Blog 9: Improvement

If you had to name one way in which your writing has improved this semester, what would it be? Discuss.

My writing has most improved by gaining experience working with more flexible styles. Previously most of my writing has been dictated by the standard intro--three body paragraphs--conclusion style. Sometimes there were more than three body paragraphs but they all followed a very strict and boring format. Nearly everything in the paper was dictated by a scientific formula. 

For example, the title had to exhibit one of thirteen attention getting methods. The first sentence of the introduction also had to exhibit an attention getter. There had to be a phrase that transitioned from the attention getter to the thesis. After the thesis came a foreshadowing sentence which listed the topics of the body paragraphs. Every body paragraph had to start with a transition which mentioned the topic of the previous paragraph and then the topic of the current paragraph with relationship to the thesis. The end of every body paragraph had to have a summative sentence which mentioned the thesis and the topic of the paragraph. The conclusion had to restate the thesis and re-mention the topics of the body paragraphs. The final sentence of the conclusion had to make reference to the title or first sentence of the introduction to make the paper come full circle.

These rules and guidelines made decent papers, but at times they forced the writing into a stringent and repetitive form. This semester I was actually able to break away from the ultra-strict scientific paper and write more or less how I wanted. It's helped me change the decent scientific style to a much more smooth flowing style.

Blog 8: Sources

For my first source I read an article from EBSCO that discussed how Kickstarter began and some of its successes and failures. It also discussed how crowdfunding sites would change the way small businesses get started. It said that restrictions on crowdfunding had been relaxed a little to encourage more investments in companies. I believe this article will be rather useful for my thesis.

The next source I read went into a good about of detail about the JOBS Act signed by President Obama in April 2012. It talked about how the act loosened restrictions. The source also talked about the influence crowdfunding would have on companies. It mentioned some of the successful stories of Kickstarter and also how fraud is prevented on Kickstarter. This source should also be good for my paper for it's details on the JOBS Act.

Blog 7: Research

Topic: Crowdfunding sites like Indiegogo and Kickstarter
Hypothesis: Crowdfunding sites are allowing Americans to choose what products they want even more directly.

What I know:

• Kickstarter is a way for people to fund projects.
• Many projects have been successfully funded, Nikola Tesla Museum, Ouya, Pebble, et al.
• Many people are skeptical of these sites
• Some funded projects never work out

Research:

• Find articles that help to contrast American choices
• Find articles on the background of Kickstarter and Indiegogo
• Find articles on the successes and failures of Kickstarter and Indiegogo

Schedule:

Fully Commit to Topic by Wednesday 14th

All research and full works cited list done by Friday 16th

Rough Draft Completed by Friday 23rd

Final Draft Completed by Thursday 29th

Blog 6: Paramedic Method

Original:
Generally this claim sounds absurd since it states that a commercial which offends two large groups of people should be allowed to air on the grounds that it offends both groups rather than one group. However, this is actually quite common justification in today’s society; just look at the television cartoon South Park. It pokes fun at numerous different groups of people from a variety of races and religions, yet the show has already seen sixteen seasons and years of television. The reason is because not every member of the groups being parodied find the jokes to be intolerably offensive. Similarly, while some females might find a commercial that stereotypes women offensive, not all women would find the commercial offensive. Likewise the hidden male stereotypes that likely exist in the commercial are not offensive to the vast majority of males. A commercial that offends both groups without crossing the line has found a good harmony and should be allowed to air on television.

Paramedic Method Revised:
Generally this claim sounds absurd since it states that a commercial which offends two large groups of people should be allowed to air on the grounds that it offends both groups rather than one group. However, today's society often uses this justification; just look at the television cartoon South Park. It pokes fun at numerous different groups of people from a variety of races and religions, yet the show has already seen sixteen seasons and years of television. Undoubtedly, because not every member of the groups being parodied find the jokes intolerably offensive. Similarly, while some females might find a commercial that stereotypes women offensive, not all women would find the commercial offensive. Likewise the hidden male stereotypes that likely exist in the commercial are not offensive to the vast majority of males. A commercial that offends both groups without crossing the line has found a good harmony and should be allowed to air on television.

