Bad Writers Telling the Truth

Mark Liberman’s article about how accurate the study done to show that there were improvements in children’s school studies who took omega-3 fish oil supplements really enlightened me that not everything you read is accurate. All scientists and researchers want to prove their theories, some more than others, which sometimes leads to false advertisement about how true their study conducted really is. Liberman shows his audience that looking deeper into studies done by science writers reveals the truth and proves his point that there are bad science writers who will do anything to make the research done sound more interesting than it really is. This then reflects on them as a writer to get people who read these articles remember the person who wrote it and then look for what they have to say in the articles to come. Being liked and memorable is important for a writer and most of the time the writer does not care how he/she achieves this goal.

The evidence that Liberman uses is directly quoting from both the original science research study done and the article that the science writer wrote about it in. Having both of these articles makes a great comparison for Liberman’s audience so that he can show his audience that by digging deeper you will find the facts underneath all of the “fluff”. This evidence is very helpful to readers who are looking to improve things like in this case their kids’ test scores and learning abilities while in the classroom. The worst thing a science writer can do is write false evidence about the study done in the article. In the end, all the writer is doing is making it worse for himself/herself because when writers like Liberman make posts about their writing choices, it will turn all of the writers’ audiences away from everything the write in the future. Facts are better than “fluff” and in the long run is better for everyone involved (writer, audience, and critiques).

Some ways that this problem can be solved is by having a reliable fact checker. Every major paper that is published to every general audience has a fact checker that looks over every article written and makes sure that everything the writer says is factual and does not deter away from the article. Liberman’s proposal, however is a bit different but a solution that I believe can still work. His solution he says is this, “So that's the foundation of my modest proposal. Any newspaper or magazine that has a Science writer should also have a Bad Science writer, whose job would be act as a sort of intellectual ombudsman…” My only concern with this proposal is that having a bad science writer for the science writer is why would you have someone write about the research article done just to have another writer (the bad science writer) criticize what they wrote about. Why would you have someone who looks at a research article, writes about their findings, and then have someone criticize the findings by saying that they are a bad writer in general? Why would you not have the “bad science writer” be the one that writes about the research article? This would make more sense and in the end would save the audience of readers’ time. Reading about the opinions of an article from two different science writers back to back is a waste and cannot be the best outcome to this solution. My theory of having one science writer, whether it be the bad science writer actually writing the review of the article, or the science writer having a fact checker so that his findings are indeed factual, is a better solution to the problem at hand.

What's in a Good Critique

Personally, I have written many papers over the years that I have been in school and I feel that I can give a good critique. The best critiques that I have given are grammatically fixing someone's paper. In high school, I had the same teacher for the first three years that I had to take english and she was a grammar nazi. Instead of really learning the best way to construct a paper, I learned how to make a paper sound grammatically correct. The most common problem that people need help with is staying in the same tense throughout their paper. Another mistake that most students make is knowing what pronouns to use. Also, clarity is often a mistake that most students make. Often times they are too vague about the subject they are writing about. Many mistakes can be made throughout a paper, and I feel that grammatically I can help others correct these easy mistakes. Good constructive criticism is seen when someone is trying to offer their assisstance to someone else's idea. It is not seen when the help from someone else changes that person's paper into something that is their idea and then becomes completely turned around. The biggest thing to remember is that this is someone else's paper and not yours so help them by reading the paper from their point of view and offer suggestions about they could do differently so that their opinion shines through the paper.

A problem that I have is using the same choice of words and making the paper sound too similar throughout. Reading a paper that I write sometimes is like reading how to write bs about everything you just wrote all over again. So the biggest thing someone can help me out with is to eliminate the bs in my paper and suggest new word ideas because when it comes to that I am not very good at thinking about how to change the use of my verbs or adjectives.

Rhetoric Knowledge

A rhetorical analysis is where you analyze a piece of work, such as media, using rational or logical reasoning (logos), judge the credibility (ethos), and the extent of emotional reasoning (pathos). The purpose of analyzing a piece of work using logos, ethos, and pathos is to look deeper into what this pieced of work is really saying and how it is being portrayed to its' audience. For example, in the media there are always talking about how 'sex sells' so therefore there are several ads and media clips that portray these sexual images to intrigue customers to notice their ad and then purchase the product(s) being sold in that ad.

When doing a rhetorical analysis, you need to analyze all three aspects of rhetoric in the piece of work that you are analyzing. Logos, ethos, and pathos should be included in your analysis whether it is strong or lacking in the piece. When writing this analysis, the reader needs to be able to identify what it is you are analyzing and the clear main points of your opinion towards this piece of work. It should include a brief introduction discussing the nature of why you are analyzing this piece, then give a description of the piece of work so that the reader can capture what the piece is about so they can formulate their own opinion while reading yours, it then needs to include your opinions about the logos, ethos, and pathos in the piece of work, and then a conclusion that ties your opinion about this piece of work all together.

In my rhetoric analysis, I plan to give a great description of my ad so that the reader can really grasp what it is talking about and the message that is being sent. Then I plan order my opinions about the logos, ethos, and pathos in the ad from strongest to weakest so that the reader can see why I was drawn to it in the first place and understand my strongest point about why I disagree/agree with the message it sends. Then I plan to finish strong in my conclusion by tying everything together and restating my strongest point(s) so the reader will not forget. This will help me to have a strong and successful analysis of the media that I choose to critique.

