Part 1
Creating characters in arguments is important. By creating character, you are inventing ethos in your argument. Thus, self-characterization is the key to make your arguments persuasive. But what kinds of character should we establish? This is very important. If you want to invent ethos and make your argument persuasive, you have to create "Good Character". What do you mean by "Good Character"? It means you have to make a character that has virtue and moral.
Applying this concept of "Good Character" into my own project, if I were to make a credible argument for the future of journalism issue, I will probably use respected authorities' for support of my claim. For example, let's say I wanted to argue that for saving of journalism, the government should not involve. In this case, i will use the Gates Founder's quotes. It will add credibility in my argument because it's well know authority, and it will back up my claim.
Besides establishing "Good Character", "Good Sense" and "Good Will" are necessary for inventing ethos. Arguments which have Good Will will consider the audiences' needs. Arguments with "Good Sense" will demonstrate intelligence, your knowledge and professionally and the sense of you know what you are taking about.
I will use these concepts of Good Will and Good Sense in my own project. Good Will can be established by addressing the information of what bad things will happen to people if government involved in Journalism. Good Sense can be achieved by talking about my own experience with Japanese Journalism; the fact that Japanese journalism has government involvement, and how it affected to me as a citizen.
If I could achieve all of these three "Good" in my argument, it will invent ethos, credibility, and authority, which are all makes persuasive.
Part 2
For this part of assignment, I chose the online community called Open Salone. In this community, the series of blog called "the future of Journalism" pasted by Kafman, is found the members most persuasive, or at least I've found. His blog posts reached hits and picked by Editor's Pick many times. What makes Kafman's blog so successful? What are the distinctive from other blogger? These answers can be found by rhetorical analysing!
I particularly liked his post titled "We must kill press freedom to save it". If you are interested here you can access to his blog: http://open.salon.com/blog/future_of_journalism/2009/08/25/we_must_kill_press_freedom_to_save_it.
In this post, he is criticizing a Los Angels Time's article which argues "The Newspaper should charge its the online contents in order to survive". He points out each parts from Los Angels Times article that is problematic, and argued that LA Time's claim is wrong because charging online contents will not increase its revenue enough. To support his claim, he used external proof, that is documents and statistic numbers of newspapers' revenue ratio. This rhetorical skill works for his audience because his audience are people who are passionate about journalism and already have some knowledge on it. So their needs were intelligence, and Kafman established the Good Sense. His argument used particular language style to engage its audience. His style was not something you see in newspaper or serious magazines, but more casual way and as you read it you feel like he is actually talking to you. I liked his blog series. I think I will keep subscribe it.
Friday, February 26, 2010
Thursday, February 25, 2010
Cover Memo
Title of the Subject: Proposal for reconsidering curriculm of Journalism Department at SU.
Audience: Seattle University, Journalism department, Chair,
BAsic Analysis: What's in there?
1. Analysis SU Journalism Curriculm:
How is it SU Journalism department's curriculm ? What does it provide to students? How does it prepare student for Journalism field in the future?
2. Journalism is changing: What, how, why Journalism is changing? Data. WHat is old journalism and what is new Journalism?
3. Analysis the models for future journalism:
What are the possible models used for future journalism? What are the common things seen in each models? Are there any best models that stands out from others?
4. Findings from analysis: How the current SU J-Curriculm and the models for the future of Journalism connect? WHat are the common things seen each models? Are there any new requirments for the future of Journalists? Can current SU J-curriculm provide the elements which needed for the future Journalists? What can we say about SU J-curriculm should do in order to create future journalists.
5. Analysis Journalism curriculm in other school:
How UW Journalism curricurum different from SU? WHat is the elements which top journalism school has and SU does not? WHat other schools are doing for the changes? Are SU late for its action?
6. How Seattle University mission will support my idea:
LOI:Ethic and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
February 25, 2010
Mr. John A. Rieger
Chairperson
Ethic and Excellence in Journalism Foundation
210 Park Ave., Ste. 3150
Oklahoma City, OK 73102-5604
Dear Mr. Rieger:
Seattle University requests $ 250,000 for high definition camcorders and SDL digital camera skits.
Organization:
Since it's founded in 1981, Department of Journalism of Seattle University has held exellent performing in journalism field. We have shown exellence in our journalistic conducts which is guided by university's mission: empowering the justice for human world.
Project Description:
Fashion and photography: ideal relationship
According to Baldev Duggal, there is intergal connections between the world of fashion and photography. One of the current problems that challenging fashion world is the avante-garde brands fround around the world Baldev said.
What Baldev is saying are pretty apparent if you look at tJapanese fashion world. One of the characteristic seen in Japanese fashion world is its speed of shifts. In Japanese fashion world, new brand come up and other disappear every day. The brand you bought yersterday might not be found next day. This is why Japanese fashion world does not have hegmony brands like western fashion world, rather they creates bunch of new brands everyday, and put off if it does not get consumers' attention.
This different Japanese retail system answers why Japanese brands are avante-grade. They do not creates solid hegmony brands because they are giving chances to every amature fashion designer. But still, it is difficult to sucess in Japanese fashion world: Most of these brands dissaper befor they get name brands.
Going back to Baldev's argument, he argues that this avante grade fashion brands like in Japan is the reason why we find the connection of photography in our fashion world. The western fashion world has found photography as a solution for beating the cheap forign avante-grade brands in the competing market. Photography with its charactristic of caputuring the moment, caputured the beauty and significance of the particular brands which attract the audience. Thus, the role of photography in fashion world act as advertisment tool.
Fashion's beauty were shown more clearly by photographing even as adding new look of beauty on it. With photography, people became able to see the diffrent aspect of fashion beauty which attracted most of them. Photography, on the other hand, were used its characteristic by fashion brands which opened up more capacities and posibilities of photography. This mutual relation between fashion world and photography has resulted creating new kinds of photography called "fashion photography".
This intergal relationship seen in fashion and photography can be something similar to the ideal relationship of human beings. In our good relationship, we need good partner who can induce you to be better in any aspect of you life as well as you are good influence on the other. As a result, the couple will be able to create a good marrage, good kids and great family together, just like fashion and photography work together situmulatly and create the best products at the end.
What Baldev is saying are pretty apparent if you look at tJapanese fashion world. One of the characteristic seen in Japanese fashion world is its speed of shifts. In Japanese fashion world, new brand come up and other disappear every day. The brand you bought yersterday might not be found next day. This is why Japanese fashion world does not have hegmony brands like western fashion world, rather they creates bunch of new brands everyday, and put off if it does not get consumers' attention.
This different Japanese retail system answers why Japanese brands are avante-grade. They do not creates solid hegmony brands because they are giving chances to every amature fashion designer. But still, it is difficult to sucess in Japanese fashion world: Most of these brands dissaper befor they get name brands.
Going back to Baldev's argument, he argues that this avante grade fashion brands like in Japan is the reason why we find the connection of photography in our fashion world. The western fashion world has found photography as a solution for beating the cheap forign avante-grade brands in the competing market. Photography with its charactristic of caputuring the moment, caputured the beauty and significance of the particular brands which attract the audience. Thus, the role of photography in fashion world act as advertisment tool.
Fashion's beauty were shown more clearly by photographing even as adding new look of beauty on it. With photography, people became able to see the diffrent aspect of fashion beauty which attracted most of them. Photography, on the other hand, were used its characteristic by fashion brands which opened up more capacities and posibilities of photography. This mutual relation between fashion world and photography has resulted creating new kinds of photography called "fashion photography".
This intergal relationship seen in fashion and photography can be something similar to the ideal relationship of human beings. In our good relationship, we need good partner who can induce you to be better in any aspect of you life as well as you are good influence on the other. As a result, the couple will be able to create a good marrage, good kids and great family together, just like fashion and photography work together situmulatly and create the best products at the end.
Thesis ideas
- What is the relationship between fashion and photography?
- What is photography? Is it Art? Is it record or document? Is it advertisment?
- Controversial issue surrounded a ads photos for the campigne of United Color brand taken by Bamment. Issue of shocking photography.
- Controversial arguments surrounding the Irivng Pen's exotic portrait.
- Controverial arguments surrounding the nature of documentary photography. Is it "violating" the subjects? IS photographing poor unethical?
Tuesday, February 23, 2010
MAP final draft: The Future of Journalism Argumnents
Introduction:
(1) Research question or thesis
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. Because of this situation, the traditional journalism now faces the biggest problems they have ever had. Over its existence and survival, many scholars and medians have discussed the different ways of saving the traditional journalism. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in each argument to try to find whether the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience or not.
