Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

1. Why are we still debating climate change? - CNN - Carol Costello

Author:
Carol Costello is an Emmy-award winning reporter who graduated from Kent State University and is currently the CNN Newsroom anchor from 9am-11am.  She is a part of the news bureau in New York where she has reported on a significant amount of nationally recognized events such as the Boston Bombing Marathon and the Gulf Oil Spill, won her Emmy in 1991 as part of a story on crack and cocaine, and was nominated for another Emmy in 1993.  Her reporting background is incredibly comprehensive and she has many presidential interviews and years of reporting behind her.

Carol Costello (2015 May 28) "Why are we still debating Climate Change?"
Screenshot from my computer - 9/26/2015

Audience:
This article is being addressed to a sympathizing liberal audience but also posing a question to the conservative audience.  The title is a direct question, in an attitude of disbelief, over the tone of the general public.  The content of the article, however, outlines the actual facts about the population demographic, which suggests she wants those who believe climate change exists to read this information.  This information means little to those that do not believe in climate change, but to those who believe the science, this is shocking information.  Thus the point of this article is to appeal to passionate anti and pro climate change advocates and display information about the current climate.  It's almost as if she wrote the opinionated article to understand the issue herself, which is also a great tactic to relate to her audience.

Context:
This article was published in May well before the Pope speech, but makes note that such a speech would occur sometime in the future.  She is using a relatively informal language to inform a large audience about the current demographic.  The article is a compilation of quotes and information about the size of the climate change naysayer portion of the population.  Her purpose is to answer the question of why climate change is still a debate.  She does this by addressing the attacking group on the scientific side of the argument, which is guaranteed to rile up conversation.

2. Pope's Full Speech to Congress - NY Times - The Associated Press

Speaker:
The Pope is an internationally known religious figurehead of the Catholic church.  He currently lives in the Domus Sanctae Marthae in Vatican City.  He is the 266th Pope and an avid speaker for Christians the poor, and as of this week climate change.  This is a speech coming directly from his speech to the Congress on the 24th.  His word has the power to influence a large population of the Catholic following who is wholly devoted to him.  His speech has authority to the point of being able to change the tone of the Paris climate talks and the social climate on the environment.

The Associated Press (2015 September 24) "Pope's Full Speech to Congress"
Screenshot from my computer 9/26/2015

Audience:
The pope has written an encyclical called "Laudato si", addressed to all of the bishops of the Roman Catholic church, in which he champions recognition of climate change and demands sustainable practices.  He touched on the issues of this encyclical on his speech tour with the goal of touching the entire world.  His most direct audience is the Catholic community, but his speech adamantly proposes change to the whole of the US and even the actions of the UN.

Context:
This speech is a part of a massive speech tour for climate change and policy from the Pope.  This surprise green ally is meant to be incredibly public.  Quotes from the pope have covered every minor and major news source, all social medias, selfies and all, and have considerable splits in the Conservative parties are around the world.

3. Conservatives Dismiss Pope on Climate Change, Warn of Immigrant 'Anarchy' - Huffington Post - Jennifer Bendery

Author/Speaker:
Jennifer Bendery has been a reporter at the Huffington Post since 2011 and is currently in the position as the White House Correspondent and congressional reporter.  She resides in Washington D.C. and is very active on her twitter page which leans towards being rather liberal.  She is an active reporter, her past articles being on Kim Davis and the award she received from a Conservative group.  Rep. Tim Huelskamp  is the openly Catholic Republican Representative for Kansas who Jennifer Bendery quotes in the article.

Jennifer Bendery (2015 September 26) "Conservatives Dismiss Pope on Climate Change,
Warn of Immigrant 'Anarchy'" Screenshot from my computer 9/26/2015

Audience:
This article is a demonstration of those who disagree with climate change and are admitting to struggling with the Pope's words.  The audience is both liberal and conservative, as this is entirely almost entirely an article of quotes and has little bias from the author.  Her being a congressional reporter, it is her job to present the opinions and actions of the US representatives to the public.  People of all political and religious stances are the intended audience.

Context:
This article is written by a congressional reporter and is almost in the format of a direct interview with Huelskamp.  The article presents the current confusion and angst in the Conservative party over their opinions on climate change and another issue discussed by the Pope, abortion.  Due to the Pope having nontraditional views on climate change, gay rights, and a variety of other issues, this adaptation in the Catholic faith will be a rocky road.  Although the Pope is still set on the traditional on topics like abortion, this sudden change is going to have a dramatic and entirely unknown effect on the population.


