Aliens: WORLDS OF POSSIBILITES

This advertisement is for a exhibit at the South Carolina State Museum. Upon examining the advertisement, immediately we see a small alien character, a space background, and a speech bubble in the middle that says:
Don't Miss It!!.
Its intended audience are most likely children and their parents. So, keeping the audience in mind, the advertisement does a good job in hooking the children and the parents. First, it hooks the child with a cartoon character dressed in hip, popular clothes. Then, it catches the parents' eyes by Bolding and CAPITALIZING the words: State Museum. They do this because today's parents often want their kids to be educationally active, and a museum is perfect for such.
It also does a good job of covering all the basic information about the exhibit, such as the price, the location, when, and an overview of what is included in the presentation.
What the claim is is that this is a learning opportunity, although not necessarily for just children, that must be implied.
They support this claim by stating some of the things one could learn if they attended the exhibit. They use words like 'learn' and 'examine' to provide some more support that it is a learning activity.
Overall, this advertisement should be successful for grabbing the attention of a youngster and getting them interested in what it might have to offer them for fun.

Response to My Plan to Save Network Television

Charlie Hauck wrote a sarcastic piece poking some fun at television marketing and advertisements. The article titled My Plan to Save Network Television makes a fake proposition to disallow senior citizens from watching shows on any of the Big Four network television stations. He claims that this will increase economic power in America since t.v. shows get canceled due to the elderly watching.
This is a claim of policy. Although sarcastic, it looks to change the state of television marketing habits and those of senior citizens as well.
Something that is overlooked in this piece to me is that it states that big t.v. networks want to make sure to snatch up "those young eyes." This is a claim that television networks have it out for the children, but it is warrant that children should not get sucked into the advertising scheme.
I believe this article got its point across in that it points out advertisers' obsessions with young people and their watching/spending habits.

Response to 'Ugly, The American'

In James Poniewozik's article Ugly, The American, he examines the effect of immigration on popular television and culture. He focuses on the popular television program, Ugly Betty in which a Latin American assistant for a fashion magazine gains success through "hard work" and "perseverance". He argues that the anti-immigration sentiment of many Americans is misguided since Betty embodies most good American qualities.
Poniewozik claims that immigrants bring other cultures into America for the better because it has happened in the past and it was embraced. He uses popular culture references like Ugly Betty and reality t.v. shows to provide evidence that Americans today need "new blood" to keep the country vitalized. I think, overall, this is not enough evidence to fully convince someone that immigration is a good thing for the country.

Rhetorical Analysis

Central Claim: "Perhaps she's a star because that breakneck energy and interjection-riddled vocabulary are genuinely appealing...I prefer to believe she's made it despite the relentless ebullience, that she connects because she understands that for a whole lot of people, getting dinner on the table is a major accomplishment." p. 370

My Central Claim: "[Williams] argues in her article, Rachael Ray, My Dinner Hooker, that even with such an irritating demeanor, Rachael Ray's message to mother's and wives everywhere is still valid and applicable and even helpful." p. 1

My Conclusion: "she argues very convincingly to give the reader good reason why Ray is not as bad as most people think and by the end of the editorial, it leaves the reader wondering if Williams ever actually hated Rachael Ray in the first place." p. 4

Analysis of Rachael Ray, My Dinner Hooker

Mary Elizabeth Williams takes a very critical approach to explaining how the media giant Rachael Ray has amassed such a following despite having, in her opinion, an extremely annoying and overly zealous attitude. She argues in her article, Rachael Ray, My Dinner Hooker, that even with such an irritating demeanor, Rachael Ray’s message to mothers and wives everywhere is still valid and applicable and even helpful. Williams goes on to give personal reasons as to why Ray is both a burden and a blessing to mothers and their families, all while keeping light the tone and letting the reader know that what she writes is not that serious; just an interesting piece on a person who influences her life on a nearly daily basis.