(2) A description of the artifacts and its contexts, Justification of the analysis
The 4 arguments including- Steve Jobs from CEO of Apple Inc, Hal Varian from Google Inc, and John Kerry from government - are best for the method of criticism used in this situation. Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the way to save traditional journalism. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry argued that in order to save traditional journalism, government involvement is necessary.
Some people might ask: why do need to analyze these arguments? First or foremost, does the future of traditional Journalism matter? Well the answer is “yes”. Believe or not, the future of traditional journalism is important issue for all of Americans. Journalism has been part of American life and supported our society more than 100 years. The reason why we can access to reliable news is because of traditional journalism. If the traditional journalism somehow disappears, that means end of the nation. There will be no nation exists without communication, news, and information (unless you are in North Korea or some other exceptional country). These 4 arguments are worthwhile for analyzing because they are being discussed out there today. This entire analysis contributes to better understanding of the best way of saving traditional journalism as well as saving our own nation.
(3) Description of a method of criticism (?)
For this analysis, the neo-Aristotelian criticism is the best theory to use. The significance of neo-Aristotelian analysis is that it compares the means of persuasion by understanding the inventions. The purpose of this critical theory is to find out whether or not the speakers use the best rhetorical techniques to evoke intended response from its audience. Its purpose is not, obviously, to discover if the speaker succeeded in the persuading his audience or not. With the neo-Aristotelian analysis, the situation will be outlined first. Then audiences will be specified as well as their decision is defined. Finally, choice and arrangement of persuasive factors including- logical, psychological, and character logical- will be revealed and evaluated against the guideline of the rhetoric.
(4) History:
Before we begin, we should look at the background of the issue because it will help us having better understanding of what we are about to do. Why people began talking about the future of traditional Journalism? What lies on the background of saving them? The origin of failing traditional journalism is not simple. Its causes are very complicated, and it is mixture of two or more factors. For example, the first and foremost discussion about the future of journalism started almost 10 years ago. When the Internet came, some media people worried about existence of newspaper. Newspaper industries have been surviving until now by transforming themselves with digital contents. However, they lost its audiences as well as advertisement revenue. As the recession gets worse from couple years ago, many newspaper industries has began to shut down and employees lost their jobs. Due to this complicated background, the solution for saving the traditional Journalism has not met yet.
Analysis: Applying the canons
(1) Invention
Invention is important rhetorical element to look during analysis. During his presentation of its high-tech device called iPad, Steve Jobs used mixture of internal proofs- logos and pathos. Here is how he invented his arguments:
During the demo, he showed New York Times article on the iPad screen. Then simply he just began to play around with device; opening up an article, enrage images, flip the pages etc. There were no words. But audience at the conference was all attracted to Jobs’ performance.
(From Apple’s Website)
The visual images have more emotional effects than words, and Jobs knew that. He showed how iPad can attract audience by demonstrating attracted audience at the conference. He continued "therefore, high-tech device such as iPad will revolutionize and save the traditional journalism industries" by using logical appeal. Ethos however, did not work out well in Jobs argument. His character of being "CEO's Apple Inc" played negatively because it made audience think he is just trying to sell his products for his company's benefits. Thus, he lost his credibility and honesty because of his character.
Meanwhile, Hal Varian used external proof-documents from Newspaper Association of America- along with logics. He used data from NAA document. For example in his statement, Varian stated data such as "Typically, 53% of newspaper spending goes to traditional printing for distribution, and 35 % of them goes to core function of newsgathering". Other external proof are seen in the quote "only 39% internet users surveyed by Pew said they spend time online looking for news" and "currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue” stated in his argument. With these external proof and data from NAA documents, Varian criticized Steve Jobs’ argument. Varian concluded the argument; even though industries could attract audience by high-tech device, its users will not see the news with the device. Varian’s argument for how to save the traditional newspaper industries is to get ads revenue by increasing qualities of online ads. Therefore, he continued, Google Inc can help newspaper industries and improve their qualities of ads. Thus, Varian used external proof and gained credibility in his argument; he also used inductive reasoning: series of specific data is used to draw a conclusion in which the solution is to increase the qualities of online ads.
Like Varian, John Kerry also used many rhetorical skills of invention at the government hearing. One of the significant parts is the opening remark of his statement:
“A brass plaque on a wall at Columbia University’s School of Journalism bears the words of legendary newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer: ‘Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together.’ If we take seriously this notion that the press is the forth states, or the fourth branch of government, it is time we examine the future of journalism in the digital Information Age and what it means to our Republic and to our democracy”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
Here, Kerry’s rhetorical choice is concerned with which person’s quotes to use. He quoted from the most credible person in journalism field, Joseph Pulitzer, and this choice gives credibility, as well as attention gather. Another significant rhetoric he used is that he talked about alternative solution for saving traditional journalism: cross media ownership, and local web-only news style. He then pointed out some elements of why these alternative solutions do not work. Kerry used inductive reasoning: He first lay out bunch of examples- both internal and external proof, which illustrates the changing of economical society and the emergence of new form of media. Then he draws to general conclusion. Here are some of the examples he used:
“In the last eight years, we have gone from zero bloggers to more than 70 million…just look at the way Janis Krums, a New York City ferry passenger, broke the news that flight 1549 out of La Guardia had landed in the Huston River- he took a picture himself and tweeted the feed to an audience of thousands”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
Thus, Kerry used a specific events happened in the past as an evidence for showing how the media is changing. Then he continues:
“Google topped $21.7 billion in advertising revenue in 2008, but the news it provides is an aggregate from free news sources/ Craigslist, which provides free classified ads on-line, gets about one billion visits a month, costing newspapers billions of dollars a year”
(Quoted from website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
These examples are external proof such as documents, which allow him to illustrate the condition of changing society due to the emergence of new media. Then he draws to the conclusion saying the new business model of newspaper industries are needed in this new society; but many solutions are failed; and therefore, government involvement is called for its solution. This inductive reasoning with mixture of different kinds of evidence he used worked well in his statement.
Conclusion and implication
In exploring the rhetorical process in each arguments, my attempts to find whether or not the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience was revealed by analyzing with the method of Neo-Aristotelian criticism. As a result of this analysis, it showed that the speakers use the bunch of different rhetoric techniques in order to propose the solution for saving traditional journalism. Steve Jobs from Apple Inc. argued that iPad will save the traditional Journalism; Hal Varian from Google Inc. argued that increasing the qualities of online ads will save its future; John Kerry, a government official argued that government involvement will save them from the crisis. Thus, by re-constructing its contexts and applying the canons, the analysis shows the special connection between speakers and their arguments. That connection is the fact that what each speaker argues for the traditional journalism is based on their interests, belief, and profits. This significant finding from the analysis allows us to enter into the persuasion of my proposal in which how to save traditional Journalism: In order to save traditional Journalism, we need to hold a discussion forum, and individuals are needed to actively participate in the conversation.
(1) Research question or thesis
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. Because of this situation, the traditional journalism now faces the biggest problems they have ever had. Over its existence and survival, many scholars and medians have discussed the different ways of saving the traditional journalism. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in each argument to try to find whether the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience or not.
(2) A description of the artifacts and its contexts, Justification of the analysis
The 4 arguments including- Steve Jobs from CEO of Apple Inc, Hal Varian from Google Inc, and John Kerry from government - are best for the method of criticism used in this situation. Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the way to save traditional journalism. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry argued that in order to save traditional journalism, government involvement is necessary.
Some people might ask: why do need to analyze these arguments? First or foremost, does the future of traditional Journalism matter? Well the answer is “yes”. Believe or not, the future of traditional journalism is important issue for all of Americans. Journalism has been part of American life and supported our society more than 100 years. The reason why we can access to reliable news is because of traditional journalism. If the traditional journalism somehow disappears, that means end of the nation. There will be no nation exists without communication, news, and information (unless you are in North Korea or some other exceptional country). These 4 arguments are worthwhile for analyzing because they are being discussed out there today. This entire analysis contributes to better understanding of the best way of saving traditional journalism as well as saving our own nation.
(3) Description of a method of criticism (?)
For this analysis, the neo-Aristotelian criticism is the best theory to use. The significance of neo-Aristotelian analysis is that it compares the means of persuasion by understanding the inventions. The purpose of this critical theory is to find out whether or not the speakers use the best rhetorical techniques to evoke intended response from its audience. Its purpose is not, obviously, to discover if the speaker succeeded in the persuading his audience or not. With the neo-Aristotelian analysis, the situation will be outlined first. Then audiences will be specified as well as their decision is defined. Finally, choice and arrangement of persuasive factors including- logical, psychological, and character logical- will be revealed and evaluated against the guideline of the rhetoric.