REFLECTION:

After reading Chloe and Sam's blogs, it was interesting to see what kind of articles we all decided to pick.  I originally picked a few more scientific than opinionated pieces, similar to what Sam picked, and changed my plan half way through.  She was able to find a nice balance of information and personal stories to a pretty intense issue.  Chloe found three very detailed and interesting sources with a wealth of information about audio books from the writer, narrator, and a writer involved with finding audio talent.  She definitely has a lot of different options for directions she can go on her project, but any of her articles are great options.

In terms of my own analysis, I think I found some good starting point articles, but I will be picking an alternate article about the Pope to be the base of my project, instead of using the entire speech.  There are still dozens of articles being spewed out into the internet on the topic, and I have found a few other options that more directly fit what I would like my project to focus on.  I think the articles I chose for this particular blog are still perfectly fine, and they were definitely useful in determining my project.  I was also pretty happy with my analysis, so I will continue to move on to the other blogs.

Developing a Research Question

As I was writing the Quick Reference Guide for Project 1, I found a massive amount of controversy and public conversation surrounding climate change and environmental science.  The public is a crucial voice in the success of environmental activism and policy.  Without a solid backing from the public, sustainability will never be possible.  Amazingly, another high profile argument occurred during the week of developing this second project.  The Pope embarked on a speaking tour arguing for more environmental protection along with a laundry list of other social topics.  These speeches could potentially spark new interest in the Paris talks on environmental policy or create a new layer of chaos over the public's level of education on sustainability.  For the next project I will be focusing on the public and their impact on environmental science, using the speeches from the Pope as the initial ignition for conversation.

Pete Souza - White House "Pope Francis Meets Barack Obama" uploaded by O'Dea
2014, March 7 Public Domain

Possible questions for developing a final research question?

1.  What are the current public opinions on climate change and the environment?  Positive?  Negative?

2. What are the Pope's calls to action and are they reasonable or based in fact?  Is the media highlighting his specific suggestions or the reaction to his speech?

3. What is the public and scientific reaction surrounding the Pope's speech?  Does his speech have the potential to inspire new enthusiasm for addressing climate change?

Reflection on Project 1

After a long process of writing and revising my Quick Reference guide, I am going to reflect on my successes and challenges.

1. Challenges

I found it difficult to write about the same topic over the course of many blog posts.  I found that I lost track of what I already written and what I had not yet covered.  The revising process became easier with the amount of information that I had written in organized previous posts, but the writing process was creatively exhausting.  It was difficult to keep the audience in mind, in terms of how the information was coming across to them, while still writing a QRG with enough information to cover all parts of the rubric.  The rubric itself was really the most challenging part to comprehend.  The amount of information and how much each topic had to addressed was a little disconcerting.  I believe that I did end up covering all of the necessary parts of the rubric, but it was a difficult process.

2. Successes

Researching for sources was the most interesting and surprisingly easy part of the QRG.  The topic was such a new topic that there was a pretty comprehensive amount of information and social media on Alaska and climate change.  I also found there to be a lot more creative room to write in a semi-casual tone.  I didn't need to write intense analysis or include descriptions of complicated scientific jargon in order to get the point across.  It was a nice change spending energy writing about the background surrounding an event without the purpose being to make a defined political or social statement about the issue. 

3. Effective arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices, and writing practices

When creating my subheadings for this QRG, I made sure to keep them as direct and casual as possible.  By keeping the subheadings so specific, it helped me focus my paragraphs on only one specific topic, knowing that I would be inclined to ramble.  After the last revisions, my paragraphs were a little bulkier than typical QRG, but they were a lot more clear and focused on the main ideas than in the first drafts.  In terms of design choices, I tried to make sure that the pictures occurred at similar intervals.  I did not want an overwhelming amount of text or too many pictures in odd locations.  My last revisions were entirely focused on making sure each of the pages were easily readable and could be skimmed.

4. Ineffective arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices, and writing practices

I found that I spent far too much time arguing about the importance of the issue and not enough presenting information to the audience.  The audience is looking more for information and context than they are opinionated writing.  My writing practices have been debate or creatively centered for a majority of past projects.  Writing background information and avoiding having a bias in that presented final product was very difficult.  I had a hard time separating my own voice from bias.