Williams wrote this piece as an editorial for the online news source, Salon.com. Salon.com is a fairly popular site ranked 2,309 among all websites based on Alexa.com’s daily statistics. The site carries predominantly liberal news pieces with such staff writers as NPR’s Garrison Keiller and news on why the current Republican government is flawed. On Salon.com, she is the host of an online community forum known as Table Talk where registered users can comment on today’s issues ranging from politics to cooking, although she occasionally writes editorial works for the Community section of the site’s news. These editorials would speak directly to the online community of the website. Her piece on Rachael Ray would be one such editorial placed in the Home & Garden section of the forum, where readers who are interested in cooking and other household jobs can learn and share information.

The article’s main focus from the beginning brings the notion that Rachael Ray is an extremely annoying celebrity, and has spurred the creation of numerous hate sites despite being identified by Forbes “as the second most trusted person in America.” Williams wonders if she deserves either the hate or the praise. This is the question that drives the opening paragraph and grabs the reader’s attention, begging them to find out which treatment Ray really merits.

The author uses numerous cultural allusions to hook the reader into being comfortable and feeling relaxed by reminding them of things they know. The second line contains a perfect example of this. It says, “Google up ‘Rachael Ray’ and ‘hate’ and you’ll uncover an enthusiastic community…” Using Google, in particular, is an extraordinary way of including her audience within the piece. It is, after all, published on an online news site. The reader could very easily do what Williams suggests while reading this online. She even mentions some names and brands that would undoubtedly strike a chord with the reader: Oprah, The Food Network, Time Magazine, FHM, Red Bull, and even the Teen Choice Awards. The only issue with this is that all of these references are to American-focused names. This constrains some readers that may be from another country surfing the web for news.

The second paragraph begins William’s argument. She claims that people can be lumped into two categories, the one Rachael Ray is in and the one to which she belongs. This technique engages the reader because it forces them to identify with one of the two and very bluntly states her own stance on day-to-day life. This brings a constraint into the article. It is extremely possible that some of the readers are those who support Rachael Ray and do not dislike her or her “turbocharged personality” or that she can “pull a dinner out [her] ass”. Some readers may belong to the former category, unlike the author.

Williams continues to give her own opinion and tell the reader why so many people hate Rachael Ray. She writes, “Ray has no formal culinary training… She’s boasted that she’s completely unqualified for every job she ever had.” And that, “Unsurprisingly, she pisses a lot of people off.” However, in the fifth and sixth paragraphs, the reader begins to notice a change in the author’s tone. Williams begins using less insulting words and actually begins to compliment Ray. This allows the editorial to move on from more than just a complaining piece to one that takes more than one perspective and that argues consensually.

Slowly, Williams describes a facetious love/hate relationship between herself and Ray, one where Ray “grate[s] on [her] nerves like a block of Parmesan on a blade…” but is still “her fix.” She uses personal accounts of when Ray helped her in time of culinary need, that Ray is, “a regular girl who, like [her], was just trying to get dinner made without having a nervous breakdown.” What this type of writing does is try to play to some readers’ situations, in that they may be mothers or wives too.

Williams says that Ray’s work actually helps family life in America. She uses the statistic that, “less than half of American families sit down to eat together every night.” This is useful due to the claim stated earlier in the article which says that Ray helps women prepare a meal for their family in less than 30 minutes. Williams combines these two ideas logically and tells the reader about her own family and their dining habits, again, bringing a sense of comfort to the audience. Rachael Ray’s 30 minute cooking tips helped Williams on more than one occasion to get her family to sit down and eat together.

Mary Elizabeth Williams uses many tactics in this editorial, such as asking the reader questions, alluding to popular names, using humor to keep the piece light, and deceiving the reader at the beginning to keep the reader on their toes. She examines how it is that Rachael Ray is so successful and what her opinions of her were. More importantly, however, she argues very convincingly to give the reader good reason why Ray is not as bad as most people think and by the end of the editorial, it leaves the reader wondering if Williams ever actually hated Rachael Ray in any way.

Response to What Went Wrong? by Nancy Shute

Nancy Shute’s article What Went Wrong? must have received much national attention due to both that it was published in the U.S. News & World Report and that it came just two weeks after the tragedy at Virginia Tech University, on April 16, 2007. The article starts by introducing the focal point, Cho Seung-Hui, who was the killer of 34 human beings, including himself. Then, it continues, asking “why?” or “how?” did the killings occur.

