Conversations, Who to Listen

The problem that Mark Liberman addresses in his "We Need More Bad Science Writers" article is the reliability of the media. He summarizes a newspaper article about omega-3 fish oil supplements, and how supposedly healthy they are for children of ages eight through twelve. The writer of that article is Denis Campbell. His article stated that fish oil enhances the focus schoolchildren. He wrote the article without any support or knowledgeable references. And so Liberman did some research and questions why Campbell isn't fired from his job. What Liberman discovered was that hardly any scientist has ever tested whether or not fish oil really did help schoolchildren concentrate more. Any tests that were made reported that there was not much change in a child's focus while taking an omega-3 fish oil supplement.

It's infuriating to think that such a reliable source of information could be so false, especially on a serious topic such as science. That was the first message that I got from Liberman. I'm well aware that newspapers have lied before. Back then they lied for the purpose of selling their story and to get the public's attention, so then people will continue reading their news. Nowadays, the news topic is more accurate but sometimes they come with a misleading title. The news' headliner choices relate to the article, but it's mainly there to protect their story from sounding boring. Like for example, when I read a headliner on Yahoo.com, it catches my interest and so I click on the web-link. And most of the time, after I read the article I wonder to myself: "Why did I just wasted my time reading this article". And now, after reading Liberman's article, I feel a bit more concern about what I read in magazines and even, perhaps, the newspapers.

Liberman's evidence that supports his article is Ben Goldacre. A writer that published an article that refuted Campbell's information on fish oil supplements. It was mainly effective because Goldacre and Campbell were from the same publishing company. It shows that their company is willing to re-examine their articles and to fix any problems that arises. More importantly, it also shows that the company is willing to admit when they are wrong. However, there are some problems with Liberman's article. The only valid creditability that he has is Goldacre's article. What if Goldacre is wrong as well? Then both Liberman and Goldacre's statements are invalid, thus proving that Campbell was correct in his writing. But the most vital setback in Liberman's article is his research of the actual scientific study. I could not find a reference or anything that was cited about this research. It's ironic that I am doubting Liberman's article since his article is about doubting other articles.

And finally, I don't agree with what Liberman said about having more bad science writers is a good thing. Science is about discovery that may involve trial and error. It shouldn't have to be error, potential error and doubt. If there well more bad science writers, it would cause us all to question our discoveries. Therefore my suggestion his to have better editors before a story is published. The company's editors should do research of his own about the story and ask the writers about their preferences. So at the end of the day, prevention is the best solution of any problem.

The Power of Open Writing!

The consequences of writing openly online is very little. Nowadays you can see posts that bad mouth just about anything. Take "YouTube" videos for example. We go look up a music video that we thought was just the best thing ever and think, how can anybody hate it, right? Well under the videos you can be sure to find at least one person that will just bad mouth it. For me, if I'm watching an awesome video and I see someone just thrashing the video, I just think that they're trying to hard to be different from everyone else, just to stand out. I mean why else would anyone just take their time to find the video and say bad things about it. Okay sure you can say that another video lead you to this "crappy" one, but why would you still stay there just to create arguments. I mean if I see a video that I don't like, I just move on to find another that's within my taste. I also get that corporations want feedback from their audience as well, but that's why there are "likes" and "dislike" buttons right? Plus you can always express your negative feedbacks in a courteous way.

As you have just read from my rant, there are very consequence in writing online. Like people can question me for going off topic, why do I complain so much or just about anything. No one can really stop you from writing what you want to write online. Nonetheless, there are very powerful benefits for writing online. Your writing can change other people's opinion about how they think on a certain topic. I mean the point is to look from other people's perspective and to make you more knowledgeable. But the most amazing thing about writing openly online is the power to express yourself. As I was typing away in my blog, I had this great feeling of being able to write how I truly felt about any topic. And as a bonus I got to read some of my classmate's blog and also receive their feedback. It was like an intellectual way to socialize online.

I truly believe that we are taking full advantage of online writing, perhaps too far. I mean there is a point where people can get too far on what they say. They start creating pointless arguments; isn't there enough conflict in the world to be making more? Well those are the people who don't deserve this power of writing freely online. I can't deny them of their right to write freely, but I sure as hell can ignore them! It's like this quote from an awesome superhero's uncle "With great power comes great responsibilities" (Spider-man). It's our responsibility to be smart on how we write and how we approach an article. No matter how angry a topic gets us, we must overcome it to be able to argue back. That's why I try my best to reply back with courtesy, even if I'm super mad! I hope those of you who read this will be able to understand and to remember to treat others like humans.

