Countering

I liked this section because I'm a terrible arguer. Once in my high school speech and debate class I received zero out of eleven votes for a debate I was in. The fact that I was arguing against lowering the drinking age might have come into play, but regardless, it shook my  debating confidence a bit.

Joseph Harris thinks that...
"to counter is  not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking...respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions".

Thinking of political debates, all candidates every do is argue and attempt to prove how smart they are and how wrong their opponent is, when a more constructive use of their time would be countering, "opening up new lines of inquiry". But this is understandable, I think, because America would rather have a "winner" and a "loser", a "good" and a "bad", because it is easier to cheer for your team that way. 

When you are countering another author's text, first you have to come to terms with their work by identifying their purpose. Then, you can..

Argue the other side- show the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized, or note problems with one that they have argued for

Uncover vales- surface a word  or concept for analysis that a text has left undefined or unexamined

or

Dissent- identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits.

A large  majority of the Onion's articles are "countering" articles, but it is difficult to assign them to one of the three sections that Harris writes about. Most of them use sarcasm as their main countering tool, and I'm not sure which section that falls under... so if any of you know, that would be great if you let me know :)

I'll try to use the article "Obama criticized for Living in Lavish Mansion while Most Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet". I'm pretty sure that they are dissenting... but in a very sneaky manner. The author agrees with all of the commentators, but too much so. They take what criticizers say and blow it up to a whole new level, at times adding in false quotations of both influential people and others that I'm pretty sure are imaginary (I can't even imagine how the Onion deals with lawsuits).

This is an excerpt from the article...

"What message does it send to the American people when their president is living in a ritzy palatial estate at the same time they're struggling to keep their heads above water?" political strategist Robert T. Carlson said Wednesday, noting that Obama's gated home features a lush rose garden, a private balcony, an ostentatious room seemingly devoted to the color blue, a solar­ium, "fancy portraits" of John F. Kennedy and George Washington, and a movie theater. "So much for all that 'shared sacrifice' he keeps talking about.And just look at those gaudy columned porticoes," Carlson continued. "It must have cost a fortune to build that place."

I looked up "Political strategist Robert T. Carlson and could not find him in Google. Perhaps I should have known that this person did not even exist, I guess I'm gullible. But I think that this unique strategy of "identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits" works on most Americans. The others readers probably didn't think twice about the existence of Robert T. Carlson, only about the topic that he brought to light.

So I'm going to put the Onion in the "dissent" category- identifying a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits". But they share the line of thought in a sarcastic way.

What is lost, gained, altered, or remains the same in that countering? 

Seriousness is lost. Also, if a reader is not familiar with the sarcastic tone to the Onion, they might believe that they are in agreement with this article.  What is gained is a fresh insight on the issue/ the hypocrisy, which is useful in some  cases but not to help further the conversation.

 I have a feeling that Joseph Harris would not be pleased with the Onion as a viable "countering" website because they argue the validity of the opponent but do not suggest any new direction of thinking.

Forwarding

Joseph Harris states that the goal of academic writing is "not to have the final word, to bring the discussion to a close, but it push it forward, to say something new, something that seems to call for further talk and writing"(35). The idea of "forwarding" can be defined as "circulating [the author's] writing, highlighting parts of his text for the consideration of others". It is just like reading  an email, writing down your response that is meant to forward conversation about the subject, and sending it to more people who can relate to the original email. It is a public exchange of comments that have been put to use in a new context. Forwarding a text also means that the focus has been "shifted away from what the author has to say and towards your own project" (38). This is much like a conclusion of a literary essay, which brings in a new subject after commenting on the author's original purpose.

In forwarding a text, you shape the original to fit your specific goals by either.....

 illustrating (looking to other texts for examples of a point you want to make),

authorizing (invoking the expertise of another writer to support your thinking),

borrowing (drawing on terms or ideas from other writers  to use in thinking though your subject) or

extending (putting your own spin on the terms or concepts that you take from other texts).

An example of a forwarded text in the Onion is the article "Intelligent, Condescending Life Discovered In Distant Galaxy" which focuses on the momentous leap that NASA scientists have made with identifying life in other galaxies. The actual facts are that "100 billion Earth-like planets in the Milky Way, or one for every sun-type star in the galaxy, said Alan Boss, an astronomer with the Carnegie Institution and author of the new book "The Crowded Universe: The Search for Living Planets." (CNN Tech, A. Pawlowski). The Onion extends the concept that NASA publicized by instigating that the extraterrestrials used "patronizing language and backhanded compliments", saying it was "nice to finally hear from our quaint planet" and that it "certainly took humanity long enough".