5. Writing process similarities

Construction of paragraphs and deciding the order of information required a similar process to that of writing an essay.  There is a significant level of planning and revising required in all projects that I write.  Citations are also a commonality in every writing project.

6. Writing process differences

Blogs, in general, require a completely different skill set to writing essays.  Essays do not have hyperlinks or plan the visual appeal to the same level that is required in a blog.  It was odd to go out of my way to link to websites for the audience to read on their own.  I am very used to only utilizing the amount of sources that I can effectively analyze.  The short paragraphs were also a little difficult to write at first.  Once I found a comfortable amount of information to include in one paragraphs, formatting and splitting up paragraphs got significantly easier.  

7. Are the newfound skills useful?

The grammatical exercises and revision process will be useful for future projects.  I can't say I will be writing many blogs in my scientific career, but the research, citations, and revisions will definitely be required for papers and grant writing.  Any practice researching for the right and most useful material is good practice.  I also haven't been in the habit of spending much time revising lately, so the fact that this project required multiple layers of revision was definitely a good use of time.

REFLECTION:

After reading Laurence and Chelsea's blogs I found the general consensus to be that this was a very difficult project.  The process was unlike anything we have had to write before and although we had the skill set from years of writing to accomplish the project, it was semi-exhausting.  The amount of work for such short and concise paragraphs was a little frustrating.  Laurence pointed out that the constant writing required that we really had to buckle down.  This is absolutely true.  I still haven't worked out all the kinks in terms of time management, but I'm still pretty happy with the work I put into my QRG and the other blogs.  Chelsea's experience was very similar to my own.  The subheadings were important to having focused paragraphs, and keeping bias to a minimum and splitting up paragraphs was difficult.

Final Project 1

This is it!  The final draft of my Quick Reference Guide can be found right here.

Skeeze "runner" accessed via Pixabay
December 2014 CC0 Public Domain

Clarity, Part 2

This is the second part of my discussion of the elements of Clarity in the Rules for Writers book.  I have applied the below concepts to my final draft.

Shifts
This section discusses the use of a constant verb tense, point of view, and voice.  This problem tends to arise in writing without revision.  I have revised my work several times now, via my own notes and my peers, and I still run into awkward sentences.  This is an easy fix, that comes through identifying the topic of the sentence and finding where there are two different voices occurring, and picking the more apt option.  this error is significantly easier to find as a peer.  As a writer, you might read a sentence on paper with a bias as to what you imagined the sentence was written as.  The peer can identify the awkwardness without the creator bias much quicker.

For example, I wrote, "Alaska is eroding away: economically and quite literally".  The use of the words "quite" followed by "literally" is an oxymoron and not at all effective.  I wanted to make it clear that the erosion was occurring in the economic stability and the land of the country.  In the later revisions, this was changed to the word "physically".

Add needed words
When writing, my writing style and simply missing words are often confused.  I'll find sentences in which I thought I was creating a more interesting or unique type of sentence, but when reading it back, the wording simply doesn't work.  This can be fixed by a simple addition of the omitted word that is common to both parts of the compound structure or in any case where I am unsure about the logic or readability of the sentence being awkward.

This mistake happened a lot more frequently towards the end of my initial drafts, where I trailed off and added too many ideas at once.  For example I wrote, "The second step is of course the most difficult, a combination of strong sustainable leaders with funding and ideas stepping into the political world" thinking that I established a clear second step.  A peer pointed out that I was missing a predicate, resulting in an awkward sentence to read.  After many revisions, the sentence is now,  The second step requires a combination of strong sustainably focused leaders with funding and ideas, being vocal in the political world."  The simple addition of the word "requires" automatically makes the sentence more readable.

Variety
Variety comes from varying sentence structures and phrases.  I tend to focus only on the adjectives and construction of phrases, but additional variety can come from the entire sentence structure.  Inverting the sentence, while keeping track of the of the subject and clarity of the sentence, is often a simple fix to add some variety.  During the longest paragraph exercise, identifying the structures of the sentences, simple, compound, complex, and compound-complex, can inspire an easier revision process.  Seeing all of the different types of structures visually can help re-balance the types of sentence structures to a more equivalent amount.

kaboompics "quote" accessed via Pixabay
June 2015 CC0 Public Domain

Appropriate Language
In the context of a Quick Reference Guide, avoiding scientific jargon and pretentious language is crucial in order to appeal to the general audience.  There must be a balance between formality in presentation of information and a level of casual tone as to avoid turning off the audience.  A writer's credibility is automatically more solid when the audience is happier with their tone and presentation of information.  They are more willing to read and absorb the presented information if the tone is appealing.

