the last post p8

Morris, from what I understood, talks a lot about photos being objective. If someone says it's a photo of the Lusitania we more or less believe it. However, once we hear the backstory of what happened to the Lusitania we look at the same exact photo in a different way. 

I agree with this. I usually don't question photos but then again, I'm not a journalist so I'm not really looking at them for a story. My family isn't big on family photos so I've never really looked at an old photo and questioned whose in it. Also, since I live with my parents, if I do look at a photo I can always ask my mom or dad who the people are and they'll give me a plethora of information I hardly want. 

I do think it's subjective though. If a National Geographic photographer takes a picture of a tree they think is cool and caption it "the very beautifully colored ferifjr tree" a scientist might look at that same photo and be like, "no, that's simply a mango tree." This is even more prominent in religious examples. A christian might post a photo captioned, "the holy cross" where an atheist might just see it as "a plus sign." It all depends on someones beliefs. In this sense I do agree with Morris.

The backstory definitely changes the way I look at photos. I tend to look at photos before reading stories. A very recent example, I saw a photo of Oscar Pistorious and his girlfriend and thought awwww, what a cute couple. I later read that he killed her and it went from a cute photo to a horrifying one instantly.
Anything on The Onion is practically an example of this. With everything they write being bogus it's easy to find an incorrect caption.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/vacationing-detective-just-going-to-pretend-like-h,31355/
This is the current top story on the onion. They don't put the captions below the photo so I just took the headline and used it saying "Vacationing Detective Just Going To Pretend Like He Didn't Even See Dead Body In The Woods," and assumed the man in the photo is the detective. It states the man didn't see a dead body. This is just some random man who has nothing to do with a dead body. However, look at the photo and read the headline and immediately we have negative thoughts about this man. The caption changes the way we view the photo.

p7

Taking an approach is, as the book puts it, writing in the spirit of another author. There's a weak and a strong way to do this as Harris talks about. The weak way when "one assumes the role of a disciple, adopting (rather than adapting) the moves and interests of another thinker. Little knowledge is created. Instead the disciple simply shows that the master is correct" (74).  In other words, when someone does this they basically just add examples to what's already been written. This is practically every research paper that  I have ever written. The same with presentations. As a student a lot of what we do is this weak way of taking an approach. It's what we do in class on tests. We learn something someone else wrote and than we show a mastery of it by answering questions.
There are 3 steps in taking an approach, the first step is to acknowledge the influences. There are 3 steps to the first step
1) defining concerns. This means knowing what this writer usually talks about, what questions they come up with, what types of stories the author is attracted to and what they seem to value most.
2) characteristic methods. This is knowing how the writer answers questions, if they interview people or just make observations, if they use previously done research or look at historical evidence, and if they talk about their own experiences.
3) knowing the style of writing that the author uses. This is things like knowing the writer, are they funny, are they cool with taking unpopular stances, do they like working with others. Once you know all this think about if this is something you admire in a writer.
But, in acknowledging the influence you can't become someone you're not which is why Harris talks about Sennett and Foucaults ideas. They tell us to 1) acknowledge deep influence meaning basically giving the reader an understanding of where your writing is coming from. 2) Define how those influences have directed your work.This is pretty self explanatory. 3) Show how your approach diverges from theirs. For example, if you can't write a sentence that goes along the lines of "My friend's influence may be felt everywhere in the pages... [but] I did not continue as we had begun " (82) then most likely you're not using your influences rather you're just applying them.
The next step in taking an approach is, turning an approach on itself. I found this the most confusing one to understand. This is like taking the questions an author asks someone else but then you ask the author the questions they're asking everyone else. I think, I didn't fully understand.
The last step is reflexivity. This is the last step because its you reflecting on the approach you took. This includes the values and experiences you learned from writing.

