Short Essay 2

Neighbors Kill Neighbors as Kenyan Vote Stirs Old Feuds

 

            When picking up The New York Times on Thursday February 21, 2013 readers were confronted by a shocking image of a baby swaddled in her mother’s arms with a gash across the back of her head. This image causes an immediate emotional response within the reader, causing them to formulate a story of their own, or causing them to question why such a horrendous event occurred. The story formulated by the reader is often more horrific than the actual story, however, this is the reaction newspapers want. They want their reader to become emotionally invested before they deliver the facts. This technique causes readers to invest more time and thought to the issue at hand and in turn may cause a response. The response may vary, it could be that the reader buys the paper tomorrow to follow the story or it may be that the reader finds some way to help those who are suffering. Whatever the response may be, it was initially sparked by the emotional connection to the picture on the front page.

            When first viewing this picture, ones thoughts immediately shift to the nation of Africa and the ethnic wars that have taken place there throughout history. Unfortunately, this issue is one that is common to the country and many Americans are used to reports on mass killing among African people. Some readers may connect this issue to those of the Rwandan genocide or the continued ethnic battle in the Sudan. Either of these connections causes the reader to feel sympathy for the child in the picture and the hardships she has been through. Once the initial shock of the image subsides the reader can look at the caption. The caption offers basic information that ties the image to the story. In the case of this image, the reader discovers that this girl is in fact 9 month old Rahema Hageyo, and that she was “slashed by a machete when raiders from a rival ethnic group attacked her Kenyan village in December”. Once these basic facts have been established, the reader can make new connections. They now know that the story is one of ethnic issues that have grown violent in Kenya. With these few facts and the emotional connection to Rahema the reader now moves on to the details within the reported story.

            Currently in Kenya there is an ethnic war happening between the Pokomo and the Orma. Pokomo elder Elisha Bwora says there are “three reasons for this war…tribe, land and politics”. Although the first two reasons are just as important, the most pressing is that of politics. Kenya is currently in the middle of electing new leaders. The last time this vote occurred was in 2007 and it had disastrous results, 1,000 people were dead and the country was in shambles. As the current election goes on, history seems to be repeating itself. With 200 people already dead the two tribes continue to fight, accusing each other of “burning villages and birth certificates”. With past tensions playing out and current tensions fueling the fire, it is unclear who will win the election and what the following repercussions may be.

            After reading the story it becomes clear that the issue at hand is political tension that has boiled over into warfare. Comparing this issue to the United States, the reader may become confused or even angered since the United States deals with elections every four years and never has it resulted in warfare. The confusion is created from the content of the story, but the emotional response is aroused by the original picture. This emotional response comes from the realization that due to this political issue a little 9 month old girl was harmed. Rahema is nowhere near old enough to vote and yet someone decided to slash her across the head with a machete. The story is about a political issue however, the main message that is intended to be the focus is the disastrous effects that this issue has aroused.  

            This picture demonstrates how newspapers purposely use images to influence the reader’s response to an article. In this case, The New York Times used the tragedy of harming a little girl to cause the reader to recognize the corruption in Africa. Purposeful placement is also used, in that the captioned picture as well as the story is placed on the front page. Instead of focusing on the issue of politics the reader focuses on the tragedies that these people inflict upon one another. The image is the most powerful part of this news story, and the emotional response it creates is its intended purpose.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/22/world/africa/neighbors-kill-neighbors-in-kenya-as-election-tensions-stir-age-old-grievances.html?pagewanted=1&_r=0&ref=africa

Short Essay 2 Workshop-Alexander

Review Questions

1.                  Is the image analyzed in relationship to a larger story, and what is that story?

                        Yes, it is analyzed in relationship to a larger story, which is primarily about injuries          in Kenya that are due to ethnic issues.  The first paragraph of the story already gives you   a gruesome description of an injury inflicted upon a 9 month old child.

2.                  How is the image analyzed?

                        She mentions the “ethnic wars” that have occurred in Africa for decades now and            how that was one of the authors first thoughts.  The author also states how one might         gain a sort of emotional compassion for a little girl who has done nothing wrong.

