Weekly Writing 8: Editorial piece for the future of Journalism

Who knows what will happen to Journalism in the future. Who knows if we are still reading the newspaper 10 years later or not. Who knows how we are getting every day news and what types of media exists in the future. My questions here is - do we really have to think about it right now?

The recent dying out of the newspapers and newspaper industries threatened not only Journalists or related people for loosing their jobs, but also normal American citizens for losing their democracy. Being a place for practicing news gathering, newspaper industries have offered quality news. Investigative Journalism practice for example are conducted in the newspaper industry. Thus, loosing them means for us loosing the qualities of news as well as our democracy.

While we have seen different "news models in the future", nothing seems to be a good solution or nothing seems to be able to save journalism in the future. The most apparent news model which is introduced into many industries is called "Link Journalism". The model link newspaper industries with website. Although this news model seemed great idea by attracting audience, it did not increase the industries' reveue. Another model called "Crowdfunding" was not sucessful either because it created Ctizen Journalism, a Journalism based on ordinary people, which caused decline of news qualities.

People are still searching for the ideal solution of how to save Journalism. Thanks to thoses of Journalism scholars who came up with blliriant news models; however, the problem is that none of their ideas are best solutions.

So my idea here is- stop thinking about it. Nobody knows about the future and future should be unpredictable. Searching for the solutions for saving Journalism will just beat your brain out. More you think about it, more you find no answer. The future is future, and nothing else; it is unpredictable. Even if one find a solution which everyone thinks it works, it could be not working.

RAther than searching for something you won't get absolute answer, one should think about how to aquire the skills needed for current Journalism. We know where our Journalism is at right now. But we don't know where it will go and how. SO, just try hard to be a best Journalists, train basic journalism skills such as interviewing and reporting and writing, get to know the uses of digital tools for the Digital Age, and train investigative Journalism skills.

Weekly Writing 7

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.

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.

Weekly Writing 4

The film "YASUKUNI", which focus on the controversial topic of Yasukuni Shrine, was prohibited to seen in most of movie theaters. Many controverses were rised over this issue. While one position think the film should be seen in any movie theater, the other side strongly disagree. This "Yasukuni" controversy, whether it should be screen or not, is not just about the movie. The controversy contains some political aspects, human right aspect, as well as historical aspect.

Here is one of the numerous arguments about "YASUKUNI" film controversy, made by Asahi newspaper.

(1)Claim of degree: Shutting out the film "Yasukuni" is wrong action.
(2) Support: It will dangers our freedom of speech.
(3) Warrant: We knew that the world without Freedom of Speech are really bad society. Also, the author specifically aim to the Japanese people by using the commonplace: Japanese history of during the war where no freedom of speech was. The author speak to the audience directly by saying that we all experienced how painful it is to live in the society where no freedom of speech exist.


When it comes to the issue which "Yasukuni" film is being shut out, one of major Japanese newspaper, Asahi criticized this goverment and theater's action. Unlike Director Li Ying, Asahi did not touch on the film's contents which calls a lot of controversy for wether it is anti-Japanese or not. Rather, Asahi talked about the importance of freedom of speech and abuse of power in its argument. First, Asahi argued that their action is wrong because it violates people's Freedom of speech. This argument makes sense because we all know film is one of the forms to express our opinion. As the film were prohibited to be screened, so is one's freedom of speech.

Asahi pointed out what is like to live in the society which no Freedom of Speech exists. This aimed at the audience's shared belief; the belif that all Japanese people have. Ruled by dictatorship, Japanese people had no Freedom of Speech during the war. They were not allow to say anything that critisize goverment or war. After its loss, Japan turned into democracy where treasure Freedom of Speech. At the same time, people's belif on previous society without Freedom of Speech tured into negative (something evil, and something they dont believe at all, and something it would never gona happen)
If the government ordered, people could say nothing, but obeied.


The argument also appealed to audience emotion. Asahi said, "We knew how much stuffy to live in the society where you can't say or practice anything as you want to do. And we know how corrupted that kind of society would be- because of our (something that you wish you didn't experienced) experience 60 years ago". This line appeals to audience' emotion by recalling the painful experience they had.

Overall, I would say that the Asahi did good job in terms of using rhetorics. Shutting out the film "Yasukuni" is wrong because it violates the freedom of speech---Asahi's argument was shown persuasive because it aimed at audience's shared belifs as it appeals to their emotion.