I've been following the blogs of all my classmates and a lot, if not all, of what we do is taking an approach. We read another authors work, summarize it, provide an example. Everyones post on this topic, for example, are taking an approach to Harris's chapter "Taking An Approach." In this, a lot of insight is gained. We get other peoples views on it and think about in ways we might not have on our own. What's altered is the way we apply it to real life situations. Since we need to give an example, the way we show it in the real world is different. I don't think anything is really lost in it. Sometimes people put posts off til the last minute and need to rush to get them done so some valuable information may be lost which could alter someones understanding of the topic.

In the New York Times takes an appraoch to things by offering more academic approaches. They go into a lot more depth on topics. They hear about a story somewhere but when they rewrite it they need to go into a lot more depth because of the audience they are writing for.

se1

            

Dina Grossman

Short Essay 1

2/14/13

 “DAYUM, these soda addictions are getting real!” this is the opening line for the humorously written article I took from the less than serious news source, Perezhilton.com and rewrote for a serious one, Science Magazine. The original article is written in a humorous way about a lady who drank 10 liters of coke everyday which in the end, killed her. I chose to rewrite this because I almost always write in a very casual, conversational tone. It’s harder for me to write in a formal way so I thought this would be a good opportunity for me to practice. I think it’s important to be able to write in a formal way for a lot of different things. I’m definitely better at writing more creative things, so for this I chose to write it for more of a science magazine focusing on the research and medical components of it. Instead of just talking about what happened, like on Perezhilton.com, I decided to go into more details about why it happened.

original article: http://perezhilton.com/fitperez/2013-02-12-woman-died-from-drinking-10-liters-of-coca-cola-everyday

Coke Costs Lives

Coca-Cola has for a long time been an issue of concern. It was originally developed by John Pemerton, a pharmacist, as a nerve tonic. He died 2 and half years after he created Coke. Coca leaves are the number one ingredients in the drug cocaine. Coke was originally made with 60 milligrams of cocaine till 1903. In 1903 they said they stopped making coke with cocaine but yet they still import large amounts of coca leaves leaving some suspicious. Coke imports 8 tons of Coca leaves from South America every single year.

            Coke isn’t getting that much attention but a recent case has brought attention back. In 2010, Natasha Harris passed away from hypokalemia. Hypokalemia is a disease where the serum potassium concentration is below 3.5 mEg/L. The normal range is between 3.7 and 5.2.  When a person takes in too much fructose they can develop it. Potassium is lost through diarrhea and gastrointestinal potassium wasting. If a person was to drink 4 liters of coke a day they would be getting around 169 milligrams of potassium. An average adult (healthy weight and size) needs around 3.5 grams. The first symptoms start with fatigue and feeling weak.

            Natasha Harris became addicted to Coke. Her family reported after she died that if she hadn’t gotten more than 10 liters a day, she would start going through withdraw like symptoms.  10 liters a day is the same as drinking 2 pounds of sugar and 970 milligrams of caffeine! David Crerar, a partner with Vancouver office of Borden Ladner Gervais who practices civil and commercial litigation, discovered her over drinking of coke caused her to develop cardiac arrhythmia.

Cardiac arrhythmia is a condition where the hearts rhythm isn’t normal. Something is disrupting its normal patterns. Normally, a heart pumps blood. The blood contains things like oxygen, nutrients, immune cells, and it sends these to the bodies organs.  The rhythm at which the blood is being pumped is chosen by the sinoatrial node. The sinoatrial node is located in the right atrium and it is a small region of heart muscle cells. It acts in the same way a pacemaker does but unlike a pacemaker, it is controlled by nerves that circulate hormones. These hormones use control circuits to keep blood pressure at the right place to keep oxygen flowing. There are 6 main parts to the heart. There are two upper and two lower chambers, the atria and the ventricles.

Normally the heart beats to what is referred to as sinus rhythm where each heart beat is generated by the sinoatrial node to produce waves of bioelectricity that go through the upper and lower chambers of the heart at the same time. Each beat goes through the atria and then goes to the atrioventricular to get to the ventricles. This process causes calcium between the cells to produce contractions in the heart that pump the blood into organs of the body.