3.                  What do you find most interesting about the analysis?

                        I liked how the author supplied us with a bit of background information on what   has being going on in Kenya and what is causing these ethnic issues particularly.

4.                  What is most confusing or in need of greater attention or explanation?

                        I didn't find anything confusing or that needed greater attention or explanation.

5.                  Any other comments or suggestions for revision.

                        I thought you chose a good image considering how emotionally stirred some        people might get when they see it.

Short Essay 2 Workshop

Review Questions

Review name: Jordyn Theisen

1.      Is the image analyzed in relationship to a larger story, and what is that story?

            Yes the image is analyzed in relationship to a larger story. The larger story is that two tribes in Kenya, the Pokomo and the Orma, are currently involved in ethnic war over their different tribes, land and politics. Kenya is currently in the middle of electing new leaders for their country and this has sparked increased violence between the two tribes.

2.      How is the image analyzed? (What are they looking at, how it’s composed, emotional content, etc.)

            The image is first analyzed by what it contains and how this would make readers have an immediate emotional response. She then talks about how readers will first create their own stories of why the child is cut across the back of the head. Then the placement of the image is analyzed and what responses this causes. Later, the caption of the picture is analyzed and how this changes what the readers think of the pictures or what emotional connections they make. Finally, the image is seen as being there to evoke a more emotional response for the families affected by the violence in Kenya than a political response for the elections going on there.

3.      What do you find most interesting about the analysis?

            I like how you talk about how the reader first creates its own story of what happened to the child in the picture. This relates to the reading we did over images and their relation to stories, which is a nice touch.

4.      What is most confusing or in need of greater attention or explanation?

            The response the readers have to the image and to the story are very different. This makes it hard to understand what the story was actually about (like what the author wanted you to get from it) and so then it’s hard to understand how well the image and the story relate. Clarifying that part would help.

5.      Other comments and suggestions

            I thought you analyzed the picture very well and it was easy to read because of how you broke the analysis down. 

A Picture's Worth a Thousand Words

In Errol Morris's piece I think that he is trying to say that we apply our own beliefs to the images we see. When we view an image we work to match some sort of context to it. Generally this context has to come from some previous experience or some previous knowledge that we have. As a result we find ourselves trying to create a story that matches the photograph we see. This can be a struggle as Morris notes when he says, "photographs tamper with the glue that holds life and memory together." I understand this statement to mean that when we look at photographs we are forced to apply context to them and in doing so we sometimes change our own thoughts and memories to fit the photo rather than the actual experience. I think that it is interesting to think about how much a picture can change a story, and how the caption of the picture is as important as the story itself. Once a caption is added to a picture we no longer have to fill the void with our own thoughts and ideas. Instead we can use the short blip under the picture as a starting point and then fill in the rest of the story with the information we know to be true. In the case that the photo is connect to a story, we don't even have to worry about adding our own thinking to the photo at all, instead we can take the facts we obtain from the story and match them to the picture where we find appropriate.
I found an interesting example of Morris's idea on NBC news. This article is about hacker attacks that are taking place in China that could threaten the US. The picture that goes along with the story is located about half way through the article and shows a girl walking in front of a building. On the main page this news story is shown with this photograph and no caption. When I first saw this I wondered to myself, what does a little girl have to do with hacking. The photo does not fit the headline in anyway. Therefore like described earlier, we are forced to add our context to the photo. In my head I began to form a story about this young girl disguised as a school girl being some sort of spy who was able to break into a secure building and hack into the system. However, once a caption is applied to the photo is clear to see that the object of the photo is in fact the military unit in the background and the young girl has no part in the story at all. This is a perfect example of Morris's idea and why it is important for us to have captions to our photos so we can determine what is real and what is fake.
http://usnews.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/02/19/17019005-successful-hacker-attack-could-cripple-us-infrastructure-experts-say?lite

