Final Draft

Here is is!

(click the link)

The final blog post.

Throughout this course, I have learned many things. Most of them involved strengthening my views or improving my existing writing or reading style. One thing, however, truly originated from this class. The second section of blog posts required reading the news as well as keeping up with two additional blogs. At very first, I assumed this would be a pain and thought that I would only learn a few things here and there that I wouldn’t otherwise hear. The progression of events has proven otherwise. Though I still do not read the news every day ads I likely should, I do read it a few times a week. I have found myself to be more ‘up on the times’ and I have also noticed that I am often times the one sharing the news, whereas before I was the one being informed of it. My assumption that I would learn of very few other topics that I don’t hear about was incredibly incorrect. Literally every time I read the news I discover an interesting headline. I have found that even if I don’t read the story in its entirety, that the headlines and previews are often times enough to stay up to date. I guess that makes me a product of the internet age.

My view has not much changed on reading and writing. I find it rather difficult to write on topics or read about them if I am not interested. Granted, sometimes my lack of interest comes from my lack of knowledge. This means that as I read or write on a topic, my interest sometimes grows. Writing long papers on a single topic remains, in my opinion, a pain. I don’t know if it’s writers block, but no matter then length of a paper, I always come up just short of the minimum. This forces me to reexamine my writing and expand, which I have learned to be a good thing.

Along with my ability to keep up to date with current events, my reading and writing habits have been vastly improved. The most major change extends from my reading habits. When I am assigned a piece, especially one that is fairly brief, I actually read it fully. I highlight it, underline it, and write notes on the margins or on another sheet of paper. I concentrate on every word and its meaning. No longer do I just blankly stare at the words and hope to attain the meaning of them by focusing on the occasional paragraph.

Extending from my ability to shorten the works I read to their basic meanings, is my newfound ability to draft. I learned that my first draft does not have to make sense to anyone, except me. As long as I am able to cohesively review and edit my drafts, I can write in whatever manner I need to. There does not have to be any flow, or at least not initially. The final thing that has changed in my writing is the realization that a rough draft is completely necessary. No matter how good of a writer I become, my first draft will always be my rough draft, even if I turn it in as my final draft.

Draft one... wow.

On April 24^th, 2009, the World Health Organization released their first article titled “Influenza-like illness in the United States and Mexico” revealing details of a newly discovered human strain of the Influenza A virus called H1N1, or swine flu. A total of seven confirmed cases were reported in the United States at the time of this article and another nine suspected cases were still pending(WHO). Later that same day, the director of the Centers for Disease Control Dr. Richard Besser states in a press briefing that “containment (in the United States) is not very likely.(CDC)” This statement made the story of the Swine Flu fly from zero to warp speed.

In what seemed like an instant, Fox, CNN, MSNBC and all other national as well as local news agencies began reporting on this previously unmentioned virus every minute of every day. All other news articles took a backseat as the next possible pandemic was seared into the minds of everyone. Pictures and videos of people wearing masks due to the concern of swine flu suddenly appeared from around the globe. Key statements beginning with “it may be too late…” made everyone stop what they were doing as fear was struck into the hearts of everyone.

As if scaring everyone was not satisfactory enough, the media continued to cover this case on every step of its development. On April 25^th, the news covered the closing of an entire school district to prevent further spread of the virus. This coverage only made this story gain more attention, even from those who were previously unconcerned with the issue. Less than a week later on the 29^th, the first death in America due to the swine flu occurred. From this point forward, nothing else seemed to matter. The story had become king of the media and nothing could remove it from the spotlight; not the recession we are all suffering through, not the healthcare bill which will, if passed dramatically affect our lives, not even the sudden death of a superstar could dethrone the issue of the swine flu.

In perhaps the world’s greatest example of the press-sphere, my life was directly changed by the swine flu stories. Media outlets have a nasty reputation for making everything overly dramatic to make news interesting and gain the viewership of as many people as they can. The case of the swine flu was no different. News reporters jumped at every chance they could get their hands on to make this story seem worse than it truly was.

My life was affected on many levels because of the magnitude of this story. At its introduction, I was not concerned with the swine flu. I attributed its coverage to the news making a mountain of a molehill. However, as schools across the United States began closing to prevent the spread of this strain of the flu for which there was no cure, I became more interested in its destructive path. Superficially, I was the typical high school senior praying for every excuse for a school cancellation, including swine flu. Yet deep down, I was very concerned. The reports began mentioning that the swine flu was attacking and killing young people, who are the polar opposite of the group expected. What if I got the swine flu?

My next concern came months later as my older brother prepared to leave for Greece. I remember the reports saying how everyone should avoid air travel if possible because of the spread of the flu. We discussed cancelling his nonessential trip for fear of him contracting the it- or worse yet, getting sick once overseas. The decision to keep his original agenda was not a stress free choice due to this. The only thing we could do was start him on a tamiflu regimen before he left and hope for the best. As the summer droned on, the coverage by the news continued but hopes were high for a vaccine so concerns were lessened.

My distress has faded into inconvenience as the news began reporting actual numbers instead of just predictions. Early last month, the school adopted its “Stay Well or Stay Home” policy. Prior to the swine flu, class attendance was encouraged or even mandatory. Mentally I have been affected because now I question the severity of every sniffle or sneeze I have. My nurse mother made sure that as soon as possible, she bought tamiflu for my dorm room, just in case.

The University of Louisville, in an attempt to keep its campus healthy, may possibly have surrendered to the dramatic spin from the news. In addition to its “Stay Well or Stay Home” policy, the dorms and classrooms have systematically installed hand sanitizer dispensers. I have received goodie bags in the mail containing fliers of facts about the swine flu and of course- hand sanitizer. The walls of elevators and halls have been plastered with instructions on how to sneeze and cough without spreading germs.