(4) History:
Before we begin, we should look at the background of the issue because it will help us having better understanding of what we are about to do. Why people began talking about the future of traditional Journalism? What lies on the background of saving them? The origin of failing traditional journalism is not simple. Its causes are very complicated, and it is mixture of two or more factors. For example, the first and foremost discussion about the future of journalism started almost 10 years ago. When the Internet came, some media people worried about existence of newspaper. Newspaper industries have been surviving until now by transforming themselves with digital contents. However, they lost its audiences as well as advertisement revenue. As the recession gets worse from couple years ago, many newspaper industries has began to shut down and employees lost their jobs. Due to this complicated background, the solution for saving the traditional Journalism has not met yet.
Analysis: Applying the canons
(1) Invention
Invention is important rhetorical element to look during analysis. During his presentation of its high-tech device called iPad, Steve Jobs used mixture of internal proofs- logos and pathos. Here is how he invented his arguments:
During the demo, he showed New York Times article on the iPad screen. Then simply he just began to play around with device; opening up an article, enrage images, flip the pages etc. There were no words. But audience at the conference was all attracted to Jobs’ performance.
(From Apple’s Website)
The visual images have more emotional effects than words, and Jobs knew that. He showed how iPad can attract audience by demonstrating attracted audience at the conference. He continued "therefore, high-tech device such as iPad will revolutionize and save the traditional journalism industries" by using logical appeal. Ethos however, did not work out well in Jobs argument. His character of being "CEO's Apple Inc" played negatively because it made audience think he is just trying to sell his products for his company's benefits. Thus, he lost his credibility and honesty because of his character.
Meanwhile, Hal Varian used external proof-documents from Newspaper Association of America- along with logics. He used data from NAA document. For example in his statement, Varian stated data such as "Typically, 53% of newspaper spending goes to traditional printing for distribution, and 35 % of them goes to core function of newsgathering". Other external proof are seen in the quote "only 39% internet users surveyed by Pew said they spend time online looking for news" and "currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue” stated in his argument. With these external proof and data from NAA documents, Varian criticized Steve Jobs’ argument. Varian concluded the argument; even though industries could attract audience by high-tech device, its users will not see the news with the device. Varian’s argument for how to save the traditional newspaper industries is to get ads revenue by increasing qualities of online ads. Therefore, he continued, Google Inc can help newspaper industries and improve their qualities of ads. Thus, Varian used external proof and gained credibility in his argument; he also used inductive reasoning: series of specific data is used to draw a conclusion in which the solution is to increase the qualities of online ads.
Like Varian, John Kerry also used many rhetorical skills of invention at the government hearing. One of the significant parts is the opening remark of his statement:
“A brass plaque on a wall at Columbia University’s School of Journalism bears the words of legendary newspaper publisher Joseph Pulitzer: ‘Our Republic and its press will rise or fall together.’ If we take seriously this notion that the press is the forth states, or the fourth branch of government, it is time we examine the future of journalism in the digital Information Age and what it means to our Republic and to our democracy”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
Here, Kerry’s rhetorical choice is concerned with which person’s quotes to use. He quoted from the most credible person in journalism field, Joseph Pulitzer, and this choice gives credibility, as well as attention gather. Another significant rhetoric he used is that he talked about alternative solution for saving traditional journalism: cross media ownership, and local web-only news style. He then pointed out some elements of why these alternative solutions do not work. Kerry used inductive reasoning: He first lay out bunch of examples- both internal and external proof, which illustrates the changing of economical society and the emergence of new form of media. Then he draws to general conclusion. Here are some of the examples he used:
“In the last eight years, we have gone from zero bloggers to more than 70 million…just look at the way Janis Krums, a New York City ferry passenger, broke the news that flight 1549 out of La Guardia had landed in the Huston River- he took a picture himself and tweeted the feed to an audience of thousands”
(From website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
Thus, Kerry used a specific events happened in the past as an evidence for showing how the media is changing. Then he continues:
“Google topped $21.7 billion in advertising revenue in 2008, but the news it provides is an aggregate from free news sources/ Craigslist, which provides free classified ads on-line, gets about one billion visits a month, costing newspapers billions of dollars a year”
(Quoted from website of Senate John Kerry, Newsroom)
These examples are external proof such as documents, which allow him to illustrate the condition of changing society due to the emergence of new media. Then he draws to the conclusion saying the new business model of newspaper industries are needed in this new society; but many solutions are failed; and therefore, government involvement is called for its solution. This inductive reasoning with mixture of different kinds of evidence he used worked well in his statement.
Conclusion and implication
In exploring the rhetorical process in each arguments, my attempts to find whether or not the speakers used the available means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from audience was revealed by analyzing with the method of Neo-Aristotelian criticism. As a result of this analysis, it showed that the speakers use the bunch of different rhetoric techniques in order to propose the solution for saving traditional journalism. Steve Jobs from Apple Inc. argued that iPad will save the traditional Journalism; Hal Varian from Google Inc. argued that increasing the qualities of online ads will save its future; John Kerry, a government official argued that government involvement will save them from the crisis. Thus, by re-constructing its contexts and applying the canons, the analysis shows the special connection between speakers and their arguments. That connection is the fact that what each speaker argues for the traditional journalism is based on their interests, belief, and profits. This significant finding from the analysis allows us to enter into the persuasion of my proposal in which how to save traditional Journalism: In order to save traditional Journalism, we need to hold a discussion forum, and individuals are needed to actively participate in the conversation.
Why Can't Women Ski Jump- WHere the stasis lies in the argument?
In the article "Why Can't Women Ski Jump", Claire raised questions for the situation which Olympic does not offer ski jump for women. She disagree some degree with IOC but in some degree she agrees. And she argues that it is likely impossible to include it.
She shows the unfairness and contradiction of IOC by stating the fact that ski jump are not offered to women although all games are offered both men and women. It is contradiction and discrimination.
However Claire also points out how women's ski jump does not apply to its "technical requirement". Also she described the difficulties and realities in the attempt of including women's ski jumper.
With this association of concepts, she created her conclusion that it is impossible to include women's ski jump in Olympic. This association of concepts and the conclusion is stasis in her essay; the degree of difficulties the women ski jumpers faces in contradiction of IOC's announcement.
Debates Team: Abolishing private school?
I agree with Chris's value which shows importance on equal educational opportunities for everyone. That is why I vote for him. However, I am not 100 % agree with his proposal. Even equal education chance is important, it does not mean avoiding private school gives equal education opportunities. Only public education does means equal education opportunities, but mixture of private and public school also can create equal educational opportunities in society.
For instance, in Japan we have both public schools and private schools. We have public college and private college as well as high schools and junior high school, or even private kindergardens. But compare to U.S., the numbers of such private kindergardens or high school are few, and public schools are majority. So why can Japanese education system of mixture of public and private keep its equal education opportunities? Well, the ration of public and private school is one answer. Unlike U.S., most of kids goes to public school, and kids who go to private school are rare. So private school does not take opportunities over from public school.
Another reason is the quality of public school and private school are same. Basically no matter you go private or public school, what you learn in the school is same. So in Japan, just because you go to private school does not mean you have better education. That said, whether going private or public school, everyone has equal educational opportunities.
Thus, after debating, I think it is not the matter of avolishing private or the other. The solution they should look at is not that point. Rather, they should discuss how to improve the standard American education system.
Movie Review: Castro's Life
This weekend, my boyfriend asked me to watch this Al Pacino mivoe called "Castro's Life".
My first thought is: It wouldn't be better than Scarface. Whatever the new film comes out, people compare Al Pacino's film with the legend film Scarface. I didn't wanted to feel dissapointment after wacthing the film.
I knew it would be disappointment because I heard the plots and characters are almost same as in Scarface. According to the DVD package, Castro's life is a story of drug dealer, who lives in New York. It is just Scarface in 20 centry version.
But despite of my negative thoughts, Al Pacino did not let me down. His talent and carisma attracted me just as much as he attracted me in the Scarface.
The story and characters were same, however, the two stories had totally different tastes. It wasn't just a 20 centry Scarface. In Castro's life, there are many elements that were'nt seen in Scarface. For example, it's love. Scarface is pretty much focusing on drug dealer and how he became rich from poor, and how he declined from thr rich to pig. It was all about money, power, and drugs. And it is hard to related youself with the characters because it is a little too unrealistic.