I fell into the pretentious writing category on accident with my bias of studying environmental science, I assumed my audience was aware of the difficulty in creating actual change in environmental science and used the phrase, "the second step is of course more difficult".  While in my head, this seemed more playful, it comes off as limiting to the audience.

Longest Paragraph

This post includes a link to my longest paragraph, in which I label the different grammatical elements within the paragraph.  

Unsplash, "letters" accessed via Pixabay
April 2015 CC0 Public Domain

While completing this exercise, I realized I have a decent amount amount of variety in my sentences. I spend very little time on grammar during the process of writing, as it makes me more paranoid and slows down the writing process, and more on the content. This exercise is meant to bring your writing back to the basic structure to clarify and simplify your writing for the reader. I can definitely work on being more vigilant on identifying grammar during the first phases of revision.

Paragraph Anaylsis

In this post I have provided a link to a copy of my Quick Reference Guide in which I analyze each of the paragraphs I have written.

Hans, "Glasses, learn, read, book" accessed via Pixabay

Uploaded 2014 CC0 Public Domain

I found this to be a very productive exercise on improving my revision and drafting skills.  I really took the time to figure out what was going wrong grammatically and simply did not make sense to the reader.  The peer revisions are really what made the most difference.  I do not think that my writing has been critiqued before turning in a final copy for at least four years.  I found that my writing definitely has some consistent flaws and quirks that will be hard to break but are now easily recognizable.  It was also interesting to focus directly on the grammatical problems within my paragraphs that caused larger issues in the transitions and presentation of information.  It was nice to be able to identify and fix a problem relatively quickly without agonizing over why the argument, not the actual text, wasn't working.

Reflection of Project 1 Draft

After going through the difficult process of beginning my own revision process and peer reviewing, I can start to see the light at the end of the tunnel.  I have a much clear view of where I want my Quick Reference Guide to be in my final draft.  During the peer review, I read and gave suggestions to Isaak's, Namratha's, Sam's, and Swati's Quick Reference Guides.  Below I will address some basic questions about the audience and context.

Audience

1. Who am I trying to reach and who will actually read the document?
I am trying to reach the general population.  Those who know absolutely nothing about climate change, those who are aware that Obama visited Alaska, and possibly even those who have done solid research on the topic.  Most likely those who are knowledgeable about the topic are not likely to read a summary of the events, instead they will be drawn to developing news stories.  The general population is much more likely to click on a QRG about the general topic, should they happenstance upon it.  This is especially due to the heavy media output surrounding this controversy.  Although many are set in their beliefs and may not want to research, they may at least want something to refute.

2. What are the audience values and expectations?  Am I meeting those?
The audience assumes all of the information is directly from the author and is either all fact, a solid mixture of fact and opinion, or to some, 100% incorrect.  Their expectations are to see images and information presented in a credible manner.  Otherwise the comment section will go rampant with insults about credibility and communism.  I believe that I am close to meeting those standards.  I do not have enough images and an all audience friendly set of information, but I am close to that point.

3. How much information is enough?  How context should be provided?
The information has to represent both sides in a balanced matter.  There can be some bias, but very minimal, the audience tends to be keen on picking apart such indiscretions.  Context is almost more crucial than the information.  In my controversy, if I just mentioned there were 5 Chinese warships off the coast of Alaska, as many news sources did, there would be a massive outpouring of controversy centered comments.  Without context, the information is potentially useless to the audience or firing power to throw your facts right back at you.

4. What language is suitable for the audience?
The QRG is a mixture of formal and informal.  The language has to directly address the questions of the audience, which makes it inherently informal, but it also has to be precise enough to present understandable information.  There cannot be too much technical jargon nor slang.  This form has to apply to all parts of the general population, not just Twitter or the scientific field.

5. What tone is suitable?  Is my tone consistent?
My tone leans on the informal side, but I think after my revisions, the balance will be more apparent.  A lot of the informality came from some simple grammatical errors, which will be relatively easy to fix.