Within the last few weeks, the University has begun offering a free swine flu vaccination to go along with the seasonal flu vaccination. The true sentiment of the severity of the swine flu was revealed as I along with many of my classmates chose not to receive the vaccine. It seems as though the fear of getting the swine flu from the vaccine overshadows the concern of getting it from an outside source.

Though the swine flu could possibly still affect as many people as original estimates stated, it has yet to come close to even the most conservative estimates. On average, the seasonal flu kills 36,000 people in the United States alone. Comparatively, the swine flu has killed about 4,000 Americans since April, well under the number killed by the seasonal flu on just an average year. I believe that the media created a firestorm of an issue that could have simply been a back page story. The main reason this occurred was because of the group of people who were being affected and killed by swine flu. Unlike the deaths from seasonal flu, which occur predominately in those who are immune-compromised already, deaths from the swine flu occur often in children. Of the 4,000 swine flu deaths since April, 540 of them have been in children.

Other stories that are closely related to the issue of the swine flu are subjects such as the vaccine for it, which has been surrounded in controversy since its creation. Most recently, a tamiflu resistant strain of H1N1 has reared its ugly head. Other non-human strains of the virus are also coming about. On November 18^th, the first death from the feline strain of the swine flu was confirmed. This brings about a whole new realm of health concerns.

The development of this story will likely be monitored by all Americans, especially those who will have the greatest chance of being affected. Since the administration of free or low cost vaccines has begun, the stories of swine flu will likely take a back seat to other issues. The issue of the swine flu will live on forever in the minds of all whom lived through the endless barrage of news and media coverage. April 24^th, 2009 is a day which will go down in history as not just another day, but a day that shook the world. Days that truly change the way or path of life are few and far between and for that reason, the swine flu scares of 2009 will likely rank among the top stories of the decade, likely shadowed only by the events of September 11^th.

Approaching the end.

Maybe it’s just me, but the chapter titled “Taking an Approach” in Joseph Harris’ book Rewriting is by far the most challenging to understand. The assignment requires a moderate understanding of the material and I feel as if I lack it. However, I am going to do my best to define it in my own terms (which will probably be quite far off topic).

While reading the chapter, the ideas of forwarding and countering kept popping back into my head. I couldn’t get the idea out of my head that maybe, just maybe, Taking an Approach was a combination of these two terms. The way I understand it, Taking an Approach is simply using the writing styles or the words of others to validate your own writing. From the beginning of the chapter, Harris seems to illustrate this idea. He says “By noting what others have had to say on a subject… you can make your own stance as a whiter all the more clear (Harris 73).”

Using those ideals, another way of Taking an Approach is one we may never mean to do. Often times before writing, the author refreshes on information pertaining to his topic. He may take notes or just simply read. By combining the thoughts and approaches of others, one can Take an Approach and never realize it. The chances are, after the aforementioned piece is written, there will be hints of the writing styles or even the words of others. This manner of Taking an Approach is much harder to point out and falls in a grey area.

I could just be getting more off track by the second, but Andrew Sullivan illustrates another way Taking an Approach. In his blog, he often uses forwarding to illustrate his points. Others will send their thoughts in and he will put them in his blog. It is when he does this and responds to their words that he is Taking an Approach. It is very difficult to retain your own style or writing and your exact subject matter when responding directly to someone. Sullivan, in a way, is forced to take the approach of another so that he may forward their words.

The gains of taking an approach are limitless. There is almost always room for improvement in ones writing ability and Taking an Approach provides the perfect opportunity to improve. It is also much easier to communicate with people if you can adapt your writing style, or change your approach. The limits of this move, much like forwarding, deal with originality. One may say that by Taking an Approach you emulate one or more authors. However, no one has a writing style which is fully original. The best we can hope for is to stand out.

Does this make me Bipolar?

When thinking of where I get my news, there seems to be two parts of my life: the part that is before October 18^th, 2009 and the part that is after. The only thing that changed is that I was charged to follow two blogs plus the New York Times. By simply reading these sites (at very least once a week) I have been kept current on the news. In my earlier blog, Round Two, I mention how one must read several sources to get the truth; this fact has not changed. By separating myself from my predisposition to lean right, I have picked blogs that are quality, but that might not always agree with each other. This allows me to get a good sample of the news.

It is very evident that my sources have changed since October 18^th. In fact, just two blog posts after I wrote Round Two, I write all about my reading of the New York Times. “One story I have seen over and over is about anything to do with the H1N1 vaccine or the virus itself. “ This one simple phrase illustrates several things. First and foremost, because that passage is a reference to the New York Times, it proves that I have been reading the news online. The second thing is proves is that I have become more independent. I no longer rely on others to mention news.

My life has not dramatically changed since I began reading online. It is rather handy to have news and blog sites bookmarked so I can catch up anytime. Before this section, I would never have had those bookmarks. The most drastic change is that now, when people talk about the news, I can be a part of the telling, not the listening.

This blog post was written in response to my own Round Two blog. I decided that I would counter that blog with an update in my reading habits. However, I have both countered and forwarded. By updating my previous reading habits, as mentioned in paragraph one, I have successfully countered myself. However, in paragraph two I quote myself (which I’ll admit was kind of odd) and use my words to prove a point. This is known as illustrating (Harris 39).

As an aside, through this blog post I have learned that countering and forwarding are both very natural parts of writing. We do them like second nature. The complicated part lies in discovering what we have written. Our basis for writing is already there and so all we must do is develop our skills. This class is not teaching us to write, it is teaching us to realize what we write.

First thoughts on forwarding...

