewhat stale.

Post #2

       Merriam Webster defines research as a ": studious inquiry or examination; especially: investigation or experimentation aimed at the discovery and interpretation of facts, revision of accepted theories or laws in the light of new facts, or practical application of such new or revised theories or laws." Research is one of the most debated topics when it comes to writing papers, or even publishing a blog post such as this. When doing research, it is necessary to know how to read a source, and additionally how to tell if a source is legitimate; from this point one may apply the information learned. In the readings from this week reading, research, and sources are all discussed specifically referring to the importance of such ideas when writing a paper.
       According to Rosenberg, when one is reading it should be productive, interesting and enjoyable. She argues, when one is reading you are participating in a conversation. I believe this is exceptionally true, primarily because reading allows for one to examine how specific situations or problems have been approached in the past; from here one may determine their own course of action. When all of the sources have been read, it is necessary, in my opinion, to discuss the readings with other individuals. If one is to rhetorically reading, they will be able to better understand the context, and additionally develop insight of their own as to how text works. I believe as readers, it is our job to examine readings from a more personal standpoint; from this point we may ask questions. As suggested by Rosenberg, an example would be "Why is my professor asking me to read this piece?"
        If one is to read rhetorically, they will eventually reach a point in which research may be necessary. The first main step, according to Praxis, is to examine sources based on information you already know. For example, if I was to search cats, I could look for articles from somewhere such as The New York Times, or Time Magazine. These sources would allow for me to obtain a general idea of what I should be looking for in other sources. It is important to note here, one should not rely solely on Wikipedia or other unreliable internet sources; this ties into the ideas from last weeks readings. After reading, one should evaluate the sources and attempt to break them down into words they understand; in doing so they will be able to avoid plagiarism. After all ideas have been researched, it is exceptionally important for a bibliography to be made in order to give credit where it is deserved leading into the idea of sources.
       Stedman examined the ways in which people use sources, more specifically the annoying way in which they do so. One of his overarching ideas was that "the fundamental ideas of rhetoric is that speakers/writers/composers shape what they say/write/create based on what they want it to do, where they are publishing it, and what they know about their audience/readers." This idea is often times found to be true no matter the style of paper being written. I believe individuals may change the sources they use, and additionally the way in which they present the paper depending on who they are trying to address or even persuade. There is, however, no right or wrong way necessarily to use the ideas these individuals present in their papers.
       I feel as though the ideas presented in this weeks readings are exceptionally important for anybody, in other words they are not directed towards a specific group of individuals. I believe, as stated in Rosenberg's article that it is exceptionally important to read numerous ideas on one specific topic. In doing so, one will be able to obtain different perspectives all of which will (most likely) focus on different main points. From this point, asking questions will help to further clarify any foggy ideas. On Praxis's idea of research I, as previously stated, believe individuals should refrain from using Wikipedia as as source at all; some may argue it could be used as an initial source to gain ideas from. Finally, Stedman, I feel as though if individuals are to write a paper it should have a specific audience, however there is no right or wrong way to address said group. The sources in this case do matter and should be used accordingly.
     
     

Claire Tidey 2/20

Through this weeks reading the common point has been about research papers and citing sources. Praxis begins by discussing how exactly to make a research plan. Since we have already gone over this portion of our assignment I will spare the reiteration of the many steps listed. Next the book talks about Evaluating sources, by doing this we should ask our selves questions such as: Who is the author? For what audience is the text written? What sources does the author rely upon? Does the text have an obvious bias? What do others think of the text? When thinking about these questions we should make sure that they line up with the context that we are trying to achieve. For example if the context that we are reading is addressing the audience of parents and we are trying to focus on the audience of national government those two perspectives do not entirely line up and therefor that source may not be the best option in our case. Praxis provides us with three articles on global warming and after analyzing the three pieces states "Your audience is more likely to listen to what you have to say if you look for common ground and acknowledge the complexities of the issue." Through this we can being to focus on the different perspectives and form a stronger research/argumentative paper. The end of this reading assignment discusses plagiarism and citing your sources. This is something that should be done as you go, not something you wait till the paper is finished to type of. This is an easy way to avoid taking words that are not your own, whether intentional or not.
The next two reading assignment focused on the many different sections of a research assignment. It not only talks about what each section is but some good points of it. Another thing that this source talks about is addressing audience to think about who the audience of your paper is and to keep them in mind throughout the entirety of the paper. This connects back to the Praxis reading in many ways, it is used as a deeper thinking of the may topics that the book focused on. The last reading assignment for this week focused on adding quotes to your paper and making sure your writing is not sloppy. This was also talked about slightly in Praxis from the sense that it was discussed how to evaluate your sources however it focuses more so on incorporating the sources in to a paper. Through this weeks reading assignments we should be able to form a paper that is better than the first draft and have a deeper understanding for what we are looking to create in the long run.

Reading Games

This week one of the readings was titled reading games. Using one of the strategies proposed in this piece of reading, which is to pay attention to the title, I did not quite understand what this piece of writing was going to be about. I didn't know what type of reading could possibly be considered a game. After reading it, I still don't understand why the title is "reading games" because the piece of writing was all about things you should pay attention to as a reader. I do not find that to be a game. The author, Karen Rosenberg, thinks that reading to try to get the most out of a particular piece of writing is a "game." I find this funny because I consider reading to try to get the most out of a piece is called "work." Even when I am reading something not assigned in school, something such as Harry Potter, I would just consider that as leisure reading, not a game.

The main thing I agree with in this piece of writing is when Rosenberg said, "First thing to consider is audience." I agree with that completely. I do not always use this strategy of trying to figure out the audience, but I have found that the few times I have done that, I got a better understanding of the text. Maybe I should try to make it a habit. I also agree with reading the abstract of an article first because that way you know the general summary of an article and do not waste your time reading a whole article for no reason. Another thing that Rosenberg touched on was to pay attention to the introduction. I think this is a great idea because most writers, if they are good, will try to make their introduction one of the stronger parts of their article, so if the introduction is weak, I can probably assume that the article as a whole is not the written the best it can be. The same thing goes for the conclusion too because writers usually want to leave you with a strong claim that they tried to prove, or a general summary of what the entire article is about.