Weekly Blog #11

            As of right now (since I don’t know how I did on the fourth paper), I am planning on definitely revising Paper #3.  I initially thought that I did a really good job and that it was my strongest paper: I had a thesis that said something strange, three strong close reads, and I addressed a counter-argument. However, after receiving my grade for the paper and discussing it at office hours, I realized that there were definitely areas that could be improved.  I am going to rework a lot of my sentence structure to avoid using the passive voice.  I worked on this in my fourth paper and I think it had better results.  I am also going to work on my transitions so that my paper guides the reader through my analysis instead of just presenting my own logic and interpretation, leaving the reader with nothing to conclude for themselves.  While these things seem to be easily fixable, I will also tackle the structure within the paragraphs, themselves, and rework them so that they continue to refer back to my thesis and are not just set up in the “summary-analysis-summary-analysis…” formula.  Hopefully this will alleviate some thesis confusion and better yet, strengthen my thesis. 

            And again, depending on how I did on Paper #4, I am also thinking that I will revise Paper #2.  I now realize that I had too many sources that distracted from my synthesis.  So to fix this issue, I will obviously take out some sources and instead strengthen the conclusions that I am making about what the sources say.  Since my “so-what” was also not very apparent, I am going to intertwine the “so-what” more clearly in the body of the paper, so that it does not go unnoticed and does not seem to just be thrown in at the end of the paper.

Weekly Blog #10

In spite of only getting four hours of sleep, I still woke up feeling slaphappy from the concert the night before.  Talking with the band backstage after the show and listening to them giving me musical advice had left me feeling extremely thankful for having music in my life—the perfect Thanksgiving precursor.  With a smile glued to my face, I quickly and robotically got ready and waited for my parents to come pick me up.  I was relieved to see my parents; they had endured the long and snowy 10-hour drive to Ann Arbor to be with me and my sister on Thanksgiving since it would have been difficult for us to drive all the way home after the concert.  The drive up to Highland to my uncle’s house was filled with smiles and laughter as my sister and I told stories from the concert and my parents told us all of the “big-doings” in our rural hometown.  When we finally arrived at their house, the Thanksgiving lunch was almost ready to be devoured—just a few more garnishes were needed here and there. So naturally when the food was finally set on the table, the eight of us wolfed down our food like a pack of hyenas.  And just like every other holiday meal that I have shared with my extended family, we made fun of politicians and the outrageous stories being covered in the news. Feeling full and still as happy and thankful as ever, I made my way down to the basement to watch the rest of the Lions game with my cousins.  Still sharing stories and making jokes, we watched the next two football games on TV and continued to stuff ourselves with delicious pie.  In spite of returning to my empty, lonely dorm later that night, I ironically felt happier and more content than I had ever felt this whole semester.  Apparently all I need is some music, my family, football, and pie to cheer me up.

Weekly Blog #9

While I have been stating my argument essentially as, “new bias is necessary,” I am thinking that rephrasing this to, “news bias is inevitable,” better parallels the angle I am going to take with this topic. Under the umbrella topic on news bias, I am exploring two categories: content bias (elemental factors designed to inhibit the “raw” truth) and ideological bias (personal political and conceptual views). 

There are four content biases (personalization, dramatization, fragmentation, and authority-disorder), which all seem to reject the notion of political and social discussion.  But, does the lack of discussion haphazardly and vicariously promote more active citizens, who do not need to look to others to for cues to be proactive in the country’s politics? Or, does this biasedly formatted content mirror the country’s rapidly advancing and morphing society? 

The most commonly thought about news bias is ideological bias and stations like FOX News and MSNBC appear to be the most notable ideologically biased new sources.  But can’t the claim be made that having a news source with a “centered” view is just as ideologically biased as “left” and “right” biased sources? And even if there were such a news source that purely delivered raw facts, would that hold public attention or again, would the pace of the country’s rapidly changing society cause viewers to grow bored and uninterested in news portrayal that didn’t cause someone to feel that they were getting the short end of the stick? 

As for sources, I have looked through articles from Communications databases that simply define the different realms of news bias.  However, the studies done in these articles are not really aligning with my argument (therefore, I have to do a lot of extrapolation).  Also, since I can’t use one of the clips from my Communications paper (the Anderson Cooper 360 clip) I am not sure how to find another spot-on video clip or even how a video clip would specifically fit into my paper at this point, since I am looking less at pointing out specific examples of biased news and looking more at biased news as a whole.

Weekly Blog #8

For this fourth and finally paper, I am choosing to discuss news biases.  Specifically, that news cannot be presented without bias.  I am learning a lot about this topic and its larger category, media effects, in my Communications class—the history of media effects as well as different spectrums of effects and how they relate to audiences and different types of personal effects.  While we are currently writing a paper on how (and what) different biases are present in certain media clips (as presented in two different articles we have read), I would like to expand upon and twist this argument to look at more news shows and the fact that the biases are not just a negative side-effect/intention of news broadcasting and other journalism, but a necessary factor of news.  While I would be using some factors of my Communications paper, this paper will not be the same paper; it will use the same sources and biases/ideas presented from our readings, but in a fashion that does not prove how the biases exist, but rather that the biases exist in such a manner that they warp our understanding of the world (i.e. by what events get covered and which are left aside), yet, ironically, on a pivotal level.  A part of this paper will also explore how the presentation of news biases, when trying to be bipartisan, is just as bias, if not more bias that originally depicted.  This paper will include multiple, evident close-readings to, hopefully, mitigate pathos and ethos; yet, it may be tricky to completely avoid both pathos and ethos in this discussion and only focus on logos.