Forwarding an email is the act of simply passing to another source information that was received. Being a child of the electronic era, this is the simplest of connections to make to forwarding in writing. Forwarding in this case is simply the passing of information.

To take a step deeper, the movie Pay It Forward comes to mind. In this movie, good deeds are not repaid to those who initially did the good deed. They are simply passed on so that it never stops. This can easily be compared to forwarding because rarely when using the words of others do we tell them. We (should) give them credit and that’s as far as it goes. Writers simply pass on the information in hopes of better educating or influencing the reader.

The examples of forwarding are found throughout Anthony Sullivan’s blog. He takes the words he receives from others , which have previously been private, and publishes them as their own blog topic. He rarely adds his opinion or even any information to the article. Even this simple act of straight posting illustrates all four of the terms Harris mentions: Illustrating, authorizing, borrowing, and extending. Sullivan again illustrates all four of these principles by quoting the public works or words of others.

Forwarding seems to have a positive effect on the writing of its users. It adds depth to writing, proves a point, and at times simply gives alternate views. Forwarding even shows care in writing. The more forwarding there is in an article (to a certain degree), the more care is shown in the writing. The negative effects of forwarding were much harder to ascertain for me and the list is singular in length. Simply put, forwarding could theoretically make a piece less original. With regards to news, this is not really a problem.

Countering

Throughout this unit, I have constantly mentioned how news agencies disagree with one another on the material they present. I have repeatedly said that to get the whole story, one must look at multiple sources from multiple vantage points. In Harris’s chapter on countering, another effect of differing vantage points in brought about.

Aside from the fairly viscous way television news counter one another, there are also constructive ways to counter.

As I was thinking of examples of countering, our class discussions about forwarding kept coming to mind. In that discussion, we examined an article on Andrew Sullivan’s blog regarding gay rights. In it were quotes from Abraham Lincoln. I view this as countering because, as we stated in class, everyone loves Lincoln; however, I do not think that he would agree with the topic his words were used for. I believe the type of countering that Sullivan was shooting for was ‘uncovering values’.

The word my group invented was “contexting”, which is simply taking someone’s words out of context. After reading the chapter on countering, I believe that contexting could be another form of countering. This is because in most valid arguments (or countering), one side usually uses the words of another to make his point.

When countering, the only lost is respect. This is because some people (including myself) are not amused by the bantering of professionals, even if it is friendly. In my opinion news is supposed to be unbiased and there should, because of that, be no argument. I do however believe that in countering something is added. That something is very difficult to name because it depends on the context of the argument. That is to say that often times when someone is being countered, it is because they have made a statement which was likely not their main point and it was subsequently made into the focus of another’s ambush.

NY Times vs. My Choices

Ever since I read Jarvis’ article, it’s like a song has been stuck in my head. By this I mean that I feel as if I can draw diagrams for everything.

In the case of my blog choices related to the New York Times, try to envision this:

The News (New York Times) gets its information from various sources. It writes articles of various lengths about events that are occurring around the world. Bloggers (like Greta and Sullivan) read this news and write about it. They insert their own opinions on matters and at times do a little digging and report more related news. Responses to these blogs are then posted. The more responses posted, the more popular the blog is and the more attention it get. The cycle is complete when the news agency reports again on a story to appease the readers’ interests.

If you are a strict believer in the ‘press sphere’, you probably are not a fan of blogging. In the earliest days of blogging, news agencies and blogs were separate. Today, the same anchors we see on television have their names atop the top blog charts. From the perspective that media is a living creature, blogs have given the press sphere the ability to reach outside its boundaries to consume any topic.

On the other hand, the classic battle that has raged on between conservatives and democrats is perpetuated in the relationship between blogs and news. If, for example, Fox runs a story that seems slanted right, CNN may not report on it but it is a guarantee that the CNN anchors who have blogs will share their thoughts.

So, it is plausible that if we take the good with the bad, and maybe look at the glass as half full, connections between news and blogs are a good thing. In our first section of reading, I learned that internet is not destroying the world; it is simply changing it. As this section continues, I would expect nothing less that to learn that the press sphere is not a threat to the world and that once again, the truth is somewhere in the middle of all the critics.

[Insert Creative Title Here]

If I was to have to pick two articles to compare, it would not be Sullivan and Jarvis. While reviewing both articles, I found very few connections between them granted, they were both about literature.

Jarvis’ drawings along with the discussions we had in class focused on the way we receive our news today versus the way we did in the 1930’s. Unlike then, now we tend to go out and find our own sources rather than just relying on the media.

The reason I believe it was difficult for me to connect these two articles is that one is about media and its progress or change, and the other is about blogging, which can be considered a subcategory of media. With that said, the only major connection I found while reviewing both of these articles is that blogs “[fail] to provide stable truth or a permanent perspective.” The 1930’s media seemed to, according to my translation of the charts and graphs, take world events, condense them, and directly inform the reader. However, today there are many options from which we can get our news. The ability to use television, newspaper, online blogs, online news sites, video sites, etc does not provide, as Sullivan said “a stable truth of permanent perspective.” This is of course not to mention that all of these sources likely put their own slant on every news story.

The instability of blogs as well as modern news creates confusion in the minds of those who are not willing to dig a little deeper. However, in those who are willing to just read a little more than the front page, it creates the ability to think for oneself. The 1930’s news system, though streamlined, could easily make a person think in a certain way, whereas today in the most classic example, Fox keeps CNN in check and CNN in tun keeps Fox in check. It’s all about accountability.

We live in a bubble, baby. A bubble's not reality.

Because of the current internet situation on campus, I am going to write my reaction to “The Press Becomes a Press Sphere” in two parts. Part one will be my initial thoughts prior to reading the piece, and part two will be my actual reaction (after trekking to the library).