Something important that I noticed about how Shute wrote this was that she stays true to her intended audience. It often focuses on how parents feel or how college students need help regularly. This caters directly to the middle age to senior citizen range of ages, and many times refers to students as ‘kids’. The use of this language is proof that the audience is not university students, as much of the article’s assertions may be offensive to some students. Since it is however in a more adult, mature tone, the journalist comes off as a little more knowledgeable or wise even.

Perhaps, Carolina Reader includes this article, despite it having a parental feel to it, was to encourage students to read and comprehend, subtly, that there are numerous ways to get help and that there are plenty of people on campus whose job it is to make students feel that they are not alone. It would be my assumption that Nancy Shute is around fifty years of age and is the mother of at least child. This situation that she in would allow for more harmony than constraint given that her audience are people like her, older.

The exigency that exists within this article very much surrounds the murders at Virginia Tech. Since it was such a tragic and nationally covered event, Shute probably did not need much outside motivation beyond what it meant to nearly everyone in America. This unifying force is the same reason why most readers did not need much outside motivation to read the article as well.

Blogging vs. Social Networking

Since the emergence of the Internet, users have been figuring out methods to opinionate, express, and represent themselves online. They have many choices of media through which to accomplish this, but two have become more popular than all other forms: blogging and social networking sites such as Facebook. With the former being the more popular, it has been estimated that there are over 70 million blogs on the net. Meanwhile, Facebook gains on average 200,000 users daily to make the total more than 40 million. Even with all this growth, are there differences between how these sites function in mass communication?

Blogs are meant to share and comment on news, photos, music, videos, and on anything else that users may want. They focus on a blogger posting something and allowing public users to access the blog, view it, and comment on it. In its simplest form, a blog is nothing more than just the sharing of new information. It does not offer much toward networking users together into a community, other than that they can subscribe to a blog and can see other users who did as well. The type of writing within text-based blogs is normally journalistic in nature, but is less constrained in the prose, as it is much more informal than, say, newspaper editorials.

Social networking websites such as, but not limited to Facebook are mainly focused on creating a forum for socializing online. Like blogs, users can post text, photos, and videos. However, Facebook’s users’ writing style is less informal than that of a blog. It is based in shorter, more personal messages to other users which allows users to speak to others in a more free and modern way. Usage of memes, abbreviations like ‘lol’, and other colloquial forms of communication is the preferred method of socializing on sites like Facebook. Unlike blogs, Facebook is less about sharing information like news and more about community and friendships among users.

So, blogs, normally, contain more information about a singular topic than social networking web pages and are a bit more formal in the writing style. This is because the information trying to be conveyed needs to be in a clear and readable style whereas on Facebook the information is not necessarily meant to be shared or is not necessarily informative even.

Adaptive Argumentation

I approach an argument assuming that I am correct, but never assuming that I must be correct. This allows me to employ a consensual style of argument that appeals to audience, that is, if at first I seem unconfident my primary target can then be eased into an argument comfortably. Then, when they don’t expect it, I can unleash my weaponry. However, instead of a never-ending onslaught of evidence and points, I push the issue subtly, sometimes without the recipient even knowing.

Sometimes using sarcasm or humor to woo someone, I present my facts quickly and try to become acclimated with whom I am speaking through the use of observational skills and keen interest into what they may be arguing in return. I believe half of this tactic comes from my mother who always taught me to think abstractly and “out of the box” but still to-the-point enough so that it is understandable. My father, on the other hand, is a very loquacious and amiable man, and he lent me knowledge in that “you can learn more from how someone looks at you, than from what they say to you.”

According to the checklist on page 21 of the Essentials of Argument, I place more as a consensual arguer yet still favor an individual’s opinion and favor abstract thinking and reasoning. This means that I tend to a group of people individually, personally. Then I give them what I know, make logical connections, and break down the issue clearly.

Since I never assume that I must be correct, if someone points out a fallacy in my thinking or reasoning that might change my mind, I will weigh my points to theirs and if mine are false, I am quick to switch sides. Adaptability is the most important characteristic, in my opinion, of argument. Knowing when I am wrong and understanding why is what will lead me closer to the truth, in the end. Knowing when my argument is failing to persuade somebody allows me to adapt and switch my technique mid-argument in order to achieve the desired outcome.

