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.

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.

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.

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.

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.