In my mind, the press’ job has always been to report local events as well as the events of the world to citizens in an accurate and fair way. However, media moguls have, in the last 25 to 30 years, vastly overstepped their bounds. The desire to constantly be on top of the media heap has caused travesties such as false or premature reporting, creation of hysteria, and even getting reporters or cameras involved in sensitive issues first hand. The “Press Sphere” sounds to me like the world created by news agencies. It is a world in which people only get the media’s perspective of news and where the only stories shared with the world are ones that have the possibility of making money for the company. In essence, this sphere is a limited view of the truth.

While reading the article and attempting to digest the many flow charts and graphs it contained, I stumbled on two key phrases.

The first is press-centric which indicated that the press is at the center of the world, or at least of the news story. Instead of the media ‘adopting’ a story and letting it play out on its own, they search for stories that they can refer to as breaking.

The second (and final) phrase is “creation of a news story.” This proves my earlier point that news is not always true. At times, news agencies have been known to fabricate or sensationalize stories that shouldn’t even be in the limelight.

This article makes a stride in proving that great care must be taken in educating yourself on current events. To be truly informed, one must avoid the sphere. The news is getting harder and harder to get the truth from. It seems as though today everyone has an agenda and a point they want to make no matter what the cost, even if truth is the cost.

Analyze This!

Just as a reminder, the blogs I chose to follow are Gretawire and The Daily Dish.

As a little throwback to elementary school, let’s do a little comparing and contrasting, shall we?

The purpose of these blogs have only similarities in the shallowest senses. They only want to inform and bring people to the view of their writers. The differences in purpose are vast. First, Gretawire is a very conservative blog in every sense of the word. There is rarely any case where her blog strays to the left. After all, she is affiliated with Fox (not that it is a bad thing!). This differs from The Daily Dish, which claims no party. The writer of The Daily Dish can be described as “new age conservative’ which some would even argue is not truly conservative at all.

The topic of author is one that I feel needs very little attention. Both Greta and Andrew have been highly educated and are both very professional. Greta is on television as well as online whereas Andrew is rarely televised. His blogging is his main way of communicating with the world. Greta’s politics are very straightforward, which is not always to say they are correct. She tents to stick to the mainstream view of conservatism. Andrew follows no visible path. In fact, you could even say he is paving his own path and creating his own politics.

The basic view of audience is very simple. Basically, both writers want to attract as many people as possible. Greta seems to be more strictly focused on the news which means that the people she would attract are looking for a very impersonal relationship with her. Andrews blog, though predominately news, includes topics of his life and his interest, not just ones The Atlantic wants him to include. This would, in my opinion, attract a wider range of people just because it seems almost as if it is a friendship instead of a subscription.

NYTIMES

The New York Times is considered to be one of the nation’s leading news sources. I have been charged with reading it daily to keep truly understand online news and to better keep up with current events. I honestly haven’t been keeping up with it as well as I should be but nonetheless, I have noticed a few noteworthy points.

First and foremost, I have learned that news stories have a long lifespan. Just because something isn’t on the front page anymore, does mean that it not longer makes the news, especially in the case of online news. One story I have seen over and over is about anything to do with the H1N1 vaccine or the virus itself. The last time I saw anything of it on the front page, the vaccine was being given out and side effects were being explored. In June or July, the scare of the virus died down a little and it was during that time that I can almost guarantee the story got moved deeper into the website. The most popular stories are always on top.

I believe it was Hedges that pointed out the online generation’s impatience with reading. When examining the layout of the front page of NYTimes.com, one may agree with him. It has a very small preview of each story with an option to read the whole story. These are meant to peak your interest and possibly even give you a little information you might not have though you wanted to know prior. However, these are not by any means a replacement for the actual news articles.

Follow the... leader?

I have decided to follow Greta Van Susteren’s blog as well as the Daily Dish by Andrew Sullivan. The main reason is simple: I need to better keep up with what’s going on in America. Since this is an assignment I figured I should use this time to my advantage and actually try to learn something!

You may have noticed the traditional conservative (Greta) vs new age conservative/ ‘no party’ (Sullivan) connection. As mentioned in my previous blogs, I think variety is a good way to get the real story, even though my choices may not be the largest span in variety. Also, I have my opinions on things and instead of being further stuck in my ways, I want to keep an open mind. To do this, I need to see more sides of the issue. Simple right? Hopefully I can not be disgusted… by either of them.

Me vs You (Part Two)

While skimming through my classmates’ blogs, one very interesting thing kept popping out of me- there are a vast number of news sources which, in the traditional sense, may not be considered news.

The basic kinds are from the television. Fox, CNN, MSNBC, and the like dominate the television news world. There all have their own ‘special’ way to present a story. If an event worthy of news occurs and you watch the aforementioned channels, you will get three completely different stories. Because of the vast difference in the reporting, the most basic difference in the way we perceive news is created.

The irony when it comes to news is that all means of presentation claim to be just the facts and all say they want to let you decide. However, this is not truly the case. Every media source has its own agenda (as granted to it by the first amendment!) This does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that they will all agree with your opinions or even be correct.

As Sylvia Scribner points out, we have yet to see the bounds of literacy. I believe that modern news has created a partnership between television, physical print, internet print, and even online streaming video. All of these mediums present different information rather than repeating the same things over again. We are given a plethora of opportunities to learn as much as we desire on almost any topic. The way the internet has come to interact with our literate life has catalyst rather than a hindrance toward the boundaries of literacy. Personally, when I wrote my first blog, I only considered the most basic forms of news- television and internet. My eyes were opened when I discovered that this was not the end of the means to get news. It was only the beginning.

Round two.