I like to think my methodology is sound, but if it is not, I am quick to change it so that it may be.

Moderate Media

Every generation in America, and likely all over the world, has had a subset within itself that challenges most aspects of their predecessors’ ideals. In the editorial piece “Seeking Balance in an Either-Or World”, columnist Kathleen Parker argues that today’s voters are less extreme than those in the past were. Parker asserts that there is a growing trend in people’s political opinions toward a more moderate ideal. Also, she claims that the modern public is beginning to look down on the right/left extremists creating a new class of moderates that are “socially liberal and fiscally conservative”.

In a nation where we tend to lump anyone into either Democrat or Republican, a 2005 Pew Poll’s findings paint a much unexpected picture, that 39 percent of voters are classified as independent or, rather, not Republican or Democrat. This comes as a bit of a shock since most of the mass media focuses on the two extremes of the political spectrum. According to popular belief, the Democrats have CNN and MSNBC while the GOP voices itself through Fox News Channel. So where in the media do independent, moderate-thinking voters go for their news and opinion pieces? The Internet.

For the past fifteen years or so, a virtual culture has emerged. The internet exists in anonymity and in cyberspace. Inside, there are countless forums for the expressing of opinions, political or not. It provides places where people of similar political views can learn without the bias that exists in mass media. These sites have become extremely popular with those who cannot find peace-of-mind in popular television news channel.

So when Parker says that today’s new voters are mainly moderate and “fence-straddlers” we can see evidence of this on the Internet, which is at the center of today’s emerging culture. This article states that this group of moderates will be a “powerful reckoning force” and judging from how much publicity the 2008 election is receiving, the Internet culture (moderates) will need much more attention.

Response to Skube and Hagstette

Every student reads, but it is the degree to which they read that concerns the true scholars in universities and schools all over the country. Whether it be the bubbly cheerleader with a perfect 4.0 GPA or the frat boy with alcoholic tendencies, each of these people often times includes a plethora of mistakes in writing. Writing papers ripe with incorrect prepositional phrasing, passive voice, dangling participles, and missing commas (or too many), students today lack skills they need to present themselves as educated, intellectual members which their GPAs should reflect. These are ideas Michael Skube puts forward and for which Todd Hagstette gives some reasoning.
Everyday, I read signs that are missing apostrophes and it bothers me to no end. I have experience in editing, as I was the copy editor for my high school’s newspaper. During my time at this post, I began to notice patterns in the mistakes that I found: there/their/they’re and its/it’s mistakes, continuous misspellings of the word ‘definitely’, run-on sentences, and many other errors that any fourth grade teacher would call common. I soon realized that the majority of the student body must have stopped learning English around the seventh grade. For these reasons, I agree wholeheartedly with Mr. Skube when he claims that, “many students are hard-pressed to string together coherent sentences”.

Mr. Hagstette criticizes the way students read text and provides solutions to correct their dismal reading habits. What he says is that students need to learn how to read ‘aggressively’, which means taking class texts very seriously. He explains that the mind must be prepared mentally and the reader’s surroundings as well. I think he is correct when he says that students need to be out of their comfort zone. Too many times when I ask a fellow student how their assigned reading went, they respond saying, “I fell asleep.” Sometimes digging in to a book while in a quiet library is exactly what one would need to grasp the concepts truly; getting out of that comfort zone and into an ‘awkwardly silent’ situation. Students need to get lost in a book, not in a daydream.

So, overall, I agree with what both of these writers claim; that students need to learn first how to read, then how to write. Without a good basis in reading, writing would be like trying to fly a Boeing 747 sans flight school. Sure, after a while an observer could conceivably learn how to fly it. But would anyone really trust them to command a flight with five hundred passengers? It’s the almost the same with writers, some people simply lack the necessary background to be writing long essays or theses. I believe these two passages were very important, as some students may not have even been aware that they could be passive readers and not fulfilling their duties as scholars in using what they have learned since grade school everyday.