If the pumping is on time it’ll go at 120-200 milliseconds. This is the proper amount of time for the atrial contraction and ventricular filling to be in sync. A healthy heart has around 75 beats a minute. What happens with an arrhythmias is, there is an abnormal length between pumps. Usually, these aren’t harmful. It just feels like the heart is racing. There are treatments for this that can eliminate irregular heartbeats because it can get worse if the heart is weak. Drinking too much Coke weakens the heart.

In Natashas case, her heart was very much weakened from the intake of all the Coke. Crerar said, “I find that when all the available evidence is considered, were it not for the consumption of very large quantities of Coke by Natasha Harris, it is unlikely that she would have died when she died and how she died.” To this Coke replied, “[Any] grossly excessive ingestion of any food product, including water [is harmful]. We believe that all foods and beverages can have a place in a balanced and  sensible diet combined with an active lifestyle.”

            As far as the lawsuit goes, Coke is throwing other factors in such as her smoking 30 cigarettes per day and is rejecting responsibility for causing Harris’s death. Coke, however, has claimed that anything in excessiveness can cause illness.

Works Cited

Crerar, David. "David A. Crerar." BLG Home. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://www.blg.com/en/home/our-professionals/Pages/Crerar-David.aspx>.

Felton, Flavio H., and  1. "Cardiac arrhythmia - Scholarpedia." Scholarpedia. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Cardiac_arrhythmia>.

Mayo Clinic Staff. "Heart arrhythmias - MayoClinic.com." Mayo Clinic. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/heart-arrhythmias/DS00290>.

Weiblatt, Victoria. "Too Much Soda & Potassium Levels | LIVESTRONG.COM." LIVESTRONG. N.p., n.d. Web. 14 Feb. 2013. <http://www.livestrong.com/article/544525-too-much-soda-potassium-levels/>.

Review by Jordyn Theisen:

1. What is the original story, audience, and purpose? What is the new

audience and/or purpose.

The original story is about a girl who died from too much intake of coke. The

audience is people who read Perez Hilton and like gossip magazines or blogs

and the purpose is to inform/entertain (write a shocking story). The new

audience is more sophisticated, scientific/medical people and the purpose is

to inform about hypokalemia (what the woman died from).

2. How is the change in audience and/or purpose reflected in the

rewriting of the piece?

Including the definition of hypokalemia, what its symptoms are, and how

you get it reflects the change in audience and/or purpose. She also informs

the readers on Coca Cola’s history and how it caused the woman to get

hypokalemia.

3. What is the single best thing that could be added to the introduction?

Maybe a few-sentence summary about what the article you read was about

and then how you’re going to change it to appeal to the more serious site.

Also a direct link to the story and not just Perez Hilton’s site would be

helpful.

4. In what other ways might the piece better target its new audience and/

or purpose?

Could go further in depth about the potential lawsuit by the family or the

claims the doctor made that it was Coca Cola’s fault, but otherwise it has a lot

of scientific information and sounds serious.

5. Any additional comments?

You could state what new site this audience is for (like is it for a medical

journal or law journal). Also a title is needed.

Peer Review by Hannah Szabo

1.) ---Original story: Somewhat humerous article about a women who died due to

her abnormally high daily Coke intake

---Original audience: women (or men) who follow short, advice, entertaining articles

and blogs on perezhilton.com

---Original purpose: entertain reader with uncommon news stories. The story was

found under the “fitperez” tab, so its purpose may also be to encourage healthy, non

soda-drinking habits

---New story: Very formal article about Coke’s nutritional values and impact of Coke

on the human body. Includes a reference to a women who died drinking too much

Coke

---New audience: Science-minded people who subscribe to a science magazine

---New purpose: Inform intelligent readers of the shocking effects of Coke and

illustrate these findings with a recent news story of a woman who died drinking

Coke

2.) The change in writing is very obvious to note. The new story includes a plethora

of scienfic nutrition information related to the human body. Additionally it is

written in a more structured and serious tone. Rather than being read in a light-

hearted manner, the new article is intended for magazine subscribers to learn

valuable data

3.) The intro successfully captured the project of the author, but perhaps a more

catching opening sentence would improve the essay

4.) The piece better targets its new audience with a new purpose due to the articles

increased content. The original article provided only basic information regarding

the Coke-obsessed (now dead) woman. The new article takes much more time

developing the health and nutritional facts about Coke.