In today’s society, news is more readily available than it ever has been. Everywhere we turn we see “Breaking News” or even just the latest headlines. The hard part about this is finding the truth. Somewhere among the mass of opinions and conspiracy theories there is a truth that we must ourselves find to truly understand the events of our day. To say that any news source is infallible is to say that it is not run by humans.

The easiest way to find out the truth is to use multiple sources and read about the same event. Fox News is typically known for its conservative slant whereas CNN News is known for its liberal bias. If we put all of our faith into one of these sources, no matter what our political opinion, our personal ignorance will be perpetuated. All sources must be considered and when the common threads show between sources, it’s possible that you’ve found the truth.

Another simple way to find out the truth is through other people. This however is a double edged sword. Just like news sites or channels, individuals have opinions and in fact, most single person sources will be more biased than even the news. Because of this, finding a trustworthy person to receive information from is sometimes a tricky process. In the end, it may be worth the effort so that the process of filtering through the lies portrayed by the television and internet is easier.

By far the most reliable way to find news is to wait until events are no longer breaking or even news at all. Just because an event is no longer front page news doesn’t mean people don’t write or care about it anymore. In fact, it likely means that since all the hysteria is over, the sensationalists are the only ones who have stopped caring. With time, the truth always comes out. It’s just a matter of being concerned with events long enough to ensure that you are enlightened by the truth on a personal level.

Extended Essay FINAL (uh-oh)

Here is a link to my final draft.

I hope you enjoy it.

Extended Essay Draft One

Today’s society is geared toward “Going Green.” Slogans like “reduce, reuse, recycle” are plastered throughout society like wallpaper. We are inundated with ways to help the environment and as if to prove Chris Hedges’ point of the way in which we believe catchy slogans more often than scholarly points, we blindly follow them. The slogans we see daily have a more profound effect on our lives than they were ever intended. I propose that the slogans and catch phrases of the Green Revolution, though not completely to credit, play an important role in the kind of readers and writers we are.

Reduce: The internet allows us to reduce the amount of work it takes to find the information we seek. It also allows us to reduce the sheer volume of material with which we are presented by simply making our search more specific. It even allows us to reduce our impact on the environment by not driving to a library or having to make copies, even though often times we choose to do the latter anyway.

Reuse: While it is thought of as possible to go back to a library and recheck a book at any time, in reality there is a risk of the book being checked out by someone else. From the internet, we can save articles directly to our computer and know that, unless our computer crashes, the information will remain until we delete it.

Recycle: The internet has given us a place to share our ideas with others. We can instantaneously learn of breaking news from across the world, or comment on an article written by our favorite hometown columnist. It allows us to quote the work of others in our own writing and reuse the ideas of others.

A vast portion of reading done in college is assigned through internet resources. Articles are sometimes converted directly from physical sources to digital sources and put at our fingertips. We then have the choice to print these sources out, or read them directly from the screen. This begs the question: are those who prefer to print articles someone smarter than those who don’t?

As for the claim that Google is making us stupid, this can be attributed to a difference in generations and let’s face it: generation gaps are always going to exist. These gaps inadvertently instill a sense of superiority in each generation between which the gap exists. Perhaps the most classic example of a generation gap is laziness. Each age group is referred to as lazy by the one preceding it and almost like a rite of passage, that generation grows up to call the one after it lazy. The current generation uses the internet far more than any one past.

Writers like Chris Hedges have a rather jaded opinion on the effect of the internet. He refers to those of us who use the internet as our main way of learning parasites. He states that most internet writers do not write first hand, but use the works of others to further their agendas. His opinion is partially well rooted because many bloggers do not contribute anything valuable to the literary world except their opinions. However, I believe there are a vast number of internet writers who do contribute important works. His misconception can simply come from seeing the sheer number of people who write in any shape or form on the internet. Anyone can write online, and a lot of people do because of its ease. Not many are actually talented at it.

Clive Thompson’s attitude on the internet is like day to Chris Hedges’ night. Thompson believes that society has been affected by technology in a very positive way. He states “Before the internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment.[ Thompson, p1]” This shows his positive focus on the fact that we write more today than we ever have in precious generations. Although it sounds great that we are writing a lot, I question the real value of the writing which we do. Facebook chats and Twitter updates rarely if ever teach us anything of value. They just give us insight to what our friends are feeling or doing or even the latest rumors.

Nicholas Carr’s article Is Google Making Us Stupid? seems to leave his question unanswered. Carr makes very valid points that would seem to prove both views of the matter. What I truly understand after reading his article is that the way we learn has changed. This change can be viewed from many vantage points and seen as good or bad. I believe that, in the case of effects of the internet, no conclusion can be drawn. I simply believe that as much good has come from the internet as bad and that the ways in which we seek information have changed. We may prefer a more straight forward answer to our questions but that does not by any stretch of the imagination mean that we are less patient or intelligent. It simply illustrates that we are more eager to draw from what we read. Because of the internet, the abundance of information available is made blatantly apparent. This has unintentionally rewired our thought processes to require constant discovery of new information.

When looking to become versed in a specific topic, even those who choose to use books usually will not choose to read the whole book. They seek the chapter or page that pertains to the subject they are researching and disregard the rest. The internet is a much more efficient way to find an answer without being forced to wade through the topics that aren’t pertinent. On the other hand, if the internet reader is looking to research a more general topic, he is likely to read just as much information if not more than the book reader. This can be attributed to the abundance of sources available through the internet.