So what is lost, gained, altered, or remains the same in that forwarding?

The seriousness is lost. Almost all of the facts are altered (I had to go to CNN to read  the real story). A potential huge discovery is made fun of  by the writers of the Onion, and for what purpose? Perhaps just to make the reader chuckle a bit and look at the story from a different angle, so the reader is thinking more along the lines of Of course we have identified life in other galaxies rather than I'm not sure if there is life in other galaxies. The sarcastic tone of voice takes the original story and turns it into a DUH moment for the readers. 

The New York Times and the Onion

Well, these two are pretty much opposite.
The New York Times is more up-to-date because they have to be. The onion has much more leniency because their audience is of the younger generation and their articles do not affect anyone or spread actual breaking news stories, like the NYT does.

It is argued that the NYT has a slight liberal bias. The Onion has an overwhelming liberal bias.

The Onion takes the more "social" news and charaterizes the politicans while poking fun at them. The Onion takes the news stories and makes the situation (that is usually quite pressing) something that we can laugh at.

My guess is that the Onion looks at how the printed articles of the New York Times are received by the community (looking at the comments?) and makes a new article that sheds light on the issue in relation to the "Average Joe". Another way that the Onion helps the news cycle is that by poking fun at "breaking news", the situation seems less dire than it did when it was printed in black and white.
Example-
The New York Times--- "Perry Ends Bid for Presidency"
Oh, no! He's dropping out! Everyone freak out! 
... and here comes the Onion, making the situation less stressful and more fun...
the Onion --- "Rick Perry Experiences Overwhelming Feeling Of Clarity And Contentment In Final Moments Before Death Of Campaign"
 Giggle. 


In relation to the "press-sphere", the New York Times is much more highly regarded, and a real tool that educated citizens use to keep up-to-date with world and national news. If Jeff Jarvis had included the  NYT and the Onion in his circle pictures, the NYT would definitely be much more prominent. The Onion takes "social", non-pressing news and makes it something we can all step back from and think wow, this is a little ridiculous. I think that the Onion provides a much needed service to the American people. We need a little laughter in our news!


El fiin.

Jeff Jarvis has stuff to say about something regarding the news.

I was skeptical. No, more just like I didn't really care or relate to the article until this line about halfway down: 

"In print, the process leads to a product. Online, the process is the product." I liked this quotation because,well, it makes all of this exciting! Like the news is alive, rather than dead and lonely, printed in the newspaper that no one will pick up.

So, Jarvis pretty much describes the "press-sphere" as everything that contributes to a news story (usually posted online). These things are: video, photo, links, quote, feed, corrections, comments, and narrative. His model made crystal clear sense to me, which is exciting because I don't feel as much as a Internet/news skeptic now. His language was easy to understand. And I like pictures :)

How does this model relate to my experience with the news? Well, I don't ever comment on news stories, I haven't been witness to any, I haven't uploaded photos or videos to further along a story, or made any type of corrections. But I do witness the news story itself, I do see the process. I'm only an observer, but thanks to this new "press-sphere" roaming about, I can now be a better informed observer who can access the true story and see how it develops. I think that the coolest thing about this new "press sphere" is the commenting portion. It's so totally neat-o that I can read what other people are saying about the story. I had never thought about this aspect! You don't get to read comments in the black and white newspaper! Viewing what other, "average joe" people are saying about the story helps me to create my own opinions on the subject, since commentators often bring up new related topics that the article did not cover.

I really liked how this article defined the new press-sphere. It reminds me of a bee-hive, in a good way. :)

Which Blog I'm Following....

The Onion. I think I kinda want to switch to another but oh well I've already come this far.
Audience-- Younger people interested in news. Draws in the Jon Stewart/Colbert Report crowd.

Purpose-- to interest younger generation with news by putting a satirical/ comical spin on the stories. Purpose is to educate on issues in light, satirical manner. The purpose is to engage the audience in world news by bringing it to them in a funny way.

Author-- the point of view is more liberal. The authors are interested in political "gossip" and national news stories that can relate to a large number of citizens. 