Blog 5: Paper 1 Analysis

In the first paper it seemed that I was raising arguments that weren't exactly what I was supposed to argue based off of my thesis. That seemed to be the biggest issue. I know that at least in my head the arguments are necessary to help prove my thesis, but I should have maintained a tighter control on them and shown how they helped to prove my thesis. This lack of control probably arose from weak-ish topic sentences and not really paying attention to them. I didn't exactly plan any topic sentences for my paragraphs, but I think they did wind up becoming functional topic sentences. However, even if they did turn out to be topic sentences, I didn't pay attention to them and try to force my paragraphs into strict adherence to them.

In the second paper I tried to point out more of how the sentences in my paragraphs relate to the topic sentence and thesis. It was a little bit difficult because I had to use many examples from the film, but at the same time I didn't want it to turn into a summary. But by stating how each example tied back in with the topic sentence and thesis I think it may have gotten a little repetitious at times. 

Blog 4: Paper 1 Topic Sentences

Since this commercial equally offends both males and females alike, I believe that the ad should be allowed to air on television. Generally this claim sounds absurd since it states that a commercial which offends two large groups of people should be allowed to air on the grounds that it offends both groups rather than one group. However, this is actually quite common justification in today’s society; just look at the television cartoon South Park. But what exactly constitutes crossing the line? Interestingly enough, though, finding balance does not necessarily mean that both genders will be made fun of equally. Balancing the humor directed at males and females is vital to not overstepping the line drawn by society though the balance never seems to reflect true equality between the two genders.


Since this commercial equally offends both males and females alike, I believe that the ad should be allowed to air on television. Generally this claim sounds absurd since it states that a commercial which offends two large groups of people should be allowed to air on the grounds that it offends both groups rather than one group. However, this balancing act is actually quite common justification in today’s society; just look at the television cartoon South Park. But what exactly constitutes crossing the line and how does one balance his ad so it does not cross the line? Interestingly enough, though, finding balance does not necessarily mean that both genders will be made fun of equally. Balancing the humor directed at males and females is vital to not overstepping the line drawn by society though the balance never seems to reflect true equality between the two genders.

The original paragraph reads slightly odd, but for the most part it makes sense. My topic sentences seem to require a little expansion here and there so that they better relate back to the thesis. Also for my second paragraph I took the first and second sentences because the first is more of a transition while the second gives the topic of the paragraph. I suppose I could find a way to mash them together, but that would make the sentence too long for my liking.

Blog 3 Teenage Confidential

I feel that the argument David Denby makes in his article, "High-School Confidential: Notes on Teen Movies" is that people go to watch modern teen movies because they like to see the upheaval of the social systems in place in high schools."

To prove this the author has to provide evidence of popular teen movies that feature a social system that gets turned upside down or the hero violates certain principals of the system. Denby accomplishes this throughout his article as he brings up cases like Carrie where a girl is treated poorly, but get her revenge by setting the school on fire. People who watch the movie may feel like her actions are justified since she was the victim of bullying. Denby talks about other stereotypical plots where a nerdy girl attracts the attention of a popular guy. And ultimately they might fall in love like some classic Cinderella story. This goes back to people's want to perhaps go outside their social class and marry someone from a higher standing. Denby also talked about the movies where nerds are bullied but ultimately succeed at life while the jock dwindles his time away at a car dealership or some other inferior job. This seems to embody that old American ideal of working hard to rise through the social ladder to make it to the top.

I feel like the fact that the author wrote an article about teen movies seems to make him sound more credible. Books and written articles published in actual books are always viewed as more credible then statements made on a TV debate or written up on a website online. Denby uses logic to make deductions and statements about the examples he lists. I feel like most of them could be accepted as valid conclusions but they don't often seem like iron clad statements or reasons. He appeals a lot emotion through his vivid word choice. I imagine anyone who reads this will be plagued with either a sense of guilt or bad memories from high school at least one point in the article. He seems to really use pathos to emotionally charge the readers and get them thinking critically about what he's saying.