Unsplash "Audience crowd people" accessed via Pixabay

Uploaded in July CC0 Public Domain

Context

1. What are the formatting requirements?  Did I meet them?
The formatting requirements involved sub-headings, short paragraphs, an engaging lead, and a solid conclusion about the future.  I think my organization is where I need it to be, but some of my introductory paragraphs could use a bit less fluff and more engaging solid phrases.

2. What are the content requirements?  Did I meet them?
The content requirements were very comprehensive and covered a large variety of sources and types of analysis.  I am missing a few pieces on the leaders in the topic and will need to include more focused language, but overall I am very close to the content requirements.

3. Does my draft reflect gained knowledge or skills in addition to my own voice?
This particular deadline has been extremely helpful in realizing what mistakes in my writing I have been making and how I can easily fix them.  I have a much different perspective on how helpful peer review can be and how important revision is.  I can still be humorous and creative, but in my rambling, I need to cut down on some of the grammatical mistakes.

4. Have I addressed the grammatical issues highlighted in the previous assignments?
I am still editing my grammatical mistakes.  It is a slow process to find all of the dangling modifiers and find the exact wording to use.  However, after reading the book, I have a good plan for further revision.

Clarity, Part 1

After reading the Rules for Writers, I have realized many of my writing faults and tendencies are easily identifiable and happen a lot more often than I think.  Some of these errors are deeply ingrained habits, while others are mistakes that happen to everyone.  I have realized how useful the revision process can be, especially when looking for specific problems I know will occur.

realworkhard, "Metal cage ball" accessed via Pixabay

Uploaded in 2013 CC0 Public Domain

Mixed Constructions
Often while in the process of writing a sentence, my brain has the tendency to keep moving forward and attempt to write the entire paragraph.  This habit, results in a mixture of sentences where two thought out ideas or sentence structures morph into one sentence.  This particular section in Rules for Writers was extremely useful in helping me realize how often this actually happened.  One phrase I found to be the most interesting was in the explanation of a revision of an unclear sentence.  They explain that the revision "heads into the sentence another way", which I interpreted to mean that during my thought process I need to make a split decision to go one direction or the other.  I often reach this intersection and barrel right through the middle, thinking I don't have to choose.  This train of thought leads to confused sentences that demonstrate neither point that I had planned to make.

Misplaced & Dangling Modifiers
I discovered that my writing is often very awkward because of misplaced and dangling modifiers.  When I revise an project, I tend to look at whether or not the arguments made sense, my spelling is accurate, and if I addressed all parts of the topic.  I never read an essay looking for the errors caused by grammatical errors.  This section makes revision a much simpler process.  Searching for dangling modifiers allows you to quickly identify the problem and correctly reorganize the sentence.

Wordy sentences
Reading these sections has been pretty helpful, although I am now very paranoid about my writing.  Wordy sentences have plagued me for as long as I can remember.  In my attempt to explain multiple concepts in one sentence I add words I think are meaningful but only apply to the thoughts in my own head.  Adding that one extra repetition or clause does not dramatically change the effectiveness of a sentence.  Instead, I need to focus on simplifying individual sentences so that I have a large quantity of structured sentences expressing multiple ideas and not a few run-on sentences jumbling the same amount of ideas.

Exact words
Writing a perfect essay with all of the correct words that exactly explain your meaning is impossible.  I often refuse to acknowledge this fact and expect this perfection the first go.  It is important to realize the revising is where trading fluffy phrases for compact words actually happens.  No one is grammatically perfect or knows every word in the English language.  This is why revising, avoiding cliched rhetoric, and actively searching for the correct words is so crucial to creating a solid project.


REFLECTION:

After revising Isaak's, Namratha's, Sam's, and Swati's QRG drafts I found that the Quick Reference Guide is a very diverse form of writing.  The style of writing for the audience is the same, but the language can vary from formal to extremely informal, or scientific to a social media based controversy, and can be written at a variety of lengths.  I discovered many different ways I can approach writing about sources and discussing the research I found.  Swati had the most comprehensive and well cited QRG.  Her establishment of authority was very smoothly incorporated into her paper.  For example, after a quote at the end of her paragraph she wrote,

"Because of his position as a stem cell researcher, his opinion has been widely accepted as a legitimate reason to be wary of this research" (paragraph 6).