5.) This was really interesting. I like the switch you are taking from totally chill

article to totally serious article.

p6

Harris's idea of countering, "countering looks at the other views and texts not as wrong but as partial- in the sense of being interested and incomplete" (Harris, 56). This to me seems like not necessarily disagreeing with what someone says, but offering a counter argument. For example, I really disagreed with the article we read "America The Illiterate" by Hedges. Instead of disagreeing I might offer my opinion on the matter and show the differences.  Harris describes the 3 steps in order to properly counter something as, arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. Arguing the other side makes you seem less biased and more credible. To uncover values, the writer brings up a concept to analyze that the original write didn't examine. To dissent, you note an issues limits. 
Finding an example of countering I found to be easier than forwarding. Maybe this is because I like to argue so it's easy for me to find things to argue with. I found examples in things like theories. One person would come up with a theory and another person would argue against it. 
http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/280/understanding-attention-deficit-disorder-addadhd-to-medicate-or-not-to-medicate
This is an article talking about medicating ADD/ADHD. I find this topic very interesting because there's a lot of people on both sides of the issue. The article offers a lot of insight as to what these disorders are. It acknowledges that it's a real thing and shows cases where it needs to be medicated. It also talks about cases being increased in recent years. http://video.answers.com/the-increase-in-add-and-adhd-235168560 This is a video countering it increasing in recent years. The man speaking has a son who he says could have been diagnosed for being rambunctious but says, "rambunctiousness in children needs to be treated with recess, not Ritalin." He then goes on to talk about a program he created adding more physical activity to classrooms to help with rambunctious kids. He says basically kids need to run around and play and them not being able to sit still doesn't make them have ADD/ADHD it's just them being kids. He says the increase is because of classroom structure and kids don't have the environment to be kids.

p5

My understanding of what forwarding is, is when some body takes a piece of writing that someone else wrote and they rewrite it so it has pretty much the same meaning but in a way that will make people start to talk about the topic. There's no end to the conversation, the writing has no end and the discussion should be able to keep going forever. By pushing an idea forward you get more insight into it. “… a writer forwards a text by taking words, images, or ideas from it and putting them to use in new contexts” (Harris, 37). This is like when we are typing an essay and we put a quote in it, we then offer our own insight into the topic. In forwarding things stay mostly the same but with more insight. Nothing is really lost it seems, but a lot is gained. More knowledge, more opinions. I think all of us have forwarded something in a blog post by quoting the article we're talking about.

I like gossip magazines, as embarrassing as that may be, I like reading the tabloids and a lot of it is quotes taken out of context. This can have things lost in forwarding, like the real meaning. The insight then offered to explain these quotes is totally off topic. The superbowl just happened and I think a good example of forwarding not in words but in images is a screenshot from Beyonces superbowl halftime show performance. It's a super unflattering photo that has gone viral. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/music/music-news/9854872/Beyonces-publicist-asks-for-unflattering-Superbowl-photos-to-be-pulled.html The photos are super unflattering and taken out of context to make her look bad.

But, forwarding is usually a good thing. http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/09/20/in-new-policy-the-times-forbids-after-the-fact-quote-approval/ This is an article about the New York Times not approving quotes. There's quotes in this article that are taken from the New York Times that then describe what they are trying to do by not allowing this. Allowing readers with no inside information to try to understand what's happening.