On the other hand, in "castro's life", you will feel more connection with the character. It is more focus on the love, humanity and relationship. While it is story about drug dealer, there are love elements in the film. And that the part where Al Pacino's talent can be seen. Al Pacino acted a character of one drug dealer who lives in New York trying to start new life. It was not just one drug dealer's life. The character confronts with struggle in society, conflicts within himself, friendship and betrays, and love with one woman. These humanistic elements that everyone can relate to is the elements that makes "Castro's life" distinguishes from Scarface.
It is not just a replica of "Scarface". As good as the "Scarface" was, the "Castro's life" is one of the greatest film of all the time.
My first thought is: It wouldn't be better than Scarface. Whatever the new film comes out, people compare Al Pacino's film with the legend film Scarface. I didn't wanted to feel dissapointment after wacthing the film.
I knew it would be disappointment because I heard the plots and characters are almost same as in Scarface. According to the DVD package, Castro's life is a story of drug dealer, who lives in New York. It is just Scarface in 20 centry version.
But despite of my negative thoughts, Al Pacino did not let me down. His talent and carisma attracted me just as much as he attracted me in the Scarface.
The story and characters were same, however, the two stories had totally different tastes. It wasn't just a 20 centry Scarface. In Castro's life, there are many elements that were'nt seen in Scarface. For example, it's love. Scarface is pretty much focusing on drug dealer and how he became rich from poor, and how he declined from thr rich to pig. It was all about money, power, and drugs. And it is hard to related youself with the characters because it is a little too unrealistic.
On the other hand, in "castro's life", you will feel more connection with the character. It is more focus on the love, humanity and relationship. While it is story about drug dealer, there are love elements in the film. And that the part where Al Pacino's talent can be seen. Al Pacino acted a character of one drug dealer who lives in New York trying to start new life. It was not just one drug dealer's life. The character confronts with struggle in society, conflicts within himself, friendship and betrays, and love with one woman. These humanistic elements that everyone can relate to is the elements that makes "Castro's life" distinguishes from Scarface.
It is not just a replica of "Scarface". As good as the "Scarface" was, the "Castro's life" is one of the greatest film of all the time.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Social Ideology in Japan: Failling Young Generation
Selecting artifact
Japanese Newspaper Editorial article addressing young people need to be more enegetic.
Analyzing an artifact
1. Reconstructing the context
a. Rhetor: Yomiuri shinbun is a more conservative newspaper. Rhetorical philosphey is..... Around this time, many there were some kind of ideology that young people were seen as failer in Japan. Yomiuri is trying to show how young people are in danger and need to change.
b. Occasion:When this rhetoric occured, Japan had ideology that young are looser. Many politicisan, famous writer started to argue how young people are not active, and they need to change. They are insulting young people. Due to ressesion, there are so many young peopel who doesn't have jobs and young homless too. These economic and social background made the ideology.
c. Audience: The audience is people who reads the newspaper, meaning, people in Japan, but not young kids, but mostly adult, college students, or maybe some highschool student as well. So althought Yomiuri is talking about school kids, they are not talking to them, but talking to adult to make them to help the young people. Newspaper are seen to be credible, but some people criticize Yomiuri because it is conservative. Audience has knowledge about young's decline because that is cultural ideology. Most of adult agree with Yomiuri's aticle because of cultural ideology. And since the Yomiuri argu that this si national danger, audience's attitude will be more serious.
2. application of the five canons to the artifact
a.Invention. External proof: such as testimonies and statistics. The evidence works for the audience's nationalistic belief.
These evidence is consisted to the thesis? No. It shows evidece that shows Young's un-patoriotic attitude, and how young people are so decling and disappointing. However, the article missing the point that adults are the one who teaches tyoung. Article basically use young people as scape goat to try to unit patorioric idea.
b.Organization.
c.Style.
d.Memory
e.Delivery
3. assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience
Formulating a research question
Did the rhetor used the avairable means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience?
Writing Essay
Introduction:
Since couple years ago, Japan has hold controversial debate over the nature of young generation. Many famous writes, politcisian, commentators has been talking about how young people has been changed as generation changes. As and for the sake of the controversies heat up, media started to write about this issue. In this essay, I will explore media’s arguments on the young generation issue to try to find the appeal of media.
Justification:
Although this issue and my analysis narrow the audience, it is important for people live in Japan. For it is social ideologu developed recent, we don’t really know the truth. Also, analyzing media’s article is particulary important because media are those who has power to shape social ideologies.
There are four articles I picked: Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, and Kyoto newspapers.
Historical Contexts
This social ideologies comes from Japanese economic and cultural background. Japan has fall in recession around 2000. Many young people become homeless. A lot of young lives with their parents, bnot work, receive some pocket money, and do their hobbies. Also, Japanese unique culture of Otaku is another background of this issue. Otak, is seen a lot in young people, and they like to stay in home, play video game, and non-social. Therefore, they have some negative image in society. And most of them are seen in young people. Due to these background, many adults looking and said that how young people has changed from past. The one big reasn why media started to write about young people is based on one incident, which young man, a Otaku, murdered. From this issue, how media look young becomes obvious and against. Since media started to report, more people started to argues, and it finally created it as social ideology.
Yomiuri Weekly in fact talked report the incident, and it shows subjectivity. Although it is newspaper report which expected to be objective, the reporter argued his subjectivity criticinging young people . He argued that by using 2 quotation.
Japanese Newspaper Editorial article addressing young people need to be more enegetic.
Analyzing an artifact
1. Reconstructing the context
a. Rhetor: Yomiuri shinbun is a more conservative newspaper. Rhetorical philosphey is..... Around this time, many there were some kind of ideology that young people were seen as failer in Japan. Yomiuri is trying to show how young people are in danger and need to change.
b. Occasion:When this rhetoric occured, Japan had ideology that young are looser. Many politicisan, famous writer started to argue how young people are not active, and they need to change. They are insulting young people. Due to ressesion, there are so many young peopel who doesn't have jobs and young homless too. These economic and social background made the ideology.
c. Audience: The audience is people who reads the newspaper, meaning, people in Japan, but not young kids, but mostly adult, college students, or maybe some highschool student as well. So althought Yomiuri is talking about school kids, they are not talking to them, but talking to adult to make them to help the young people. Newspaper are seen to be credible, but some people criticize Yomiuri because it is conservative. Audience has knowledge about young's decline because that is cultural ideology. Most of adult agree with Yomiuri's aticle because of cultural ideology. And since the Yomiuri argu that this si national danger, audience's attitude will be more serious.
2. application of the five canons to the artifact
a.Invention. External proof: such as testimonies and statistics. The evidence works for the audience's nationalistic belief.
These evidence is consisted to the thesis? No. It shows evidece that shows Young's un-patoriotic attitude, and how young people are so decling and disappointing. However, the article missing the point that adults are the one who teaches tyoung. Article basically use young people as scape goat to try to unit patorioric idea.
b.Organization.
c.Style.
d.Memory
e.Delivery
3. assessing the impact of the artifact on the audience
Formulating a research question
Did the rhetor used the avairable means of persuasion to evoke the intended response from the audience?
Writing Essay
Introduction:
Since couple years ago, Japan has hold controversial debate over the nature of young generation. Many famous writes, politcisian, commentators has been talking about how young people has been changed as generation changes. As and for the sake of the controversies heat up, media started to write about this issue. In this essay, I will explore media’s arguments on the young generation issue to try to find the appeal of media.
Justification:
Although this issue and my analysis narrow the audience, it is important for people live in Japan. For it is social ideologu developed recent, we don’t really know the truth. Also, analyzing media’s article is particulary important because media are those who has power to shape social ideologies.
There are four articles I picked: Yomiuri, Asahi, Mainichi, and Kyoto newspapers.
Historical Contexts
This social ideologies comes from Japanese economic and cultural background. Japan has fall in recession around 2000. Many young people become homeless. A lot of young lives with their parents, bnot work, receive some pocket money, and do their hobbies. Also, Japanese unique culture of Otaku is another background of this issue. Otak, is seen a lot in young people, and they like to stay in home, play video game, and non-social. Therefore, they have some negative image in society. And most of them are seen in young people. Due to these background, many adults looking and said that how young people has changed from past. The one big reasn why media started to write about young people is based on one incident, which young man, a Otaku, murdered. From this issue, how media look young becomes obvious and against. Since media started to report, more people started to argues, and it finally created it as social ideology.
