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.