Now, here is an argument from Horiuchi, the editor of Bunshu Weekly Magazine as well as the author of known book"Yasukuni". While Asahi supports the film to be screened, Horiuchi does not clearly state his position on it. However, he clearly criticize the film saying "in some degree, 'YASUKUNI' operates mind control by using fault information and the description which could mislead audience" (Bungei Syunsyu vol 86, 208). To support the claim, he uses questionable senses from "YASUKUNI" film, and pointed out their mistake. For example, Horiuchi argud that the sprit of the shrine described as "Katana (Japanese particular sord)" in the film is actually sord according to the history of Yasukuni shrine. When people see the documents which contains too many mistakes, they don't trust the information. Like this, Horiuchi persuade the audience to not trust the film "YASUKUNI" by listing series of misinformation in it. Also, Horiuchi empathize his long-time research and experience on Yasukuni shrine. Here he is trying to establish ethos, the credibility of himself. Audiences easily believe if the sourses was credible, knowledgeble and had many experience on the topic. That is why sick people believe what doctor says more than what little kids say. Horiuchi also described his discomfort when he actually watched the film. He discribed that he felt somewhat out of space at the very beggining of the film. Horiuchi's argued that "YASUKUNI" operates mind control is achieved by listing a lot of falt information in the film, telling his discomfort on watching the film, and his showing credibility. His credibility and discomfort implyies that he could notice the disconfort because he has knowledge on Yasukuni more than ordinal people. That means, that ordinal people are most likely mind controlled by watching the film.


Claim: "YASUKUNI" is mind controlling film.
Support: It contains many misleading information. His experience of discomfort when he first saw the film. Statistic and facts about himself, and which explain he has knowledge on Yasukuni shrine more than ordinal people.
Warrant: Documents with many fault information is not reliable. It is more easy to believe sayings of one with a lot of experience and knowledge than sayings of one with nothing. Knowledgeble person can reveal hidden secret behind the screen while ordinal people can't.

Personally, I think Horiuchi's argument is not so persuasible. Some warrants does not make sense. For example, "knowledgeble person can reveal truth while ordinal people can't"- this warrant is not nessesary right. I think it varies depends on situation. For instance, in the high level field of study such as medicine, ordinal people might not able to reveal the truth because midecine is far away from our everyday life. However, like wathcing movie is part of our daily life. We all had education and learning as we grow up. That said, it is not hard for ordinal people to reveal weather it is mind controlling or not. Most of the time, people can notice when somebody is trying to mind control on you. I think Horiuch's argument is simply implying we are damm.

Weekly Writing #3

Weather Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni Shrine is good or bad, has been a controversy over decades across the borders. On the one hand, from constitutional perspective, people argues that any kids of public officers visiting the Yasukuni publicly or privately is unconstitutional. Culturally, people in Japan think it is proper actions for nations' Representative figure to visit Yasukuni and show gratitude and respect for ancestors who sacrificed their lives to nation. On the other hand, from colonial P.O.V., people in Korea, Taiwan and China argues that Japanese prime minister praying homage at Yasukuni justifies Japanese colonial rules over their countries. Others such as Western countries maintain neutral positions in order to maintain good relationship with Japan, but opinions vary in individuals. For example, Michael Jordan Green, a National Security Council Asia Chair, argued that demanding suspension for Japanese prime minister to visit Yasukuni is bad mistake; It is wrong to say Japan forgets the responsibility of their colonialism. On the other hand, Tomas Peter Lantos, a Democratic member of the United States House Representatives argued that visiting Yasukuni and praying homage to A-class war criminal is same as praying homage for Hitler and Stalin. Therefore, Japanese prime minister visiting Yasukuni is unmoral and it is not something great nation such as Japan would do.

Weekly Writing 2

(1) In the documentary film called "YASUKUNI", Director Lin In appealed for Japanese proper reactions to explain why Yasukuni shrine has became worldwide problematic place, and their responsibilities to solve this long-time political and historical controversy clinging to Yasukuni shrine. With 10 years of shooting documentary about Yasukuni poloblem, Lin tried to show the truth of what is really happening at Yasukuni shrine today. With the unbelievable senses from the film which a lot of Japanese people haven't seen with their own eyes--- Japanese military veterans visiting Yasukuni in full regimentals, and an American carrying the babier for his own nations' flag; a Japanese college student protesting against singing the national athem, and group of people who misunderstood the student as a Chinese student shouting at him to go back to China--- Lin asked audience to define Yasukuni shrine; what and how it should be. Lin also argued that it is impossible to pay homage only for particular people at Yasukuni shrine due to its complicate character. Therefore, he argued that pre-Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi, who has political influence, should not have visit Yasukuni, and Japan need to make a proper judgement for separation of politics and spirituality.