Yomiuri Weekly in fact talked report the incident, and it shows subjectivity. Although it is newspaper report which expected to be objective, the reporter argued his subjectivity criticinging young people . He argued that by using 2 quotation.
my interests area in writing
I am interested in writing about....
Healthy goods, about the country life, about the Japanese traditional cultures, Japanese historical buildings, Japanese traditional foods, something wired thing that I can notice about Japan from outside, documentary photography, fashion photography, high fashion and design etc..
Healthy goods, about the country life, about the Japanese traditional cultures, Japanese historical buildings, Japanese traditional foods, something wired thing that I can notice about Japan from outside, documentary photography, fashion photography, high fashion and design etc..
what is photography to me?
i"m passionate about taking: Family picture, Portrait- human and their way of life- humanize them, show their character, attitude in human, life is so much complicated than one demension of life seen in photograph. getting little tiny moment of individual which is part of their life. When we photograph something, we see different aspect of the subjects which we couldnt see from our own eyes (from Annie), war and poverty, traveling photography, commercial photography, Archtectual photography, wedding photography, Street picture.
Thursday, February 18, 2010
Movie Review
There is a shrine called Yasukuni in Tokyo Japan today, and it is not just an ordinal shrine. Japanese, chinese and Korean are fighting over this Yasukuni shrine for many years. The fact that it have both war criminals and war victims in the shrine is the main controversial reason. For chinese and korean, praying at Yasukuni shrine means insulting their ancestors and justifying the war. Due to its rich tradition and history however, the shrine still exists in Tokyo, Japan.
The film "Yasukuni", directed by chinese director Li is the first movie which address to this controversy. Although the film was about such touchy topic, I think Li did great job and it is worth to see it.
Most of the part, the film shows what is going on in Yasukuni shrine today. It highlight some of the shocking imagese such as Japanese nationalists marching at shrine in old military cloth, the sense that a Japanese student who was thought as chinese student were beaten by bunch of old people at the shrine, and a American with his national flag driven out from shrine. Also, the film highlights one old sord maker, who used to make sord during the war. The film sometims show the sense of him making sord.
The one reason why I like this film and suggest you to see it is because its openness. Although the film shows shocking images, which could imply sense of Japanese nationalistic, and gives audience the negative image about Japanese and Yasukuni shine, Li never gave an argument directly. In terms of fairness, I think the film was sucessful, and therefore, it makes the film interesting.
Susan- "I will never know why"
At the beginning, her character was Dylan's mom, and she shift it to character as supporter of suicide. I like how she told her story of Dylan and the how the shooting event happened. She talked about how she felt when the event occard, and that makes audience into her story. And also her detailed descriptions make the story interesting, and kind of suspense feeling.
She talked about how she feel sorry for other people who Dylan killed. She put objection that others might blame her being monster parent. She argued it by saying she is also victim of the event. She gave a lot of fact how society, newspaper, radio treated her as monster parents, and saying it was parent's fault that Dylan killed. She said she felt humiliation. I think these things bring audience sympathies with her, even Dylan did bad thing, and could be her fault some part. She is reducing her responsibilities as Dylan's mom by telling how society treated her bad. But still she shows she think that she has some fault.
She talked about Dylan wanted to kill himself, but didn't wanted to tell anybody. That brings her to argue, it is important to notice the signal in people. If she could notice Dylan's signal, she said, she could prevent the trategic event. Therefore, it is important for her to support suicidal prevention organization. This is how she shift her character of preventor of suicide from mom of killer.
Tuesday, February 16, 2010
Thoughts on: Hook-Up Culture
"Hook-Up Culture" written by Jack Grimes is a writing about a creative work because he analysis the Hook-Up Culture with narrative and story. His main argument about Hook-Up Culture is it is "where is it come from? And is it here to stay"; hook up culture should be gone.
His essay looks like well-developed and could persuade people to think hooking up culture is not good things. However, there are some elements in his essay that is not so compelling to us as persuasive. For example, when he defined Hook-Up Culture at the beginning as "an environment that expects casual sexual encounters that do not necessarily lead to anything further", the question is risen; how about one experienced a hook up and later on it leaded to something meaningful to him/her. All hook up is not meaningless, but there are some case that brings meaningful life. For example, my friend and her boyfriend has been together for almost 4 years and they love each other so much and they are thinking to get married next year. They are now happy, but how they met was hooking up. Thus, hooking up culture can lead something meaningful or happiness in many cases.
Also, he said "a women who embrace hooking up culture is simply making it easier for guys to treat her as a sex objects". I felt this is kind of racist opinion. Behind this argument, he has assumption that man can sees women as sex object whereas women don't. I disagree with this idea. SOme women see men as sex object too. I know a lot of people who just want to have good time with a lot of people, and not be in relationship.
My Valentine's day
For the Valentine's Day, there is nothing better than being anywhere but with someone you love. Saturday early morning, I left for Tacoma airport. Being alone in the dark chilly morning, I was feeling a bit lonely. Having heavy suitcase on my back, with sleepy face and closing eyes, I headed my gate. I was about to fly to FL over the weekend where my boyfriend lives. It was exciting to see him. But till get there, for almost half a day trip was killing me. I arrived at the gate. There are so many people waiting. The boarding time came, however, nobody get in the plane. Soon, there was an announce saying "The flight will be delay due to weather condition...". "Are you serious?" Somebody shouted. People were all looking grumpy and angry. I was too, I wanted to sleep more if I knew the flight will delay. Anyway, I waited because I wanted to see my boyfriend. Next moment, there was other announce again "The gate has changed for the flight 000 to X gate..." Next moment, the people began moving. They rushed into the train. Somebody punched in my face with their suitcase, and somebody stepped on my feet. It was chaos and I got hurt a lot. Totally, I had to spend 12 hours at the airport and in the plane. By the time I arrived Florida, it was passed midnight. I was exchausted and totally forgot about Valentine's day. However, the next 2 days with my boyfriend fully charged. After all tiring chaotic time at the airport and plane, I had sweet Valentine's Day with my boyfriend and it was all what care about.
Saturday, February 13, 2010
Major Analysis Papaer
Intro:
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. While most people hope to save journalism, for some people, it seems like a chance for their own benefits. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in arguments from 4 different perspectives about how to save Journalism to try to discover different appeals from different figure.
The 4 speakers of the arguments are Steve Jobs from Apple, Hal Varian from Google, John Kerry from government, and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney who are founder of Free Press. In the discussion of how to save Journalism, Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the key. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney argues that in order to save journalism, government involvement is needed. These people’s arguments are important because they are well known figures which most of Americans know about.
Justification of my essay:
Talking about the Journalism crisis and its surrounding arguments are Journalism has been part of American society since our nation was born. Therefore, the crisis of Journalism could also mean crisis of our nation. We must therefore think about how to save them. Looking at the particular arguments from powerful figures is also important for us. Not only because their audience are people in the country, but also because of their influencial voice. Their famousality and high status makes what they say strong. It is common for politicians to be manipulative, but also what they say is more likely to be real since they are govenars. Therefore it is our responsibilities as American citizens to watch these people with power and see if they are trying to do good things to our society.
History: The discussion over issue of Journalism crisis developed over the past. At first it was just a level of newspaper, not journalism level. As digital age has came people are talking about weather newspaper or newspaper industries will disappear or not. Some people predict it will and some thought not. When the more internet and TV came in, and took most of newspaper industry’s ad revenue and readers, people started to concern about the necessary of newspaper. Due to the convenience of web contents, most of people thought the ends of the paper. At this time, the TIME published article called “DEAD OF PAPER” arguing unesesity of papers. Although some people remained the needs of paper, it was small. In fact, paper circulation declined about 50 % from early age. It was their own decision and action to enter digital surface as newspaper industries. In 1988 NYtimes started its news website called “NYTimes.com”, and others followed. “However, this did not reactivate newspaper but still they continued to decline. Then people began to concern the existence of journalism itself. It was the time when n NEW York times announced its possibilities of not able to manage their finance, revealed that the one of the biggest national newspaper company are in danger of buncrupcy. Then fear spread among people: What if all newspaper industries are unable to run business anymore? If all the newspaper companies were bumcrupt, there will be no journalism itself because there will be no place to practice journalism activities. Since this time, people’s discuion shit from “newspaper level” to “journalism level”, and from the question of “weather it will survive or not” to “how to save it”.