If I wanted to counter this argument there are a few options I could take. I might try and provide examples of teen movies that don't necessarily feature an upheaval of the social system, but I don't watch nearly enough movies so I can't really think of any off the top of my head. I would also try to make the case that people, at least Americans, wouldn't like the movies because of the social upheaval because that would remind them of communist uprisings. Of course that sounds incredibly outlandish, which might lead me to try and portray the author's argument as outlandish in and of itself and take the examples he lists and portray them as more simplistic to make it seem like he's over analyzing them. The final approach I could take would be to offer an even better reason that makes quite a bit more sense than the current one as to why people go to see teen movies.

In other news, yeah, this blog should probably be considered late. I completely overlooked that part underneath the reading assignment where it said to make a blog. Now if for some reason you want a semi-decent excuse as to why I shouldn't be docked points for posting late then I'll make the case that the news post title said "Assignment for Friday 10/5." This doesn't necessarily imply that it had to be done before class  and as of my posting it is still technically Friday.

Blog 2: The Persuaders

One of the issues talked about in the video was the fact that less and less people are watching the TV ads, so the advertising industry needs to develop better ways to deliver their message. It talked about how some companies were working with the show creators to insert their ads directly into the TV shows. The video talked about how it was semi-successful depending on how obvious it was that the ads were placed in the show with a purpose. I personally feel that blatant ads in TV shows and movies would be a bad move for creators because it'll wind up degrading the story and viewing experience. The video also talked about how some companies are reducing their advertising on TV but increasing it on the internet. I feel that this is a better move because everything in society is merging into the internet, but at the same time I don't think it will be very effective. All those banner ads in the margins of internet sites and pre-roll commercials are quite easy to get rid of with a simple ad-block extension. It only takes a few clicks and one browser restart to get rid of all those ads. It's so easy even your grandma could do it! Because of this I feel that advertising will either out program the ad-block programmers or the entertainment industries will have to evolve to find new ways of generating a profit.

Another topic brought up in the video was the need of advertisers to stand out in the clutter of advertisements. The advertising companies are developing new ways to get people's attention and connect with people so they're more likely to buy the products. One man mentioned that he was doing research on how religious cults are formed, so he could apply the same knowledge to advertising to get people hooked on a certain brand of products. I find this particular approach quite disturbing, because it seems to have the goal of teaching people to ignore logical reasoning and instead choose products solely because the person belongs to a specific kind of brand or wants to be a part of that brand and feel like he belongs.

Blog 1: Response to "Fast Entertainment"

S. Craig Watkins begins his article by discussing the proliferation of media in our lives. He builds a case that media permeates nearly every aspect of American life and is "always on" and readily available. He uses media sharing sites like YouTube and Yahoo! to demonstrate that short video clips and other bits of media are becoming more and more prominent in our lives. He also covers the rise of Apple as its devices shift from portal music players to multi-media devices able to stream video, maintain news feeds, and access social networking sites like Facebook.

Watkins then goes on to explain how people are constantly media multitasking these days. People are focusing on multiple screens or media while they play or work. I was amused as I read this because I was listening to my iPod at the time. To support his claim he provides evidence that more and more children have access to multiple media sources in their bedrooms. He also cites several testimonials from average college kids who discuss the multiple media sources they access while doing homework.

Finally Watkins gets to his actual argument: media multitasking isn't true multitasking and has negative consequences. For media multitasking to be truly multitasking we would have to be focused on two different stimuli. However, Watkins provides several scientific studies where the ability of the human brain to focus on two different stimuli was tested. The scientists concluded that there was a bottleneck in the frontal lobe which  prevents us from truly focusing on two different stimuli. Watkins argues that we must choose what to pay attention to and there are varying degrees of paying attention. He ends his argument by taking a negative stance on media multitasking providing evidence that a train disaster was caused by a man trying to read and respond to text messages at work. He cites Linda Stone who says that continuing to split our attention results in "'a feeling of being overwhelmed, over-stimulation and to a sense of being unfulfilled.'"

Now as for my thoughts on his article, I don't disagree with his first premise. Technology does seem to permeate every little nook and cranny of our lives. In a personal note I would like to point out that he is wrong about Apple actually selling songs to people. They actually lease you the songs until the day that you die, so technically no one can legally inherit your iTunes collection. I also don't disagree with his second premise that people are media multitasking more and more these days. I do disagree with his argument though--or rather I would modify it.