Writers like Sylvia Scribner seem to go along with the opinion that though our ways are changing; the literary world is not coming to an end. Her views make writing seem like is a gas: it adapts to the form of whatever contains it. There is not a single, solid way to write and we have yet to discover the boundaries of literacy and probably never will. Scribner’s second way of viewing literacy is from the power perspective. What do we seek to attain from our writing? Our goals may differ from the goals of others. Just as what we have written may seem powerless to some, it may be the most powerful piece another person has ever read. In her third metaphor, Scribner states “literateness has come to be considered synonymous with being ‘cultured’… [in the] sciences, arts, and humanities. [p13]” This quote illustrates that writing is for everyone, not just those who can change lives or paint pictures with what they write.

I have always thought of myself as a fairly talented writer as well as a capable reader. This includes both research based topics, such as works that require me to go online or even go to the library, as well as original creative writing. My reading and writing skills are vastly based upon the internet. I, like many, have become very adept at finding any information I desire on Google. This allows me to quickly sort through the millions of articles to find information on the specific topic I am writing about. While reading the various sources throughout this unit, I was constantly reminded of the phrase “Work smart, not hard.” I previously viewed this phrase as another way to imply laziness; however, it truly means being efficient, which is far from laziness. In a library, the process of finding pertinent information is much more archaic. If I decide to look up a book on topic, I have to find it in the library and then search through the book to find my information. It is a substantial waste of time if I discover a book in the library is not pertinent to my topic, whereas on the internet, I have wasted only mere seconds. Often times when I write, I listen to music. I also like to take breaks to gather my thoughts. In a library, silence is required and it is encouraged to stay on task.

Reading and writing are just like anything else. You receive as much good from it as you put into it. If we seek to be closed minded and read only things that agree with our opinions, the internet creates the perfect place for that. However, it also creates an atmosphere of super-learning. It presents information on any topic in many forms so that it may be accessed by all. It eliminated barriers of time and allows us to instantaneously access a whole new world of information. If we seek to be truly educated, we will seek knowledge no matter what the cost. It matters not how this information is ascertained, as long as the care has been taken to properly analyze and validate its contents. Those who desire understanding will read from magazines, books in the library, articles online, and blogs until their thirst for knowledge has been quenched.

Prior to the cyber-generation in which we are living, writing was often personal and remained between the parties involved. With the availability of Facebook and blog sites, people have begun taking their opinions public.

Literacy Post Practice

Here is an article on literacy. It pertains to the debate on what material children should be reading. It inadvertently proves that we still practice reading, even at a young age.

I came, I blogged, I conquered.

For the past seven blog posts, I have been responding to the writing of others. This has allowed me to learn a lot of others’ opinions on the internet. In the process of learning, I have also learned a lot. Being able to see what kind of writing is good, and what kind is bad has really helped me. In a typical high school English class, I had less than ten true papers that were graded and commented throughout the year. This is my ninth in one month. I feel like the 250 word minimum establishes a good sample of our writing upon which our skills can be criticized.

The short nature of these writings also has a downside. It is very easy to get off target and one hundred words on an unrelated topic ruins the whole point of your writing. It is very surprising to me that, even though writing every other day seemed to be a burden at first, it has turned into an enjoyable project. Once the words start flowing onto the computer and the ideas in my mind start connecting, the paper basically writes itself. I attribute this to the consistent basis upon which we write.

My internet habits due to this unit have not changed too drastically. The only thing I am doing differently is focusing on my reading more as the amount of it increases. The statement that we skim what we read because we are used to instant gratification lit a fire under me. It made me want to prove the article wrong and therefore I am bettering my reading and writing habits. I also have the intention of reading more news and recent event websites or actual texts now. I am finding that I am not “in the know” near as much as the people I am surrounded by. This of course could just be some degree of hypercriticism but I am under the impression that news does the mind some good.

Though this section was focused almost completely on responding to others works and learning to “rewrite”, I feel as though my process of reading and writing has been completely revamped. Prior to this section, I viewed reading and writing as two separate and completely different processes. Now, I view them as interrelated ideas that cannot survive without one another. When writing, I now think about how different ways of writing are interpreted when read and adjust my writing to suit my purpose. Likewise, when I read, I think about what I would have written or how I would summarize the reading objectively.

The most important thing I learned from this section is that I actually do have an opinion on the effects of the internet on society. My opinion is now very well informed and I have several articles to prove my point. Society has a natural process of change. This change can be viewed from many vantage points and seen as good or bad. In the case of effects of the internet, I believe that no conclusion can be drawn. I simply believe that as much good has come from the internet as bad and that the ways in which we seek information have changed.

Hedges vs Thompson

According to Chris Hedges, newspapers are on a fast decent. He says “We are under the happy illusion that we can transfer news-gathering to the internet.[p1]” This, to me, opens a new way of thought that I have never considered. What if the internet is just making us lazy? All the articles we have read in this class support this view. Yes, our way of thinking may be changing, and the speaking level of our presidents may be on a slippery slope, but what if it’s not related to our level of intelligence at all?

Hedges’ use of the word ‘parasite’ is quite shocking, but in reality, this is what we are. We go a website, news websites in particular, with no intention of adding information to it or even commenting on it. We rarely if ever try to check the source and we take what we read as fact just because the readership of the news company is in the millions. Hedges’ brings up an interesting statistic (even though I don’t know what his source is) that states, basically, a reader of an actual newspaper spends seven-fold the amount of time reading it that does a reader of an online news source.

The view of Clive Thompson and his sources is remarkably different from that of the aforementioned. Thompson goes into more detail about the statement that we write more today than previous generations ever have. “Before the internet came along, most Americans never wrote anything, ever, that wasn’t a school assignment.[p1]” Although this sounds great that we are writing a lot, I question the real value of the writing which we do. Facebook chats and Twitter updates rarely if ever teach us anything of value. They just give us insight to what our friends are feeling or doing or even the latest rumor.