Criticism

Criticism is disapproval expressed by pointing out the flaws of works. And by works I mean anything that's an idea. I know for a fact that I am not good at offering criticism because when I read paper, I tend to read in an optimistic tone. My tone can change if I see that the author has changed his or her tone by thrashing an idea. I carefully analyze what the writer is thrashing about. Generally I hate the idea of critics attacking a work in an unnecessary tone, or just plain bad mouthing. I see that the best way to get your point across is to write back in a gentle tone. That way people who read your reply can read it calmly and see your idea clearly, versus you writing back in an angry tone. If you're criticizing in a disrespectful matter then it'll just cause more tension and anger. You and who you were criticizing will just reply back and forth furiously. And when you write angrily, you start to lose yourself which can lead to you forgetting your point. You may end up not making a point at all and start writing foolishly, because that's just the nature of our anger. Well that's why I choose to read in an optimistic attitude, that way I can reply back and make my point clear.

To be honest, I don't really know what good constructive criticism looks like, mainly because I don't give them out on a daily basis. I also don't like criticism of other people's hard work. I mean it's okay if I'm criticized, but to a certain extent. I would prefer someone to point out my flaws in a courteous matter because to me that just shows respect. But recently, I have seen many works of talent and beauty that are harshly criticized. Somehow there are people out there who are able to find something ugly out of something so beautiful. Like for an example, the movie James Cameron's "Avatar" was a bit hit. But somehow, a few critics manage to find some flaws within the movie like racism. They claim that it was racism because the movie seem to "target" Native Americans. But I saw it as embracing a culture with interest. It made me felt like I wanted to know more about their culture by doing some research. I guess you can always find the good and bad in just about any idea. And I'm not saying it's not possible to find ugly out of beauty, I'm just stating that there are other civil ways of pointing it out.

Base on what I know, I am sure that I can produce a decent criticism. But I'll do it in a way that shows respect that way the author can read my feedback and write back either thanking me or telling that me feedback was unnecessary. And I know for a fact that he or she will write back with an intelligent response. That way I could learn more techniques to improve my writing instead of techniques on how to make witty comebacks. And personality, the best critique that someone can give me is just about anything. I know that I have many flaws but I can't pick one that's "best" or that I'm not understanding what I'm being asked. Well I just hope that I can help my classmates get the best grades on their essays. Good luck to them all!

Bad Drafts are Best!

I was so pleased after reading Anne Lamott's "Shitty First Drafts". It made me feel comfortable to write wherever the heck I want, without the restrictions of my "perfectionism". I totally loved how she shares that we all believe that our favorite authors write perfectly. I truly believe, even after reading this article, that my favorite writer was just perfect. Like for an example, my favorite poet is John Keats and after reading his poems I can only imagine that all he has to do is just sit down and write his poem nonchalantly. But if I try really hard, I can only imagine him hesitating for a moment but then continues on. I mean the thought of John Keats crumpling up papers of his "shitty" drafts was just impossible!
I also loved how Lamott wrote about her writing process. I felt like someone understood me, because I too freak out when nothing is coming to mind as I write my essay. And I get the notion that everyone is doing so well that they are beyond the point of stress and are out having fun. Thus begins my long nights of staying up late, frantically finishing up my paper before the next few hours that it's due. But now I feel a bit better about writing the first draft, because I have always treated my first draft as my final draft. Now I can just write everything that comes out of my mind...that relates to the topic of course, but it case it doesn't, I can always change it later. And it's comforting knowing that a higher being like God is on my side, helping with my paper, because no other problems in the world are as important! I just want to point how respectful and understanding Lamott is. I mean it may seem like a small detail for most, but I really liked how she addresses to both audiences; those who believe and those who don't.
There was one thing that I didn't agree and one thing I didn't understand from this essay. What I didn't understand form this article was "the kid against the fence" under School Lunches. Like is there any wrong with a "kid against the fence", is he trapped? Well at least he was very helpful to Lamott in the end...somehow. And what I didn't agree with was how she wrote a draft twice as long as what was required. I mean if I did that, I would be going off on so many tangents to the point where the topic in of my essay is lost. Plus with all of the workload in college, I doubt that we would have time to write such a paper. I mean we would have time, but that would just cut into our free time of going out. I guess I'm just saying that because I'm a freshmen, but I'm sure that one day I'll be studying and working all the time. And I just went off a bit of a tangent, and you know what I feel fine...thanks Anne!
And ending her essay with her going to the Special Olympics was very heart-felting, it made me happy and I usually not get happy after reading an essay. And man I sure would love to make someone happy after reading my essay. And she's also a teacher, which for some reason makes it better. Probably because I respect teachers who actually care about their work, otherwise she wouldn't have written this essay. And I guess the best practice that I can get out of this essay is to just write whatever you want and proofread it later. It's beneficial because it allows you to write all of your thoughts and you can put them all together rather than trying to recall thoughts of what you thought were "bad". Overall, Lamott's essay did help ease my writing anxieties, so thanks again Anne!