Taking an Approach

            The technique of taking an approach covers a wider range of information than that of countering and forwarding. Taking an approach involves using an authors works or style to influence your own. This sounds like a rather simple task, however, it involves much more than simply using another person's style. When taking an approach one must address "an entire style or perspective" of an author as well as their "mode of thinking and writing." Harris breaks this technique down into three sections, acknowledging influences, turning an approach on itself, and reflexivity. In acknowledging influences, a writer may introduce their own writing by first describing the author and work they used to outline their own. In turning an approach, one will address the author and ask the same questions that the author asks about others. Lastly in reflexivity the writer reflects on the choices they made while writing their specific piece. One important matter that Harris highlights in his description of taking an approach is that of changing your thinking. Harris says, "to transform is to reshape, not to replace or rebut. The original does not go away but is remade into something new." In this explanation Harris sums up his point of taking an approach. It is not to argue against an author's work or depict one's own work as better, the goal is to take the original and turn it into something new while still retaining the original work.

            An example of taking an approach can be seen within in many news blogs such as The Huffington Post. When reporting many of the news stories on this page, the Huffington Post relies on larger news websites in order to make sure the news is creditable. Taking an approach is most often seen in the style the news stories are reported. For example while articles on  The New York Times try to remain unbiased, there is a more obvious lean towards a liberal approach in articles in The Huffington Post. This isn't a very strong example of taking an approach, however, news stories are generally reported in the same matter and don't allow for much change to be added to them. In this respect news stories that transfer from website to website generally only change based on the allegiances of the website and not in the information. 

Short Essay

Learning to Livestrong Again

            One would think that someone who has won seven major sports titles would be idolized by many. However, this is not the case for Lance Armstrong. After admitting to the use of performance enhancing drugs his spotlight in the public eye is now tarnished. The New York Times wrote several articles as the story behind Armstrong's doping unraveled. In these articles the writers focus on the negative aspects of Lance's character and they seem to be written as more of an attack. Like most news stories, The New York Times reported the facts and used them to work against Armstrong. In rewriting this story about Armstrong I worked to combine these three news articles into a more opinionated editorial piece. Instead of focusing on all of the negative aspects of Armstrong's doping scandal, I wanted to put a more positive spin on the story. I think that it is important to look at the issue in more than one context, and to bring to light how big of a step this is in Armstrong's life. Although what he did was wrong he is now having to learn hope to cope while dealing with the repercussions. In writing this piece I tried to avoid the typical outline seen in news reports. I didn't use any quotes in the piece, but instead tried to incorporate my own thoughts and research into my writing.

            In an interview with Oprah Winfrey, Lance Armstrong, a former Tour de France winner, admitted to the use of performance enhancing drugs. By admitting to the use of these drugs, not only was Armstrong stripped of his seven Tour de France titles, he was also banned from competing in the Olympics and other sporting events. Those who watched the interview felt no sympathy for Armstrong. Instead, many felt that he finally got what he deserved, and a majority felt disappointed that during the interview, never once did Armstrong simply apologize. Although the discussion of Armstrong's crimes is the topic that fills the newspapers there is another side of the story to consider. After years of denying any wrongdoing, Armstrong is finally facing his lies, an act that in itself is very courageous. In the wake of his life being destroyed, Armstrong is learning to live again, and that is something that should hold just as much significance as the scandal.

            Two wrongs don't make a right, and in Armstrong's case, seven wrongs don't make a right either. However, getting it right is not the point. The point is to learn from one’s mistakes, and that is exactly what Armstrong is doing. For years Armstrong was idolized by a wide range of people.  His inspirational story of battling cancer and then going on to win seven Tour de France titles instilled hope and strength within his followers. Watching this one man accomplish such a great feat made people begin to believe not only in their own abilities but also in themselves. With such a large fan base, and using his considerable winnings, Armstrong was able to start the Livestrong Foundation. Soon people across the country were sporting Livestrong yellow wristbands in the fight against cancer, and Armstrong was working to help those who were battling cancer just as he had. Obviously Armstrong wanted to support a cause that was dear to his heart; he simply lost sight of his goal in his aim for fame.