The arguements of from Steve Jobs and Hal VArian shows profit-interests of private buisnesses. Last month at a conference, Steve Jobs argued that the high-tch device like "iPad" will save newspaper. His arguments was constructed in more visual way then writing. One of the persuasive techniqus Job used is that he included demonstration. He showed how easy to use iPad, and how cool its design is. He argued indirectly that the high-tech device will save newspaper by showing the attracted audience of the conference. He is indirectly implying "high-tech device will attract audience, and as a result, it will attract audience for newspaper; therefore, it will save newspaper industry."
As Steve Job is said to be best presentator, he gave a great presentation at the conference. He used narrative rhetorical skill to establish shared belief and value within his audience. He supported his argument by his demonstration, which appealed to his audience visually. Although he was good at giving aspiring presentation, his rhetorical process failed in terms of ethos. Steve impressed his audience by giving visual presentation, however, his argument was lacked with ethos. He did not use any statistics or testimony in order to prove how high-tech device will save the newspaper industry. Also, Steve relied on an assumption that "people love high-technology and they will buy."There is no proof that all people will buy iPad just because most people are said to driven to new things. That said, the rhetorical analysis on Steve Jobs' argument revealed that Steve Jobs was not thinking about saving Journalism seriously. Rather, he was thinking about the profits for his buisness. His argument that iPad will save journalim can be deceiving. His main purpose of the argument was to make a profit out. Steve Jobs, a CEO of Apple Inc, therefore can be said to use a newspaper crisis as a chance of making his onw profit.
Same thing can be asaid to Google CEO Hal Varian. Hal argued that increasing of ads is the way to save journalism. His argument is, I would say, nothing rather than a radish which only seek his own profits. In his argument, he first refer to Steve Jobs’ claim, “Users will likely engage with the tablet during leisure hours, and you would imagine that’s very attractive to publishers. However, iPad is not something that save journalism,” and then he supports his claim by saying “because people will not read news weather it is online or ipad.” He added “Pure news is the unique produc that newspaper provide, but it is very hard to monetize”. When I read this line, I almost wondered he had been written about his mother on newspaper in the past. Because he had, I understand why he becomes such anti-newspaper. Basically the lines shows him saying nothing will change because nobody will read news. His groundless assumption of “news is meaningless” is too obvious in these lines. Then, he argues “the only way to save journalism is increasing ads revenue.” To support this arguments, he gave a statistic “currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue.” This reasoning is failed. His statistic of “5% of current revenue” does not directly lead to “therefore increasing the ads revenue”. It does not make sense at all because there is no warrants established between there support and claim. Instead, his argument reveals his profit interests rather than saving journalism. Just because ads revenue rate is low, it does not means the only way saving them is to increase the rate; there are many other options. Puls, if the revenue is so low, it could mean there is no possibilities to get revenue from ad anymore. Again his groundless assumptions of “no other option” and “ad revenue will increase no matter what” shows that he is thinking about the only way that benefiting him.
Steve Job from Apple Inc and Hal Varian from Google Inc, at its surface, are arguing over “HOW TO SAVE JOURNALIM” . However, it is reaved through the analysis, that their actual purposes are “HOW TO BENEFIT” to themselves. Pretending like doing for others but actually doing for their benefits is the skill that only world-level buisness men can do.
While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's argument was for their own profit, John Kerry from Senate and John Nichols and Robert W Mcchesney from Free Press seems like they are talking on its account. John Kerry, a Senate of Masachusettu argued the importantce of governmmnet involvment in saving journalism at the hearings on May 2009. At the hearings, there are representatives of Google Inc., Dallas Morning News, Washington Post Company, etc. However, there are not the only audience he was apploaching, but also people in the Uited States. John Kerry succesfully established shared values in people in the United States by saying this is "our" country and "we have to work together for our nation". He included governmnet in it too. He also called audience's experiences in order to create the value that newspaper has been part of human life. He used quotes from historical and credential figures such as Joseph Pulitzer and Paul Starr in order to creat etho in his argument. The organization of his argument was logical. After he established sharef commonplace in his audience, he stated facts and statistics of situation which newspaper industries faces. Then draw into why relaxing media ownership rules is bad. It was his rhetorical tequnichs that he brougnt this issue in his argument. By bringing up opponents before he was opposed, he demolish the chances of his opponents. Then he predicted what wil happen in the future from what is happening right now. Considering the present, past, and future of newspaper industries, he concluded his argument saying: the new economic model is key to save journalism. He said " The new kind of press, this new media is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out". John Kerry is simply saying that in order to find this new economic model to save journalism, the governmnet involvment is important.
The arguments from John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney add more stronger support for John Kerry's argument. In their argument titiled "THE Death and LIFE of Great American NEwspaper", Nichols and Mcchesney argued the importance of government involvment for survaval of journalism. They supported their arguments by using facts, and statistics. Itwas persuasive because they constructed their argument in the fomula such: This is what happened in journalism in the past, and therefore, we have to do this."
In conclusion, the analysis on the Steve Jobs, Hal Varian, John Kerry and Nicols and Macchestny revealed the main porpose of each arguments. While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's arguments were based on their own profit-interestes, John Kerry and Nicolas and Mcchesny's arguments seem more relevant in terms of saving journalism. In other words, private buisnesses like Apples and Googls tend to use opportunities for their benefits while government concerning the issue as national problem. Which opinion should be listened to is depends on readers'judgment, and rhetorcal analysis make us a judge correctly.
Lots of newspaper companies shut down and lots of journalists lost their jobs in past couple years. While most people hope to save journalism, for some people, it seems like a chance for their own benefits. In this essay I will explore the rhetorical process in arguments from 4 different perspectives about how to save Journalism to try to discover different appeals from different figure.
The 4 speakers of the arguments are Steve Jobs from Apple, Hal Varian from Google, John Kerry from government, and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney who are founder of Free Press. In the discussion of how to save Journalism, Steve Job argues that attracting its audience is the key. Hal Varian argues that increasing ad revenue will save them from crisis. John Kerry and John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney argues that in order to save journalism, government involvement is needed. These people’s arguments are important because they are well known figures which most of Americans know about.
Justification of my essay:
Talking about the Journalism crisis and its surrounding arguments are Journalism has been part of American society since our nation was born. Therefore, the crisis of Journalism could also mean crisis of our nation. We must therefore think about how to save them. Looking at the particular arguments from powerful figures is also important for us. Not only because their audience are people in the country, but also because of their influencial voice. Their famousality and high status makes what they say strong. It is common for politicians to be manipulative, but also what they say is more likely to be real since they are govenars. Therefore it is our responsibilities as American citizens to watch these people with power and see if they are trying to do good things to our society.
History: The discussion over issue of Journalism crisis developed over the past. At first it was just a level of newspaper, not journalism level. As digital age has came people are talking about weather newspaper or newspaper industries will disappear or not. Some people predict it will and some thought not. When the more internet and TV came in, and took most of newspaper industry’s ad revenue and readers, people started to concern about the necessary of newspaper. Due to the convenience of web contents, most of people thought the ends of the paper. At this time, the TIME published article called “DEAD OF PAPER” arguing unesesity of papers. Although some people remained the needs of paper, it was small. In fact, paper circulation declined about 50 % from early age. It was their own decision and action to enter digital surface as newspaper industries. In 1988 NYtimes started its news website called “NYTimes.com”, and others followed. “However, this did not reactivate newspaper but still they continued to decline. Then people began to concern the existence of journalism itself. It was the time when n NEW York times announced its possibilities of not able to manage their finance, revealed that the one of the biggest national newspaper company are in danger of buncrupcy. Then fear spread among people: What if all newspaper industries are unable to run business anymore? If all the newspaper companies were bumcrupt, there will be no journalism itself because there will be no place to practice journalism activities. Since this time, people’s discuion shit from “newspaper level” to “journalism level”, and from the question of “weather it will survive or not” to “how to save it”.
The arguements of from Steve Jobs and Hal VArian shows profit-interests of private buisnesses. Last month at a conference, Steve Jobs argued that the high-tch device like "iPad" will save newspaper. His arguments was constructed in more visual way then writing. One of the persuasive techniqus Job used is that he included demonstration. He showed how easy to use iPad, and how cool its design is. He argued indirectly that the high-tech device will save newspaper by showing the attracted audience of the conference. He is indirectly implying "high-tech device will attract audience, and as a result, it will attract audience for newspaper; therefore, it will save newspaper industry."