Harris Coming to Terms....
-Define the project-- aim is to bring the news to younger generation by means of satire and comedy.  method used is comedy and satire. materials are cool images, bold text, use of grids, videos, and funny headlines.
-Determine uses or limits-- can be used to communicate with large portion of younger generation. it is limited because no one will take them seriously since they are the "joke" of the news companies. They are disregarded as childish and silly. The Onion is disregarded by real news companies, and probably disliked by many politicians and celebrities. 

The New York Times

Reading the New York Times online is a little difficult for me because I don't really want to do it. It's also hard to create a habit of something that you've never done before. First of all, the font gives me a headache. It reminds me of some old grandpa reading the newspaper with his cigar. The layout is difficult to read. I feel like I could do a one hundred million times better job at creating the layout, even if they do that so that it still "looks like a newspaper" or whatever. I find myself only usually looking at the US version because the World version is too much for me to handle. Out of those stories, I only read the ones that directly relate to my life. Such examples are of the birth control coverage story, the one about how Madonna's stalker broke out of the crazy hospital he was in, an article about accommodating pregnant women at work, and the one about how women's roles in the military are changing. Haha looking at that list... did I just become a feminist? Hahah yes, maybe.
Reading the paper New York Times (and the NYT magazine) is much more enjoyable because I get to do it eating my mom's chocolate chip pancakes on a lazy Sunday morning.

Hmmm... the question "What might you have missed in the process" is an interesting question that I ask myself a lot, but never in the context of all of the NYT articles that I don't read. I haven't missed anything. The world is still turning, I'm still alive, there's good people and bad people, and good things and bad things happening everyday. Maybe I don't know about all of them, but I do know about the things in my life that I'm deeply engrained in.

Even the articles that I do read, they do not change my "daily habits, readings, writing, work, thoughts, attitudes, or interactions" anymore than reading Calvin and Hobbes or having a conversation with someone or watching Law and Order or doing my homework does. I do not consider myself more "worldly" or intelligent after reading the NYT. I find myself looking for something to do that I actually have in interest in doing. 

Blog Post Numero Dos

Obviously the similarities that we all share in finding news is through Internet sources. Reading through everyone's' posts, it seemed to me like I'm enrolled in a class with super informed prodigy-geniuses. Everyone claims that the they stay informed via sources like bbc, msn, yahoo etc. but I wondered how many of us actually make a point to "stay informed" everyday, rather than just dinkin around on stumbleupon for a couple hours. I think I was the only one who said that I don't keep up with news via the Internet, and I think that's really surprising. If this is a good representation of our generation, we're the bomb dig. That is the connection with civic literacy, I think. Perhaps I don't possess the knowledge to "meaningfully participate in community/politics", it seems like all of you do! So way to go! Hedges and Carr would be pleasantly surprised! Maybe this high percentage of kids who possess civic literacy has something to do with the fact that we all go to a private university... 

Anyways, I thought it was cool about how news gets spread via word of mouth, but I wondered if that is the whole truth. I've never heard anyone say dude did you hear that the House passes a bill banning insider trading by members of Congress? Awesome!  or hey, let's talk about the recent birth control debate. I think of kids of our generation, once we read news sources, most often we keep what we've learned to ourselves (except maybe at the family dinner table). Your thoughts? Let's be real, I'm probably wrong.
'

News Information

Well, I guess I get news from word of mouth, mostly. And sometimes I catch a glimpse of something interesting in the newspaper while flipping through for the comics. Just kidding, sometimes I actually read the real part of the newspaper, too. That is usually only on the weekends since I don’t have very much time during the week. From listening in class and reading blogs, I’ve learned that most of my  classmates read something like Yahoo! News or some other worldly magazine online. This is hard for me because I really hate reading text on the Internet. I guess I get a lot of "entertainment" news from AOL gossip... love that stuff but I know it’s not worth anything. I think that I learn most from watching the National News and 60 minutes, but I must admit that it is much harder doing those things in college, considering I don’t have a TV. In Halls I usually watch the local news in the morning, but I wouldn't call that “news” most of the time, more like "What's Currently Wrong in your neck of the woods". Facebook doesn't really give me any news, rather everyone's opinions on the latest news, which I don't find helpful. In conclusion, I don’t really like the news. It’s depressing.

Mostly my psychic abilities let me know what's goin' down.
The End.