            Admitting to his mistakes has caused Armstrong to reevaluate himself and his intentions. In his interview with Oprah, Armstrong depicts himself as a lifelong bully who was hardened by his fight with cancer. Armstrong also admitted that he was scared of himself and his ability to overlook his doping as cheating. By admitting that he used performing enhancing drugs, Armstrong is now currently in the process of facing himself and coming to terms with his actions and their consequences. The process may be lengthy, but in the end Armstrong may be able to view his situation and his mistakes in a new light. 

            Lance Armstrong has watched his life self destruct since the admittance of his doping. He has been banned from the competitions he loves. He has lost his sponsorships, teammates have turned against him, and he is being sued by multiple companies for more money than his winnings total. Yet, throughout all of this despair, Armstrong is working hard to mend his broken image. The road ahead is going to be rough, and he won't have many supporters, but there is no one better suited than Armstrong for this battle. Realizing his personal flaws is simply the first step for Armstrong on his road to recovery. Once he rights himself, Armstrong will then be able to address the bigger issue at hand, living honestly and mending relationships. The road is a long one, but Lance Armstrong is sure to learn to genuinely, livestrong.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/18/sports/cycling/lance-armstrong-confesses-to-using-drugs-but-without-details.html?pagewanted=2

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/sports/cycling/those-wronged-by-lance-armstrong-see-little-right-in-interview.html?_r=0

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/19/sports/cycling/amid-tears-lance-armstrong-leaves-unanswered-questions-in-oprah-winfrey-interview.html

           

 Peer Review by Hannah Szabo

1.)    The original story described Oprah’s interview with Lance Armstrong regarding his confession to doping. The audience was mostly the American public but also for people around the globe interested in the truth behind Armstrong’s history. The purpose was to shed light on Armstrong’s past. The new story describes Oprah’s interview with Armstrong regarding his doping but also emphasizing his struggle with cancer. The new audience is for anyone interesting in a different (positive) take on Armstrong’s doping history. The new purpose is to portray Armstrong in a favorable manner and let the public know he deserves respect.

2.)    The change of writing can be seen with the positive reinforcements the author gives to Armstrong rather than tearing his achievements down by focusing on his faults.

3.)    The intro could include a more captivating opening sentence.

4.)    The “new” article targets the new audience with a new purpose very nicely. Personal thoughts and outside research helped the author to rewrite the story successfully take a new and more enlightening approach to the Armstrong interview.

5.)    Some grammatical errors; nice title; definitely a fan of positive-ness J

Reviewer: Jordyn Theisen

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

The original story is about Lance Armstrong and his doping and cover-ups. It talks about how he didn’t feel remorse for what he did and in order to get back into races, he would have to reveal who helped him dope, who covered it up, and who knew about it. The audience is educated people who like to read the news (because it’s in the NY Times) and people who are fans of Armstrong or are curious about the controversy. The purpose is to talk about an interview with Armstrong and the latest revelations in the doping story. The new purpose is to write the essay in an editorial format and add more personal opinion rather than just fact. The audience of this would be people who want someone’s view of this topic. It could be put in the editorial section of a newspaper too.

2.       How is the change in audience and/or purpose reflected in the rewriting of the piece?

The change in purpose is reflected in the paper by the personal comments. She adds her opinion on how it’s not just about Armstrong’s crimes, it’s about him facing those crimes, which she sees as courageous. She argues that people shouldn’t be so focused on his wrongdoings; they should focus more on how he’s fixing and making up for what he’s done.

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

Summing up the three articles used as the original sources would be nice so that the reader can get a sense of where the new article is going and how it has changed without reading all three original articles.

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

Maybe addressing whether or not you think he should apologize would be more opinion you could add, or if you think that his teammates should turn against him in light of the fact that multiple bikers were doping at the same time.

5.       Any additional comments?

I thought you did a good job transitioning to an editorial and opinion and information was incorporated well throughout the article. 