While media multitasking can have negative consequences when used inappropriately, it is perfectly fine in appropriate situations and can prove beneficial when used properly. Media multitasking at work is obviously a bad idea because work should be your primary focus and you should strive to perform your best. When you're on your own time (and not driving a vehicle) and seeking purely to entertain, media multitasking is a perfectly fine. It can also be a good way to keep a healthy balance between consuming entertainment in your room and maintaining your social relationships with friends and family. Often times lyricless music helps students to study or work on their reading assignments. Music blocks out other distractions; and if there are no lyrics, the student pays little attention to the actual music. The songs become pleasantly productive background noise. So when used at appropriate times, media multitasking generates virtually no hazardous situations.

To address Linda Stone's argument that splitting our attention when media multitasking leaves us overwhelmed or overstimulated, I feel that this can greatly depend on what media you are accessing and the content of that media. I do believe that watching television can generate some stress. This is because you are forced to fit your schedule around times when your shows are being aired. Likewise watching television can leave you feeling unfulfilled if the content is especially poor or you miss parts of your show while trying to text friends. I suffer from none of these because I do not watch television.

I draw nearly all of my entertainment from the internet. I watch videos on YouTube; I read books on FanFiction.net and FictionPress.net; and I play flash games on numerous gaming sites. I've found that the internet is a vastly superior medium to television. By centering my interests around YouTube videos I am able to set my own schedule. I watch videos when I want, not when the content creators decide to air them. Thus there is no stress involved in consuming video content. YouTube offers a wide selection of content that can range from highly intellectual and thought provoking to amusing entertainment. Because I have access to such a wide selection, I never feel unfulfilled watching the videos because they're exactly what I want. I can go to my subscription feed and pick out some amusing videos; of if I'm in the mood to think, I can click on some educational videos and learn interesting new facts. It's difficult to miss content in a YouTube video as well because you can pause or rewind the video very easily. Also since most socializing on the internet is done via Facebook, you actually have to pause the video and open a new tab if you want to quickly send a message to a friend.

Ultimately I find these negative aspects pointed out by Stone to be irrelevant because of the flexibility of the internet. Furthermore, the internet is the way of the future and will likely replace television. The number of web shows is always increasing. Several of them are beginning to resemble true TV in quality and style. Check out Video Game High School or The Lizzie Bennet Diaries. VGHS is about a fanciful future where students attend a high school designed to prepare them to become pro-gamers and programmers. The Lizzie Bennet Diaries is a retelling of Pride and Predjudice in an innovative vlog-like (video blog) fashion. Shows like these can attract large followings very easily. Funding them is just as easy as setting up an Indiegogo or Kickstarter page. YouTube content creators like The Young Turks, PhillipDeFranco, and SourceFed create daily news shows for their viewers. Essentially what I'm getting at is that Stone's negatives apply to television, but the internet is quickly usurping the television as the primary source of entertaining videos and news.

Related Items

Kill Your TV (Regarding the superiority of the internet)

Bruce Willis vs. Apple (Regarding Apple's policy on "purchasing" music)

Brief Thoughts on Entertainment (Test Post)

Here is a short test post that kind of rambles about what we talked about on Friday:

Our book says that our culture is becoming more childlike and more concerned with play rather than work. I would disagree with this to some degree. I believe that our cultural consciousness has always been more concerned with play rather than work. Since humans can perceive time they have to spend it. Optimally, every human would try to spend all of his time pursuing happiness. Of course this is isn't possible in reality because we have to expend time to maintain our health and meet basic needs. Humans generally do this by working at jobs, earning money, and spending it on food, water, housing, and other essentials. For most of history, humans have balanced work and play, so they were able to meet their essential needs and also spend their free time pursuing happiness. In our time, however, there seem to be two fundamental changes. One, it is taking less time to meet basic needs. For example, a person can gain enough money to live by mooching off of parents, the government, and ex-lovers via child support. There is no work involved so the person is able to spend all of his free time pursuing happiness or playing. The second fundamental change is the availability of entertainment. Technology and the internet permeate our society making entertainment only a click away. So essentially I don't think that humans have become more concerned with play. Meeting basic needs has simply gotten easier, and entertainment is closer than ever no matter where we are in the world.