(2) Although he made a documentary on such controversial and sentimental issue, Director Lin In succeeded in his argument and film. One of his argument on Yasukuni controversy; Japan need to explain and solve this issue, is reasonable since it is not only issue in Japan, but involving other countries such as China, Korea, Taiwan, even western countries. Also, I agree with his argument against Junichiro Koizumi visiting a shrine. As a Japanese prime minister, Koizumi should have been more aware of his influential power as a political figure. It is not same as a normal Japanese citizens visits the shrine. Also, since Yasukuni shrine has only one God, it is impossible to pay homage for particular group. No matter to whom Koizumi pay homage, he is paying homage to all people who are enshrined to Yasukuni, and it includes class A war criminals. That said, it is not right place to visit for the Japanese Prime Minister who gave up war forever. Paying homage to A-class war criminals clearly means supporting the war.

(3)Lin In's argument in film called "YASUKUNI" called many skepticism to bear. First of all, the fact that Lin In is from China made his argument doubtful. As he was born in China, his values and assumptions must be based on China, and that will brings some cultural and historical perceptions into his arguments. There is a contradictions in his arguments when Lin argued that it is Japanese responsibilities to solve the issue while he also said that Yasukuni issue is worldwide controversy. Also, when Lin argued that pre-Prime Minister Koizumi cannot pray homage only for particular people, I would argued that it is depends on individual's belief. The most important thing is our hearts when we pray homage at the shrine. If Koizumi prayed homage for war victims, his pray goes only for them. Also, we all have freedom of praying and freedom of belief. Critisizing Koizumi praying is against human right. No matter he is Prime Minister of Japan, he is a human being; therefore, he has right to prey whenever he wants.

(4) In terms of analysis on rhetorical situation, the author is Lin In, a film director who is born in China, but grow up in Japan almost 20 years. He decided to make his documentary film because Yasukuni shrine is been controversy for decades, and its controversy became worldwide problem. He is responding to the event on August 15th 2006, when then Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi visited the Yasukuni shrine. Koizumi's argued that he pay homage to only for war victims and their families but not for the class-A war criminal. In response, Lin argued that Japan need to separate its politics and religion. The constrains of his argument was that it is cultural, religious, and historical issue.

Weekly writing 1

On 2008 August at the Democratic NAtional Convention, Michelle Obama delivered a speech to support her husband Barack Obama as a U.S. President. Her speech was powerful and moved audience's heart. The reason of her speech to be succesfully persuasive, is due to her choice of style.

Use of repetition is one of her stylistic choices. In the beginning of the speech, Michelle used the phrase of "I came here as..." many times. This technique is same as the one used in the famouse Martin Luther King's speech. In his speech, King constantly repeated the phrase "I have a dream...". Repeating a phrase not only makes speech easy for audience to follow, but also gives good rhythm and impact. Like King, Michelle kept her speech simple, rythmical, and powerful by using repetition. As a result, audience easily followed her, and did not forget what she had said.

Other key style that makes Michelle's speech successful is use of vocablaries. Througout her speech, she did not use any professional vocabraries such as politic or economic speciality terms. Instead, she used simple words that everyone understands. If she had used professional words, her speech could not be succesful becasue the audience will not able to understand what she is talking about. Morover, she used casual words alot. An example is "My dad was our rock". Instead of just saying "My dad was a great man", which is usually been used, her casual vocabrary gave more impact on her speech.

Use of joke is also one stylistic choice. When Michelle talked about the first time she met Barack Obama, she said "...even though he had this funny name,...". The use of joke could be sometimes risky. If a joke was extreme or excessive, the speech will be inappropriate and sometimes lose its seriousness and credibility. However, in Michelle's speech, the joke created positive impact and made a closer relationship with audience. For the joke to be successful, she made a joke that everyone will agree with. The name Barack Obama is not common name and most of people will agree if someone call it funny name. When audience and speaker agree on something, it created a connection between them. Michelle and audience's agreement on opinion for Obama's name made connection between them. When audience finds connection to their speaker, they gained affinity to Michelle and as a result, good relationship born.

The reason her choices of style made her speech persuasive is come with her understanding of audience. In other words, Michelle's speech became persuasive becasue she knew her audience, and therefore, she could use right styles for them. She used repetition becasue she knew that the audience had difficulty to follow long speech. She said "May dad was our rock", not "My dad was great man", because she knew about young populations in her audience. She used joke becasue she knew the audience is mostly Americans, and loves jokes.

In conclusion, her understanding of audience and her right choice of style for the audience is the key contribution to her persuasive speech. Her repeated phrase gives her speech a good rythm, and her audience could easily follow. Casual vocablary was used becasue she knew about young audience. She used joke becasue she knew that Americans love joke. All styles she chose gave good impact, connection between audience and good relationship with audience. Also, becasue she used right style for right audience, her speech became persuaseive. Right stylic choices for right audience: this is the conclusion for analyzing ultimate skills which Michelle Obama used in delivering her persuasive speech.