Countering

            In Harris' novel he addresses the idea of countering. This technique is used most often when someone disagrees with the author's writing and wants to voice their opinion. Although countering can sound like an attack on the author, it is actually not viewed as so. According to Harris, "countering looks at other views and texts not as wrong but as partial-in the sense of being both interested and incomplete". With this idea of a partial piece of writing, it is most commonly seen that countering is working to complete the piece. However, in countering the aim is not simply to finish the piece as the initial author wrote it, it is instead to finish the piece by opening new lines of inquiry. Like Harris' idea of forwarding, countering also uses a skill set to make these new lines of inquiry. These skills are arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. By arguing the other side, the writer brings to light what the original author criticized or states problems the initial author argued for. By uncovering values, the writer analyzes ideas or concepts that may have been overlooked. And with dissent, the writer notes a common idea within an issue and then discusses its weaknesses. When writing a counter the most important thing to remember is not to attack the author, but instead to show a different view on the same idea.

            A good example of countering can be seen within the opinions section of The New York Times. In this section people write about many issues in which they generally have an opposing idea to that of the article they are addressing. In the article The Enlightenment's 'Race' Problem, and Ours the author addresses the opposing views of two philosophers. While comparing these two perspectives, the author uses the technique of arguing the other side, however, instead of arguing the other side with his own words he uses two opposing sides to work around a common issue.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/10/why-has-race-survived/?ref=opinion

            

Forwarding

            Forwarding is a technique used by many while writing an academic essay. In Harris' novel, he uses multiple examples to show how this technique has been used by different authors. The main idea of this technique is "highlighting parts of a text such as words, images, or ideas and putting them to use in new context". Essentially, when forwarding a text an author may use one aspect of a previous text and build upon it in multiple ways. Forwarding allows for conversation surrounding a text to expand and usually results in the sharing of new ideas or new ways to view a previous statement. Four of the most common practices of forwarding are illustrating, authorizing, borrowing and extending. Each of these techniques allows for a text or an idea to be viewed in a broader perspective. With the use of illustration a writer can place an example within their writing that directly reflects the point they are trying to make. Authorizing is when the writer validates their point with support from someone who shares the same view but has higher authority/social standing. Borrowing is when a writer uses certain aspects of someone else's writing and applies it to their own writing and discussion. And extending is when a writer builds off of an idea shared by another writer by adding their own ideas to it.

            Many examples of forwarding can be seen among news blogs. The news stations that are local or less popular tend to draw from well known news station for their facts and stories. This aspect of forwarding would mostly reflect the technique of authorizing. By using well known news stations, readers are reassured that the facts they are being delivered are in fact true. An example of this can be seen in the following Fox News Article Senators urge White House not to accept union 'demands' to expand ObamaCare aid. In this article, the writer refers to an article published in The Wall Street Journal. Not only does this validate the story it also allows for the writer of the Fox News article to expand on ideas that are already established.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2013/02/08/senators-urge-obama-not-to-accept-union-demands-to-expand-obamacare-aid/#ixzz2KZfpeYik

The Press Sphere

In the piece written by Jarvis, he introduces the idea of the 'press sphere'. The press sphere is composed of all the information that is used when as sources when a story is being written. According to Jarvis, this concept is changing. Back when news was printed they had a process of using sources to produce a product. Now however, in the new model of news on the internet the product is the entire process itself. In order to better explain this idea, Jarvis goes into detail to say that once the story is reported it is only the beginning. The story is the starting place, but all of the information that is shared once the story is put in the press keeps the story going. This idea introduced by Jarvis is one that is a bit hard to grasp. He introduces multiple factors that have changed how we get our news, but he constantly switches what factor is at the center of it all. I understand how all of these factors have intertwined to change how we view our news, but I was confused by the constant change of which factor was the most important. After viewing Jarvis's models I would have to agree that the way we access news has changed, and with the introduction of blog posts into my reading I have noticed that news is becoming much more interactive. Once a news story has been published or reported the amount of attention it gets is massive. Other news companies will report the same story, people will repost the story on social media, and eventually the story morphs and grows. In this sense, as Jarvis said in his article, "the story itself — in whatever medium — is merely a blip on the line, a stage in a process, for that process continues after publication". I think that this new way of receiving news has allowed for topics to become more widespread and accessible.  