There are clearly two views on which way the net is pushing our media. It is very hard for me to draw a conclusion because both of these articles give very convincing arguments that seem believable (and not sensationalist). If forced to draw a conclusion, I would state that the internet is, as I’ve said, changing the way we read and write. But unfortunately, it is also making us lazy.

America the ILL?

Hedges opens his argument by stating that “we live in two different Americas” –one based on print (minority) and one based on non-reality, or images. I thought that this was a very ill-advised way to start his article. This sensationalist statement is purely black and white with no room left for gray. In his opinion, we must live in one or the other with an ‘unbridgeable’ gap between each educational process.

I find it very troubling, and very believable, that politicians prey on the weakness of the illiterate to gain a vote. “Campaigns that succeed… manipulate fickle moods, emotions, and impulses.[1]” This to me is a very hard pill to swallow because of the words manipulate and campaigns used together. Hedges goes on to state that after a campaign, the previously empowered, illiterate, voting citizen goes back to a life in which he or she has no way of truly understanding what is going on around them. This is very disturbing because it raises the question: What do we truly know about our own lives?

Much like Carr, Hedges believes that today’s society hungers for instant gratification and constant stimulus. However, the similarities end there. Carr used the phrases to enhance the point that our way of thinking is changing, whereas, Hedges used it to drive home his point that maybe Google truly is making us stupid.

The article gave several interesting theories about the progression, or rather, recession of our reading and speaking abilities. The comparison of debate transcripts from modern debates versus previous debates was shocking and raised yet another question: No matter what political party we put our trust in, who are we electing to make the decisions of our country? Hedges drove his point home when he said “Voltaire was the most famous man of the 18^th century. Today the most famous “person” is Mickey Mouse.[2]”

The point of this article was to prove the point that our culture is changing. Hedges accomplishes this goal in the last page with two lines: “Culture is being destroyed in order to yield entertainment. [Arendt ]” and “The core values of our society… are dying.[3]” However, he does not entertain the notion that American culture is changing, not dying. In addition, this article offers no solution to the problem and only succeeds in being a rant, which may well have been its intent.

Google vs Your Noodle

Is Google making us stupid? Think about it, really. When was the last time you wanted to know something and weren’t around a computer, so you didn’t find it out? Now on the other hand, when was the last time you wanted to know something and were around a library and you still didn’t look it up? Face it, we just don’t use libraries like we used to. Thanks to the online revolution, one can find out literally anything on the internet. Those who disagree with me will probably be screaming to themselves “That’s what I’m talking about! Without the internet, people won’t take the time to look things up!” Fortunately, the internet is something that annot be undone.

Throughout Nicholas Carr’s article, he presents an unenthusiastic opinion of the internet’s effect on us. However, early in the article he makes a statement that I could not get past. “My mind isn’t going—so far as I can tell—but it’s changing.” So, that said, I would like to present to you that Google (and the like) and not making us stupid; rather, changing the way we think.

I find it very hard to deduce anything about whether or not Google is making us stupid from my classmate’s notes only. They show nothing of time spent reading books, or even spent looking things up in a library. I can however speak for my own internet habits. I do not feel that I am any less intelligent because of Google and the internet. I actually feel as though I am smarter because I quite literally have the world at my finger tips. I believe it would be hard to find out trivia, though basically useless, such as why a 3 Musketeers bar is named the way it is. Google has opened to everyone a world which they may have previously been unaware.

Harris vs Sullivan

Ahh, procrastination…

To compare and contrast two subjects, or in this case two authors, one usually makes a list of defining characteristics. However, while reading what Harris had to say about writing, I realized that Harris and Sullivan write in two extremely different situations and therefore are not that easily compared. This is especially true of the comparison of Harris, who writes more in the traditional view, and Sullivan, who may be described as progressive.

Harris’ style is all based from writing, and then, as the title of his book suggests, rewriting. This suggests a careful placement of words and editing of phrases. This is nothing like what Sullivan does in his blogging. As you may remember, Sullivan suggests a more dangerous form of writing that he compares to extreme sports. Also, the material written in blogs is read at face value, often as a source of entertainment and therefore not always thoroughly digested. In Harris’ case, the writing he speaks of will be published and he is well aware of how critical people can be on writing.

The major similarities were a lot harder to find. One particular example, in reference to an aforementioned phrase Harris says “The strength of this passage hinges on the word moreover…” This statement goes to show that the writing Harris does relies a lot on emotion, just like blogging. Blogging relies a lot on key words, used to catch the reader’s eyes. The purpose of using these words leads again to differences. In traditional writing like Harris does, the key words go to show reliability of text, and to make the book or article a page turner. In blogging however, those key words go to make the blog memorable.

Comparing Harris vs. Sullivan is much like comparing apples to oranges.

Me vs. You

When comparing my internet habits to those of my classmates, I noticed two very distinct things. First, people who don’t spend that much time online, me for example, visit a select few websites repeatedly. These websites seem to be a very common thread to anyone who uses the internet. E-mail and Facebook or MySpace seem to dominate the playing field. This goes to show the age in which we are; everyone is connected to each other via some type of web portal.

The second thing I noticed was that no matter what website people visited, it fell under one of three categories:

1) Education: includes reading the news, using Blackboard, and ULink

2) Entertainment: includes music, social networking, and videos

3) Life: includes shopping, banking, and stocks

Of course, the items listed under each of these categories are not the only things that can possibly be included. Each of the topics may have subtopics and even sub-subtopics, but when I thought about it, every website can basically fit beneath one of these categories.

Not all of us, however, use the internet as much for a single category as others. I noticed that I do not spend any time online looking at current events in the world. There were a few people in the class that do. Also, I rarely shop online. I noticed people logging onto eBay, iTunes, and other shopping websites, none of which I partook in. The last difference that stood out to me was how many humorous websites people visited. It made me think, in all seriousness, that I need to spend more time laughing. I hadn’t heard of very many of the humor sites people were logging onto.