As Steve Job is said to be best presentator, he gave a great presentation at the conference. He used narrative rhetorical skill to establish shared belief and value within his audience. He supported his argument by his demonstration, which appealed to his audience visually. Although he was good at giving aspiring presentation, his rhetorical process failed in terms of ethos. Steve impressed his audience by giving visual presentation, however, his argument was lacked with ethos. He did not use any statistics or testimony in order to prove how high-tech device will save the newspaper industry. Also, Steve relied on an assumption that "people love high-technology and they will buy."There is no proof that all people will buy iPad just because most people are said to driven to new things. That said, the rhetorical analysis on Steve Jobs' argument revealed that Steve Jobs was not thinking about saving Journalism seriously. Rather, he was thinking about the profits for his buisness. His argument that iPad will save journalim can be deceiving. His main purpose of the argument was to make a profit out. Steve Jobs, a CEO of Apple Inc, therefore can be said to use a newspaper crisis as a chance of making his onw profit.
Same thing can be asaid to Google CEO Hal Varian. Hal argued that increasing of ads is the way to save journalism. His argument is, I would say, nothing rather than a radish which only seek his own profits. In his argument, he first refer to Steve Jobs’ claim, “Users will likely engage with the tablet during leisure hours, and you would imagine that’s very attractive to publishers. However, iPad is not something that save journalism,” and then he supports his claim by saying “because people will not read news weather it is online or ipad.” He added “Pure news is the unique produc that newspaper provide, but it is very hard to monetize”. When I read this line, I almost wondered he had been written about his mother on newspaper in the past. Because he had, I understand why he becomes such anti-newspaper. Basically the lines shows him saying nothing will change because nobody will read news. His groundless assumption of “news is meaningless” is too obvious in these lines. Then, he argues “the only way to save journalism is increasing ads revenue.” To support this arguments, he gave a statistic “currently online ads bring in only 5 % of newspaper ad revenue.” This reasoning is failed. His statistic of “5% of current revenue” does not directly lead to “therefore increasing the ads revenue”. It does not make sense at all because there is no warrants established between there support and claim. Instead, his argument reveals his profit interests rather than saving journalism. Just because ads revenue rate is low, it does not means the only way saving them is to increase the rate; there are many other options. Puls, if the revenue is so low, it could mean there is no possibilities to get revenue from ad anymore. Again his groundless assumptions of “no other option” and “ad revenue will increase no matter what” shows that he is thinking about the only way that benefiting him.
Steve Job from Apple Inc and Hal Varian from Google Inc, at its surface, are arguing over “HOW TO SAVE JOURNALIM” . However, it is reaved through the analysis, that their actual purposes are “HOW TO BENEFIT” to themselves. Pretending like doing for others but actually doing for their benefits is the skill that only world-level buisness men can do.
While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's argument was for their own profit, John Kerry from Senate and John Nichols and Robert W Mcchesney from Free Press seems like they are talking on its account. John Kerry, a Senate of Masachusettu argued the importantce of governmmnet involvment in saving journalism at the hearings on May 2009. At the hearings, there are representatives of Google Inc., Dallas Morning News, Washington Post Company, etc. However, there are not the only audience he was apploaching, but also people in the Uited States. John Kerry succesfully established shared values in people in the United States by saying this is "our" country and "we have to work together for our nation". He included governmnet in it too. He also called audience's experiences in order to create the value that newspaper has been part of human life. He used quotes from historical and credential figures such as Joseph Pulitzer and Paul Starr in order to creat etho in his argument. The organization of his argument was logical. After he established sharef commonplace in his audience, he stated facts and statistics of situation which newspaper industries faces. Then draw into why relaxing media ownership rules is bad. It was his rhetorical tequnichs that he brougnt this issue in his argument. By bringing up opponents before he was opposed, he demolish the chances of his opponents. Then he predicted what wil happen in the future from what is happening right now. Considering the present, past, and future of newspaper industries, he concluded his argument saying: the new economic model is key to save journalism. He said " The new kind of press, this new media is going to require a new economic model, one that everyone is still trying to figure out". John Kerry is simply saying that in order to find this new economic model to save journalism, the governmnet involvment is important.
The arguments from John Nichols and Robert W. Mcchesney add more stronger support for John Kerry's argument. In their argument titiled "THE Death and LIFE of Great American NEwspaper", Nichols and Mcchesney argued the importance of government involvment for survaval of journalism. They supported their arguments by using facts, and statistics. Itwas persuasive because they constructed their argument in the fomula such: This is what happened in journalism in the past, and therefore, we have to do this."
In conclusion, the analysis on the Steve Jobs, Hal Varian, John Kerry and Nicols and Macchestny revealed the main porpose of each arguments. While Steve Jobs and Hal Varian's arguments were based on their own profit-interestes, John Kerry and Nicolas and Mcchesny's arguments seem more relevant in terms of saving journalism. In other words, private buisnesses like Apples and Googls tend to use opportunities for their benefits while government concerning the issue as national problem. Which opinion should be listened to is depends on readers'judgment, and rhetorcal analysis make us a judge correctly.
Tuesday, February 9, 2010
Will iPad save the traditional newspaper?
Tamae Seki
CMJR 350
Feb 1st 2010
Major Analytical Paper: The Future of Journalism
Would traditional newspaper will be saved by the iPad?
While varieties of new media are being produced every day, on its behind, the traditional media, which obviously refers to printed newspaper, magazine and publishing industries, are at their edge of survival. Being the oldest media form, printed media has been our essential needs, and it has supported and prospected our society almost over 100 years. However, as the time goes, the old always fade away. Within past five decades, the decline of newspaper circuration and its reader has been obvious. Contrary, the number of shutting down window and layoff people drastically increases. New graduates who was dreaming to be and being passionate about journalists, when they come to reality, had to be disappointed. Living in such dark reality which allowed no hopes or even small thoughts on any future career, journalists are worried and in depressed way.
This changing reality has impact on people’s everyday life as well. What is it to have no newspaper in the morning? What will be our main information sources? Are there any sources that are as credible as newspaper? Since newspaper had been part of our life more than 100 years, for most of people, the future of journalism is considerable issue. The crisis of newspaper is same feeling of which you are about to lose someone important, someone who has been in most of your life as supporting and giving advises. That said, a significant controversy over this valuable issue is taken place ongoingly.
In discussion of future of journalism, one controversial issue has been the development of iPad. This year at the end of January, the latest high- tech device was introduced from Apple, so called “iPad”. While it was an attention gather product with its design which fascinated the whole world, it also brings significant controversy on the issue of journalism future. On one hand, people argue that iPad will save the future of journalism. On the other hand, people say that it does not have any effect on journalism’s survival in the modern media. Others even maintain the neutral, saying iPad would save the future of journalism in certain degrees but not in some degree. When it comes with something new, people tends to think everything news is cool. In iPad’s case, numbers of people must thought that this new device will save the newspaper from its crisis; always thanks to the news product! But, hold on. The questions have to be raised here-Is it really? Will new device really save the future of journalism? To get the answer, we need to analyze each argument so that we can grasp the idea of iPad as a positive tool for newspaper or not.
At the Kayote of Apple on January 27th, CEO Steve Job introduced its latest high-tech device “iPad”. During the presentation, Steve argued that iPad will revolutionarize the newspaper industry. Job’s persuasive presentation is well-known, and he ensured audience that it is true. It is obvious that Job’s argument on iPad inspired audience through his rhetorical skill. However, rather than talking about his presentation style, I will focus on one particular argument in whole presentation: iPad will reactivate the newspaper industry.
As he demonstrates how to use the devise, he brought up the New York Times website on the iPad screen. Then simply he just began to play around with device; opening up an article, enrage images, flip the pages etc. He didn’t say much word. He was into reading the article by iPad. This is the biggest part of how Steve Job argued the reactivation of Newspaper industry by iPad. By showing how interesting to read article with iPad, and showing how the audience are interested into Steve’s stage demonstration, he argued newspaper industries (especially New York Times since they were at the Keyote) the power of iPad. Another rhetorical skill is Steve Job was reading the articles and using the device so naturally. It made the industries to imagine their future with iPad so easily. During the demo, Steve emphasized the simplicity of its use by both his action and words. As he moves the screen lightly with his one finger, he said “that’s simple!” He never said words in how this devise would reactivate newspaper industry. But he constantly used the word “simple”.