Final Extended Essay

Literacy in the Digital Age

            We live in a society that is ever changing. From social networks, fashion trends, apps, diets, and even teaching and learning styles, our society has a dynamic that is fast paced and constantly advancing. As a result, we as people have to find a way to keep up or be left behind. Some of these changes have little effect on daily lives, one can wear last season's sweater and still make it through the day. However, other changes come with more consequences. Of these advances, technology has come to be the most influential. If one were to sit in a public place such as a college campus, it is almost guaranteed that the majority of people who stroll past will be using some sort of technology. Whether it be a cell phone, iPod or laptop, we as a collective group have begun to grow dependent on technology so much so, that it seems to run our lives. Where we may once have only used a cell phone to make a simple phone call, it now seems that people cannot function without cell phones glued to our hands. When trying to make that one simple phone call we now find ourselves checking the weather, Instagraming a picture, and hash tagging 'throw back Thursday' on twitter. In this onslaught of distractions the true purpose of having a cell phone becomes lost. This is one example of the distractions technology has brought upon our society, and yet unfortunately it is not the only one. Not only has the introduction of technology impacted our ability to perform simple tasks, it has also had a greater impact on education and literacy today.

            Over the past few years technology has made many advancements. One of the most notable is the integration of technology into the classroom. With more people gaining access to computers and the internet, many classes have started to become 'hybrid' courses. The term hybrid refers to the integration of more technology into the subject being taught. Many teachers require students to watch video that can be found on YouTube while others have students complete homework that can only be found through online textbooks. Colleges have also seen this shift towards more technology-based learning. It is normal for any college student to communicate with their professors via email, and 'blackboard' is a common headache to all who use it. Although this use of technology has its benefits, it also has multiple setbacks. The most notable of these setbacks, and possibly the most discussed, are the effects the integration of technology has had on literacy and the ability to read and write.

            Increasingly, technology has found its way into the classroom. More and more students are reading articles online as well as writing responses to these readings through blogs and online discussion boards. In the new age, this practice is becoming a familiar practice. However, it is actually causing more damage to the literacy of the younger generation rather than helping. There are many factors that create the damage being seen. The most detrimental of these are the distractions technology has introduced, the dependency on technology to perform, and the loss of traditional forms of literacy.

            When discussing the distractions introduced through technology, a notable voice in the argument is that of Nicholas Carr. Carr is an American writer best known for his opinions and publications on the effects of technology on our thought processes. In an article published in 2008 in the Atlantic Monthly, Carr addresses the question, Is Google Making Us Stupid?. According to Carr, the use of search engines such as Google and the internet is hurting our ability to read and comprehend. Carr blames this inability to concentrate on the constant web surfing and jumping from hyperlink to hyperlink. Society has shifted, where the computer use to be a resource used only for word processing, people now rely on technology to get through their day. The time people spend on the computer has also increased. Where one might have spent a few hours to type a paper, the amount of time people now spend on the computer has dramatically increased due to the computer's increased capabilities. For most people a simple task such as reading email becomes dragged out as they are distracted by social media websites, hyperlinks, and even news stories. Carr believes that this excessive exposure to so many distractions has trained people's minds to work and concentrate in shorter sequences. While discussing reading a long essay, a task that use to be easy for Carr, he now says "my concentration often starts to drift after two or three pages. I get fidgety, lose the thread, begin looking for something else to do. I feel as if I’m always dragging my wayward brain back to the text. The deep reading that used to come naturally has become a struggle" (pg. 1). This constant struggle to remain focused is not one Carr faces alone. A large number of the younger population has started to develop an inability to stay on task. With the introduction of media into the learning environment, many students find themselves taking longer to complete tasks in and out of the classroom. In the classroom, students struggle to stay focused for fifty minutes straight. Out of the classroom, students are spending hours on their homework simply because checking their social connections takes precedence over completing their assignments. This constant split of attention is not good for the younger generation. The only reason this problem has not drawn more attention is because the younger generation has been exposed to this sort of work ethic for so long that it is the new norm.