What works and what doesn't

In the example rhetorical analysis, the writer does a great job at discussing his/her opinion as well as tie in facts to support why he/she chooses to stand on that side of the argument. The introduction is a real attention grabber because it clearly states the facts while comparing the media's topic, comparing world disasters, to other disasters that are current in our world today. The opening paragraph is great and sets up for a great rhetorical analysis. Reading farther into the paper, there are many places where sentences are not needed because they are just not necessary and tend to repeat what has already been said. The writer was just trying to "pad" the paper so that it would meet the necessary word requirement, which is quite evident in certain places. In addition, some of the ideas are not complete thoughts. The writer needs to elaborate on some of the ideas that are suggested in this analysis rather than leaving the reader hanging.
The way the writer/author really elaborated on the main points he/she had about the media ad was great and is sure to convince an audience. I hope to argue strong points and be able to be as passionate about the main use of rhetoric behind the ad I choose. Another good point about this rhetoric analysis is the author tells the reader up front that the only strong argument that can be made about this ad is using pathos. The author says the ethos is not credible and nonexistent in this ad and that the logos is unreliable. Going into this analysis, the reader already has insight on what to expect and that is because the author did a great job in preparing his/her audience. These are some key points I want to include in my analysis.

When to use "I"

Some of the successful ways that a writer can use "I" is through argumentative writing. When a writer is trying to make their point known, using "I" and talking in first person can be very successful because it makes the argument more valid. It helps to make the points in the argument clearer. Some of the examples the author of this blog says are good ways to use "I" are, "I contend", "I argue", "I advance the position", and "I have concluded". These are all great ways to use "I" without talking specifically about yourself. The author of this blog says that depending on the context of the text will determine how effect the use of "I" is. Some of the ways that "I" can spoil a good argument is by using phrases that are more self-directed rather than interactive with both the writer and the reader. Two phrases that the author of this blog believes spoil a good argument are "I believe" and "In my opinion".

When I write my first paper, I plan to utilize the effective ways of using "I" when I argue my point what the media is actually projecting. Most media ads today advertise sex through the clothing that is being sold. My position on this is that the object of sex should not be used to sell clothing because it only teaches other generations that this is what they need to portray in order to be noticed by others. Media advertisements such as these are harmful to our youth today. I would argue strong points about this issue with the help of the tips that I have learned through this blog. Also, limiting how much I use "I" and showing how many others in the public have the same views as I do will help me when it comes to arguing my point about using sex as an object for ads.

Bathroom Signs and how they are offensive...? Or just confusing

I found that in reading this post that all of the signs that are made today for the washrooms are just absurd. It should not be that complicated to make appropriate signage for the restrooms in today's day and age. With everything else going on in the world, bathroom signs should not be an issue.

After looking at all of the signs that were posted to the blog, I found most of them to be pretty comical and some of them just bizarre and unnecessary. Using inappropriate sexual symbols to represents the gender of a public restroom is again not necessary with how far our society has come today. Men and women should have generic symbols that represent the difference of the public restrooms.

   


Overall, I feel that people read too much into the symbols used to represent a man and a woman. If men are supposed to be the dominant species and females are supposed to have evolved from the males, then why is there a sense of equality between the two species? Is one supposed to be more superior than the other? I don't think that it is intended to offend anyone about the gender they are through bathroom signs. Too many people today take everything in offense to themselves and the way they are. If there is a sexist or racial comment made or implied anywhere today toward an individual who is of that gender or race, they feel the need to be offended by it most of the time just because they think that everyone is talking about them personally. This just draws attention to a situation that did not need to be made light of in the first place.

I discovered through this blog that majority of the world population today views males as being the dominant species while females are inferior to them. This is similar to Adam and Eve and how everything was in the beginning. The woman came from the man and they just exist together. Man is the dominant species because it was created first, and society still very much sees this today. Although more women hold jobs that used to only be considered a "man's" occupation, they are not getting paid the same nor are they given most of the same benefits. In some instances they are sexually harassed for having positions that have this kind of authority simply because the male feels he has to be assertive and dominant to show who is really in charge.

If more people would stop reading into signs and start accepting the generic symbols for men and women, the stick figures for the bathrooms, then society today would not be viewing everything so politically. More women would stop being so feminist because they would see how they are really accepted into society.

Rhetorical Analysis

Advertisment: http://imageshack.us/photo/my-images/27/pamelaandersonpeta.jpg/sr=1 

In the ad that I chose about PETA, they are appealing to the audience using the rhetorical triangle. In the ad they show that they have done research about the similarities between humans and animals. This logos part of the ad makes the author sound intelligent. The pathos part of this ad is the envy and lust that women feel towards Pamela Anderson. She looks seductive in this ad to show women that by saving the animals they can look this seductive as well as show men that if they seek out vegetarians they will all look this good. The ethos part of this ad is where the author convinces the audience that being a carnivore is morally wrong and that we should all save the animals.
I believe that this ad is strongly advertising the pathos aspect because the first part of the ad that catches the audience's eye is the seductive Pamela Anderson. The ad itself is supposed to be advertising the advantage to being a vegetarian as opposed to a carnivore. I think that the author has done a good job portraying this message because the image is eye catching and makes you think about what the initial image is saying. This causes you, the reader, to read further into the ad and think about the message which is that humans and animals are similar so therefore save the animals and go vegetarian so that everyone knows you care.