His claim of the power of iPad to reactivate newspaper industry was indirect and hidden. However, with emphasizing its simplistic use, neatness of the articles seen on the screen, the audience’s positive reactions for its design, and of course, with his astonishing skill of presentation, Steve Job made the hidden claim appeal to the intended audience, newspaper industries. This Steve Job’s success made me think that power of hidden and direct argument. Steve Job’s presentation seemed to be an argument for the consumers to tell how iPad is cool device that everyone must get. Steve succeeded in this argument with his presentation skill of course, however, it wasn’t the everything. Steve secretly or indirectly had raised the claim for newspaper industries, that iPad can save them. With success of the first argument, he succeeded the second argument. This dual argument is the secret of Steve Job’s rhetorical skills and his success.
While Steve Job showed his elegant presentation, Ezra Kevin objected to Job arguing that iPad will not save the future of newspaper. Let’s see what he has to say about iPad and the future of newspaper, and how he constructed his argument.
CMJR 350
Feb 1st 2010
Major Analytical Paper: The Future of Journalism
Would traditional newspaper will be saved by the iPad?
While varieties of new media are being produced every day, on its behind, the traditional media, which obviously refers to printed newspaper, magazine and publishing industries, are at their edge of survival. Being the oldest media form, printed media has been our essential needs, and it has supported and prospected our society almost over 100 years. However, as the time goes, the old always fade away. Within past five decades, the decline of newspaper circuration and its reader has been obvious. Contrary, the number of shutting down window and layoff people drastically increases. New graduates who was dreaming to be and being passionate about journalists, when they come to reality, had to be disappointed. Living in such dark reality which allowed no hopes or even small thoughts on any future career, journalists are worried and in depressed way.
This changing reality has impact on people’s everyday life as well. What is it to have no newspaper in the morning? What will be our main information sources? Are there any sources that are as credible as newspaper? Since newspaper had been part of our life more than 100 years, for most of people, the future of journalism is considerable issue. The crisis of newspaper is same feeling of which you are about to lose someone important, someone who has been in most of your life as supporting and giving advises. That said, a significant controversy over this valuable issue is taken place ongoingly.
In discussion of future of journalism, one controversial issue has been the development of iPad. This year at the end of January, the latest high- tech device was introduced from Apple, so called “iPad”. While it was an attention gather product with its design which fascinated the whole world, it also brings significant controversy on the issue of journalism future. On one hand, people argue that iPad will save the future of journalism. On the other hand, people say that it does not have any effect on journalism’s survival in the modern media. Others even maintain the neutral, saying iPad would save the future of journalism in certain degrees but not in some degree. When it comes with something new, people tends to think everything news is cool. In iPad’s case, numbers of people must thought that this new device will save the newspaper from its crisis; always thanks to the news product! But, hold on. The questions have to be raised here-Is it really? Will new device really save the future of journalism? To get the answer, we need to analyze each argument so that we can grasp the idea of iPad as a positive tool for newspaper or not.
At the Kayote of Apple on January 27th, CEO Steve Job introduced its latest high-tech device “iPad”. During the presentation, Steve argued that iPad will revolutionarize the newspaper industry. Job’s persuasive presentation is well-known, and he ensured audience that it is true. It is obvious that Job’s argument on iPad inspired audience through his rhetorical skill. However, rather than talking about his presentation style, I will focus on one particular argument in whole presentation: iPad will reactivate the newspaper industry.
As he demonstrates how to use the devise, he brought up the New York Times website on the iPad screen. Then simply he just began to play around with device; opening up an article, enrage images, flip the pages etc. He didn’t say much word. He was into reading the article by iPad. This is the biggest part of how Steve Job argued the reactivation of Newspaper industry by iPad. By showing how interesting to read article with iPad, and showing how the audience are interested into Steve’s stage demonstration, he argued newspaper industries (especially New York Times since they were at the Keyote) the power of iPad. Another rhetorical skill is Steve Job was reading the articles and using the device so naturally. It made the industries to imagine their future with iPad so easily. During the demo, Steve emphasized the simplicity of its use by both his action and words. As he moves the screen lightly with his one finger, he said “that’s simple!” He never said words in how this devise would reactivate newspaper industry. But he constantly used the word “simple”.
His claim of the power of iPad to reactivate newspaper industry was indirect and hidden. However, with emphasizing its simplistic use, neatness of the articles seen on the screen, the audience’s positive reactions for its design, and of course, with his astonishing skill of presentation, Steve Job made the hidden claim appeal to the intended audience, newspaper industries. This Steve Job’s success made me think that power of hidden and direct argument. Steve Job’s presentation seemed to be an argument for the consumers to tell how iPad is cool device that everyone must get. Steve succeeded in this argument with his presentation skill of course, however, it wasn’t the everything. Steve secretly or indirectly had raised the claim for newspaper industries, that iPad can save them. With success of the first argument, he succeeded the second argument. This dual argument is the secret of Steve Job’s rhetorical skills and his success.
While Steve Job showed his elegant presentation, Ezra Kevin objected to Job arguing that iPad will not save the future of newspaper. Let’s see what he has to say about iPad and the future of newspaper, and how he constructed his argument.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
in class exercise- external proof
Ad Council and GLSEN's addressing teen's use of anti-gay language was great campaign. It is in big scale which have about 33.000 media involved national wide, as well as popular social networking and blog site.
In terms of the website, with vivid color and modern design, it has potential to attract teens. Also with the use of videos and some downloading systems, the website allows the user to interact. Furthermore, the contents of the website are rich in information. This attractive, interactive, and informative features makes the website to communicate well with the users.
One significant point that this campaign was succesful is that the Ad Council and GLSEN are aware of who is their audience. They know who they are targeting for the campaign very well. That is why they used Hilary Duff as the campaign character, knowing her popularity among teen and model leader among them. The website is created in the way to target the teen as well. The structure that are easy to explore the website, the exciting color use and a lot of interactions and interactions. Not only that, but the website contains many solid facts. The use of statistic enhances ethos for campaign.
They are trying to change the atmosphere. Is that effective way to start the conversation? Ad council is giving many different ways to start conversation about the issue by giving different kind of proof. However, it is still intringic to change somebody's everyday life activities, especially, such anti-gay language are used almost unintentionally among teens.
Weekly Writing 5
In the argument of Steve Jobs at the Koyote on last month, Job argued its signiqficance of Apple's new device called iPad. His arguqment was constructed in more visual and oral way rather than in writing. He gave a presentation and demonstration in order to communicate his massage about the iPad device. (1) First on the demo, Steve used dramactic evidence in order to connect the audience to his massage. Basically, what he did was that he used narrative rhetorical skill, and established connected values and belief on the situation. There were no testimony were used in his argument, although some peer testimony could help his argument to be more persuasive. In fact, he could let bunch of kids or maybe some college students to play with the device. That would be a peer testimony rhetorical skill which probably will work well. He used some statistics about the device 's technology related information, which I thought it enhanced more ethos on the argument. (2) Steve relied on assumption of audience that they (audience) love new technology. This assumption of audience made his argument successful. (3) Steve had value lied under his argument too. His value was "new latest high tech cool-designed futuristic products will be demanded by American people. Americans are always striving for something new." (4) There are several values hierarchy seen in his argument: the simplicity vs complexity, the quality or quantity. Color or black and white. Designed or the usefulness. (5) In his argument, the loci of quality and quantity were applied.
Against the Steve Job's argument on introducing iPad, Tony Avelar from New York Times argued that it is too early to decides weather iPad is significant device or not. In his arguments, (1)Tony used facts and truth with the use of statics (the actual price of ipad etc), and his experience. He described his first impression on iPad, and said it seemed pretty exciting device. (2)He had assumption on his audience that every one is exciting to know what the iPad looks like and whether it will change the media in the future. (3)Torry had value that reckless guess is not intelligent behavior. (4) His argument contained value hierarchies: Loci of existence, values that is concrete over the possible. For Torry, something that is concrete is more valuable than something that is possible. So that why, Torry did not guess how the iPad will act its role in society. Rather, he concluded it is too early to make a conclusion.
Against the Steve Job's argument on introducing iPad, Tony Avelar from New York Times argued that it is too early to decides weather iPad is significant device or not. In his arguments, (1)Tony used facts and truth with the use of statics (the actual price of ipad etc), and his experience. He described his first impression on iPad, and said it seemed pretty exciting device. (2)He had assumption on his audience that every one is exciting to know what the iPad looks like and whether it will change the media in the future. (3)Torry had value that reckless guess is not intelligent behavior. (4) His argument contained value hierarchies: Loci of existence, values that is concrete over the possible. For Torry, something that is concrete is more valuable than something that is possible. So that why, Torry did not guess how the iPad will act its role in society. Rather, he concluded it is too early to make a conclusion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)