            Constant distractions are not the only new standard that has been adopted by the younger generation. New forms of communication have also taken root. These forms of communication are short and sparsely carry the full message of what is really going on. This communication was born from technology based conversations such as texting and tweeting. These forms of communication are used by many, and for the most part they are littered with errors such as improper use of grammar, and misspelled words. For many people in the older generation these errors are unacceptable and should not be occurring, yet in an age of texting and tweeting many kids don't worry about their grammar. Instead they rely on technology to fix the problem for them. Andrea Lunsford, the Director of Writing and Rhetoric at Stanford, performed an experiment in which she observed multiple pieces of writing from multiple students to find trends within the new generation. In part of her experiment Lunsford addressed the errors made by students in their work. In her report Lunsford says, "with technology you win some you lose some: the most frequent error in our recent study is "wrong word," and ironically a good number of these wrong words come from advice given by the sometimes-not-so-trusty spell checkers"(pg. 3). This error is proof of our growing reliance on technology to help us perform. Ask any student today if they use spell check and many will admit that they use it multiple times before turning in their writing. One may argue that it is normal to check the spelling of words before turning in a piece of writing, however the problem here is deeper than that. The problem is that the younger generation has learned to rely on the auto correct of computers so much that many don't know the proper spelling of many words or the grammatical context in which words should be used. This problem not only effects the people who are using computers but also those around them. For example, in order to teach students teachers must make the information understandable for the whole of learning levels. If a few students are learning at a low level, the teacher will typically drop the class level to match that of the lower learners. As a result, students are being taught at a lower caliber than what use to be expected. This phenomena can mostly be observed through the level of language teachers use when teaching, and with low grammar levels being observed among students teachers must also drop their literacy level in the classroom.

            Technology may be putting a dent in our ability to concentrate and the caliber of grammar we use, but if nothing else it is also changing traditional forms of literacy. There was a time when if someone wanted to read a book or do research they would have to locate the nearest library and go there to find the text they need. Now all of these texts and books have been made available online and a simple click will pull up an article on the screen or download a book instantly to a Kindle. In this sense our society has seen the technology shift spread across many boundaries. Chris Hedges, an American journalist at The National Institute, believes that our society is shifting from "print-based to image-based"(pg. 3) and that as a result it is ruining our society's literacy. This shift is causing us to lose the traditional ways of reading and writing. Where we once spent time looking through a book to find deeper understanding, we can now obtain an answer in a mere matter of seconds without even having to understand the context the information came from. Carr addresses this point when arguing that we are losing "our ability to interpret text" and that as a result we don't have that "rich mental connection". Our society has become one that has learn to run off of efficiency and speed, but these factors have seemed to become more harmful than helpful. Technology has affected the concentration of individuals and has created a society dependent on programs such as spell check. These two examples deal with the direct effects on the way people think and function, but technology has also had a greater effect on the traditional aspects of reading and writing. That comforting feel of holding a bound book and flipping through pages is starting to disappear. More and more students are now finding information online and spending hours in front of the computer screen. This may not seem to hold much of an effect on literacy, but the traditional aspect is lost. Books and writings have been around for ages, and by switching to a technological age, less students experience a tradition that dates back to centuries ago. We are facing a future in which using technology will be a common practice while using a book will be outdated. Our society is slowly spinning to the horrors of one like Fahrenheit 451, where books are simply a distant memory that no one wants to recall.  

            Technology has ultimately changed the aspects of reading and writing, and unfortunately it seems to be at the detriment of traditional literacy. Reading, which was once a honorable tradition has undergone changes that have made it a less common practice. People now turn to their computers for any amount of reading or writing and it unfortunately has turned our society into a technology dependent group. We are now easily distracted by such technology, and we rely on it to fix our mistakes, no longer upholding the traditions that were once viewed as educationally irreplaceable. With the new onslaught of technology, we are facing a change in our literacy today. Although this change may be one with honest intentions, the rapid pace at which this change has arrived has not allowed enough time for our educational institutions to stay caught up. As a result, we can view the integration and reliance on technology as one that is harmful to the future of our society. If we were truly invested in our own futures we would work to use technology only when needed while still recognizing and preserving the forms of literacy that have been around for centuries.  