What It Is!

Based on the work that I have done so far and the discussions that I've had in class, I now know that a rhetorical analysis is an argument supported by facts and critical analysis. And in order to achieve a great rhetorical analysis much thought, time and organization must be put into it. Now whenever I hear about a rhetorical analysis, my mind is set to think about the triangle: logos, pathos and ethos. And like I said, I think that the purpose of such an analysis is to debate about a certain topic that you strongly believe in and defending your argument with facts. I also think it's a way to strengthen your beliefs, because the more people that you are able to convince, the more confident you are in your views. To me, it's like a drive that makes you want to continue to argue; and soon enough ideas will just start flowing to the point where you so much that you'll need to sit down to organize them. And once you organized them, you'll come back even more confident on where you stand in your argument.

An idea or problem is needed in a rhetorical analysis, so that the writer can persuade others to either support his/her idea or support his/her solution for a problem. And it's not just about the essay and what it needs, but the writer as well. Because credibility is vital, or at very least, how knowledgeable the writer is about his/her argument.

I plan to organize my analysis by presenting my topic and pointing out an argument. I'll be using the rhetorical triangle techniques, logos, pathos and ethos. Then I will try to go in depth with each technique depending if my topic has all of them. I know that the rhetorical triangle varies in every topic, so I'll focus on whichever is my strongest: logos, pathos or ethos. I will also mention the positives and negatives of my argument. I generally start with a small positive piece of information, then I may give a negative one (impact of it may vary). But I follow it up with a more important statement, countering the negative one that I just gave. I mainly like to list the importance of the pros and cons on where I stand in my argument, because I know that not even side of a debate is perfect. If I were to type a paper will just using positive facts, I would feel really ignorant with my ideals. Plus I think that opposition is a great opportunity for you to get more information about your topic.I believe that it will help build a stronger background of how knowledgeable you are on your topic, thus enhancing your credibility as a writer. And based on the media that I selected, I think I have a better idea of what I want my argument to be. And so I'm now looking forward to start my paper with techniques that I have learned from my class about rhetorical analysis.

Propaganda

While searching online for propagandas, I read some that involved North Korea. Then I found a really interesting article about a music video that reopened North and South Korea's history of war. At first I was shocked to see such pretty women in such a way. But as it turns out, they had a message embedded in one of their songs. The artists are a popular all female singing group known as 4minute. Their song that was causing a minor commotion in Korea is titled "HuH". The lyrics in the song can be heard in a way that's boasting South Korea's constitutional democracy. The words of the song state that they can do "anything" and can't be controlled. It seems that they were targeting North Korea's communistic government negatively. Although the broadcast was not as affective as they wanted to be, their message was still clear. That the life style and health of the South is much better than up North. But even before this song, tension was already built from their history of war. And North Korea has threatened South Korea multiple times before. One threat was that they would make Seoul, the capital of Korea, into a "sea of flames". I'm glad that the South used a more nonviolent approach to try to counter North's threats. But they are just worsening the tension, thus provoking North Korea.
It was quite a clever idea to use the media to make South Korea seem like the place to be. Because Korean pop culture is well known in all of Asia, and is gradually spreading in America. Many Asian Americans in my community know more Korean pop stars or famous actors and actresses than they do for any other Asian stars who are out of the U.S. So in other words, South Korea has the international advantage when it comes down to the media. And using idolized singers is one of the perfect ways to show their advantage. It may catch the attention of some North Koreans and attract them to switch sides. Many things are possible when you use media to attract certain audiences, especially if the South showed that they have more liberty.
Well there are no doubts that propaganda techniques have evolved. It's because times have changed and technology now has a large influence in our lives more than ever. Like using music rather than posters is a major shift. I do hate that music is used in this matter because I see music as an escape, especially from politics. But I also think that propaganda is something that is clever and that I actually wouldn't mind reading. The majority of the citizens don't think much about it. And the messages that are of propaganda today relates to government issues such as political leaders, the economy and human liberties. Just as the song pokes fun at the North Korean leader, their economy and how the South has more freedom for it's citizens. So as of 2010, for this propaganda, the quarrel is between North Korea and South Korea.