Though studying other people internet habits was oddly interesting to me, the most interesting part was plainly seeing the websites that I visit. I could have told you what websites I visited prior to this exercise but I wouldn’t have been able to venture a guess as to how long I spent online or the times at which I logged onto them.

I have no life, apparently.

"The purpose of this blog is to open for examination internet literacy habits that often go unexamined." I wish I wouldnt have examined mine.

I won't go into it much, but this blog really makes me laugh because it proves in black and white that I have no life and need to spend way less time on Facebook.

Wednesday, September 2nd

8:30 AM logged onto Facebook, chatted with some random people and nothing that really matters. I didn't take the time to write down what it was because it was way before my happy time.

8:40 AM logged onto ULink, read email. I am amazed that people still walk through dark allies alone and even more amazed the the University publishes every little thing that happens.

10:15 AM Facebooked, again. No one wanted to talk to me at this time of day, I guess they were all in class. My mood at this point is fairly good because I feel like I have a fairly respectable portion of my day under my belt.

10:20 AM checked for blackboard for updates (none present)

2:30- 2:50 PM Facebooked some more (I obviously have no life)

5:45 PM YouTube for funny videos. It is really odd what kind of videos get over a million views. Then again, I also had to find them to watch them.

9:00- 9:45 PM Facebook chatted. This is kind of like my night time ritual. Almost as soon as I'm done on facebook, I go to sleep... usually.

Thursday, September 3rd

8:45 AM Facebooked, no one I wanted to talk to was on this morning. I think I woke up on the wrong side of the bed.

8:50 AM Checked my ULink for email and blog for comments. ULink was boring as usual and I have 16 followers on my blog. Even though they have to follow my blog for a grade, it's still exciting to me.

3:00- 3:25 PM Checked Facebook, chatted with some friends about nothing important.

4:00- 4:50 PM Skyped with my brother. He is in Greece and it makes me happy to talk to him evey chance I can.... I miss him.

6:30- 6:50PM Facebook and checked ULink. As usual, no one had anything interesting to say.

9:45- 10:15 PM- Facebook. This was just my normal night time ritual.

Thank you, Mr Sullivan

Since the first ever blog site opened, there has been an ongoing and sometimes intense argument about whether or not blogging is truly writing. As most arguments go, the people that say the blogging is indeed writing are the ones that are doing the blogging. Those who say it is not, are the ones who either dislike blogs or are strictly traditional writers.

The perspective of Andrew Sullivan is highly valued when considering this argument because he is both a longtime blogger, and an even longer time traditional writer. In his article “Why I Blog”, he mentions that one thing he is fond of is how quickly a blog can be posted. This rapidity gives him an excitement which normal writing cannot do. “For bloggers,” Sullivan says “the deadline is always now.” The excitement that Sullivan describes also seems to come from the dangerous aspect of blogging. Sullivan insists that bloggers must be careful to not make blog posts in fits of rage or in very personally emotional moments. He is not suggesting, however, limiting their posts by excluding emotion. In fact, he says in referring to his blogging during the September 11^th attacks that “There is a vividness to [the] immediacy [of blogging] that cannot be rivaled by print.

Many people in my English 105 class have mentioned how freeing blog form is and how there is little accountability for what is written. However, Sullivan states blogging holds you “more accountable, not less”. This is because people who are reading blogs are not afraid to be rude when they comment on your writing. There is no face to face meeting with an editor; the writing comes straight from the authors mind and fingertips to the eyes of a reader, or often times harsh critic. Traditional writing has always separated itself from scrutiny by using the aforementioned editors and blogging is a way to test your true, unrehearsed writing ability by fire.

Another thing Sullivan mentions that is great about blogging is the ability to check the validity of information instantaneously. When writing a book or news article, writers often quote their sources. However, very few people actually take the time to check the source, even if they do not believe the writer. In blogging, the author has the ability to input hyperlinks that have their source information on them so that critics and fans alike can validate the material.

Throughout the whole article, Sullivan makes comparisons between tradition writing and blogging. The theme of these differences really boils down to what type of personality you have. If you like to write slowly and be cautious about what you write by having someone check it for you, blogging is probably not your forte. However, if you like to step outside of the box and take risks that are sometimes scary, but always exciting, then give blogging a try!

Happy Birthday, Blog!

1)In the beginning, Ben created a Blog. 2)Now the blog was blank and boring, there were no colors or styles to be found throughout it. 3)Then Ben chose a layout, and the layout appeared. 4)Ben saw the layout was good, and though it separated his blog from the others.
5)Then Ben clicked “edit profile” and began creating his profile…

This of course is where the real time and work had to be put into my very first blog. There were fields such as, privacy, identity, a photo and sound option, general information, etc. These fields are almost exactly like those of a Facebook or a MySpace, both of which I have possessed at some point in my life. However, the fact that filling these fields out is in essence a homework assignment applies some importance to the answers I provide. Unfortunately, this introduces my only problem during the whole blog creation process: procrastination.
As an aside I would like to say that for those of you who are not a friend of procrastination, congratulations on being at least somewhat motivated to not be stressed out a few hours, or even minutes, before an assignment is due. As I have already revealed, this is not me.
As I grit my teeth and began to fill out the seemingly endless subject boxes, the information began to flow through my fingertips as if the stress had melted away and I was creating this blog purely for my own pleasure. As I turns out, the stress I had been feeling about the assignment was purely self-applied and therefore easily removed, thus ending the reign of the evil blog and beginning the reign of its more attractive cousin, the awesome blog.