“In forwarding a text, you extend its uses; in countering a text, you note its limits” (Harris, 38)

p4

I read Jarvis as defining the press sphere by us. The news that we spread to each other. I thought almost the entire thing was confusing. The article was short so it didn't really go into any in-depth discussion so I wasn't really sure what I was reading or what he was getting at. I understood the article more through reading other peoples blogs than reading the article itself. Another problem is the first image wouldn't load so I only saw the last figures. I found the comments on the article more interesting than the article. One comment reads, "send those greed bastards to us and we'll exploit them!" I thought this was a pretty accurate description of what the news does, exploits people.  Another comment reads, "on a fundamental level news is being filtered at some level. Unless you're the witness to the news event, any account thereof is filtered by definition." I never really thought about the internet filtering news, but this is true. Unless we are there when the event happens we are getting a filtered version. I read a quote once that went, "If you didn't see it with your own eyes or hear it with your own ears don't invent it with your small mind and spread it with your big mouth." I think this is what the news does, it events stories and spreads them to get views. 
As for my own experience, I did have the theory that "if news is important it will find me" but reading the New York Times and other blogs, I've realized there's a lot of news that is important that didn't find me. I do agree that I get most of my information from my peers. 

p3

I noticed almost every ones blog I read made a comment about how at home they got the news a lot from their parents. Often times people either listened to the radio when someone was driving them to school or their parents actually subscribed to a physical news paper. I'm the same way. I thought it was really interesting how many peoples parents listened to news on the way to school. 
One difference I noticed is some people, not a lot but a few, actually do read the news paper sites. I'm not saying it's a bad thing I'm just saying it's unusual for people our age with such busy lives to go to news sites. I think it's different to actually go to a news website then to get push notifications on your phone from a news site. A lot of people get breaking news texts or notifications on their phone but even with this we only get the big stories and not the smaller less intriguing stories.  It seemed like with this, everyone liked the immediacy of getting news from social media. It gets posted as it happens so we don't have to wait for a news story to write the story, get it edited, then publish it. It's just unedited straight to the point thoughts. 
Now it seems like almost everyone gets their news from social media. Almost everyone on a college campus has a Facebook and everyone has interests about something or other and is probably going to post something at some point that someone else will later read and become more informed. A lot of people are getting informed from reading other peoples posts. I thought this was pretty cool how we're all helping each other become civicly literate. 
I think Hedges and Carr would think it's not really a good thing that we're starting to get all our news from the internet because it's changing us and making us less literate and incapable of reading an actual paper. On the other hand, I think Sullivan would appreciate it and think it's a good thing that the internet is helping us and even though we're getting information a different way, we're still getting it and that's what is important. He would also appreciate the raw and immediacy of social media news. 

p2

I've enjoyed reading the times for this class. I like how it separates stories by world and then U.S. Generally speaking I've found the non-US stories more interesting just because I know less about them. I've noticed a lot of political stories. Often times they have stories about President Obama or other political figures. Lately there's been a lot of gun stuff, which is still political. I think I've noticed these things because they always pop up when I open the New York Times's website. I also was so unaware of what political stuff was going on before that now I've become so aware of it that it really stands out making me notice it. 
In the process I think I missed a lot of the not major headline stories. I don't really know what to call them. When I get to the Times website I usually read the headlines and click which ever catches my attention first. Usually it's the big stories at the top of the page therefore I never really make it to the smaller stories near the bottom. 
It's influenced my other habits because now when I go on facebook and people are talking about something I actually understand what's going on and I'm able to educatedly read it and not necessarily take their side but form my own opinion. It's influenced my readings because in my other class (sociology; technology and Facebook)  we always read articles about facebook and getting our news from unreliable sources and now I feel like I can argue legitimately with them knowing that I get my news from the Times and feel like it's legitimate. It's changed my interactions because I find it fun to know what's going on and talk to other people who know what's going on about it. It's changed my habits because now I check other news sites as well and really enjoy being informed.