Works Cited

Carr, Nicholas. "Is Google Making Us Stupid?" The Atlantic Monthly. Atlantic Media Company. July/Aug. 2008. Web. 25 January 2013.           <http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google>.

Hedges, Chris. "America the Illiterate". Truth Dig. Zuade Kaufman. 10 Nov. 2008. Web. 25         January 2013.             <http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/20081110_america_the_illiterate/>.

Lunsford, Andrea A. "Our Semi-literate Youth? Not So Fast." n.p. n.d. Web. 25 January 2013.             <http://www.stanford.edu/group/ssw/cgi-bin/materials/OPED_Our_Semi-  Literate_Youth.pdf>.

Accessing News as a Class

Like my classmates, I also get most of my news from a technology based source. However, there is a difference between our sources. Where I generally watch the Today show and Nightly News to stay caught up on current events my classmates use the internet rather than TV. I was surprised by the large number of my classmates that say they use Facebook as one of their sources. Like any other college aged kid I use Facebook on a daily basis. Yet when I get on Facebook I am simply checking in what my friends are doing, not checking for news stories. Granted, Facebook is a quick way to spread a story to millions in seconds, but it is not a reliable source. I would never check Facebook in order to learn a breaking news story. I'm not saying that it is bad to use Facebook, but I think it is a wiser choice to get news from a more reliable source. I may have been criticizing the use of Facebook as a news source, but I guess the same could be said for using the television as a news source as well. As for using technology as a news source, one could argue that this is hindering our civic literacy. With the switch from print to computers, one could argue that we are losing our ability to read and comprehend. Although the information we are accessing is news related, the use of a computer rather than a newspaper has changed the way our society works. This idea of technology lowering the civic literacy of our society reflects the thoughts of authors such as Hedges and Carr. These two authors have a negative view on the use of technology. The opposing view would be reflected by an author like Sullivan, who believes that technology has provided us greater access to the world around us. Comparing these views from the authors to the sources our class uses, I would have to say that the use of Facebook reflects the lowering of civic literacy while watching broadcastings of the News reflects the use of technology to provide access to the world. 

The New York Times

Before taking this class, most of the news I paid attention to came either from the television or my own local newspaper. I thought that my two sources were rather reliable seeing as I was informed both about news around the world and news in my town. Since I started reading The New York Times, I believe that I am still receiving the same news stories simply in a different form. The stories that are covered in the paper are very similar if not the same as those broadcasted on Nightly News. The top stories that I have read about have been those discussing gun control and all of the issues that have been taking place in Africa. With the amount of news that has been broadcasted around the issue of gun control, it has been hard not to follow the stories. It seems like every day there has been some sort of news that covers this issue, and since there are opposing views, the issue keeps appearing simply with a different spin on the same story. I think that in order to understand the issue fully, it is important to look at both sides of the issue without a bias and take into account both the pros and cons. This allows for a complete understanding and can result in a new outlook on the issue in general. My reasoning behind following the issues in Africa is a personal one. My uncle has been doing work in Mali and Nigeria, and during his last trip to Mali he was held up in a hotel waiting with the rest of his company for help. As a result I now find myself checking this news to ensure my uncle is alright during his next trip. There have been many other stories that I have simply skimmed over when looking for these two topics, and although I may have missed some of them I have been filled in by my classmates during our news discussions. Since I have started reading The New York Times I have noticed minor changes in my habits. I still have the same work ethic, and reading and writing habits, the biggest change has been in my conversations. I am more apt to discuss the news with people and share my own thoughts on the issues at hand. I think my new found confidence has been brought about not only by my understanding of the news but also by my continuous attunement to current events.