This both establishes authority in a clean efficient manner, while still addressing how this is relevant and important information about the topic.  Revising the four QRG's was extremely helpful to my own revising, and although my draft may not be perfect this week, I have a good idea of where I need to be headed for the final.

Thoughts on Drafting

Before beginning the revisions on my Quick Reference Guide, I will address the guide to drafting presented in the Student's Guide to Drafting.

Unsplash "Writing Paper" accessed via Pixabay

Uploaded in July CC0 Public Domain

What parts of the book’s advice on the above bulleted topics are helpful for writing in this genre?

The book presents a great model for creating a thesis statement, in which the thesis must address exactly what will be addressed in the following paragraphs while still being engaging to the audience.  A QRG might require a little less formal of a thesis statement, but it is still important that it directly addresses the subject and hooks the audience in with the pretext that the information is in fact personally important for them to learn.  The PIE format is also very useful in simplifying the structure of a paragraph.  One paragraph must discuss only a few ideas and stay focused on the topic.  The book also stresses the important of a well organized and engaging structure for the reader.  This is essential in a QRG, although the actual method of organization is different than that of the essay form discussed in the book.

What parts of the book’s advice on these topics might not be so helpful, considering the genre you’re writing in?

A QRG is much more fast paced and required to be engaging 100% of the time.  An essay has more leeway in that if it presents enough information with a solid argument it can keep the audience reading.  The paragraphs and a QRG can not exactly follow the PIE format, as they do not have to limit the discussion of one idea to a single paragraph.  The idea, instead, can be broken up into many smaller paragraphs analyzing various perspectives of the issue.  The bulk of the most important or interesting information also has to be somewhat concentrated in the beginning to keep the audience emotionally invested.  In an essay, that particular distribution of information would not be as effective.  The organization is the most dramatically different as the QRG requires the use of white-space, images, and short enough pieces of information to keep the audience reading.  An essay needs a solid presentation and ordering of information, but it does not necessarily have to be as graphically pleasing.

REFLECTION:

Andrea's blog had some very similar points to my own while Elliot's included thoughts about the conclusion that I had not previously thought about.  The conclusion really is a lot more focused on the future than a formal essay.  I wrote my QRG and specifically the ending in much more of an essay mindset.  Looking at my own QRG after seeing the different perspectives on drafting will result in the following changes;

1. Eliminating any excess information that is not really related to the main topic of my issue, Obama visiting Alaska and why it is causing a kerfuffle.  I also need to make that information much more clear and specific to the topic.
2. Keeping the organization the same, but spending more time addressing the specific subheadings I chose.
3. Focus more on the audience and what information is actually relevant and important to them to learn.

Quick Reference Guide

In this post I have included a link to a draft of my Quick Reference Guide discussing Obama and his recent trip to Alaska with a focus on Climate Change.

Here is the link to the first draft.

In my guide, I have broken it down into the major questions surrounding the topic and a general discussion of why the issue of climate change is incredibly chaotic.  It includes quite a bit of rambling about the issue itself, as I am rather attached to the issue.  I'm sure I included more opinion based writing when compared to my ratio of information.  If anyone has any comments about how it could be changed to more clearly address the audience perspective, go right ahead, it could definitely use some refinement.  Feel free to include any suggestions about the draft as it is a tad bit more rushed that I would have liked.

UPDATE:

After the peer reviewing, I have included a new draft of my Quick Reference Guide.  The first version became heavily populated with comments, so I stopped editing that version and applied all of the edits to this version.  This version is still not completely revised, but it takes into account the first round of things I wanted to revise along with some suggestions.  This version has a working link, so you should be able to comment on the draft.

Here is the link to the revised draft.

Cole, Juan, "Alaska at the Forefront of Climate Change" taken from Nation
of Change Sept. 3 2015

Practicing Quoting

In this post I have included a paragraph in which I have included and analyzed the difference between two writers quotes on my controversy.  I have highlighted the signal phrases, establishing authority, context, and ellipsis I have used in the paragraph below.

Key:

Signal Phrases = Highlight

Authority = Highlight

Context = Highlight

Ellipsis = Highlight

Theilmann, Mira, "Screenshot of Quoting" Sept. 12, 2015 via Google Docs

QRGs: The Genre

The Quick Reference Guide (QRG) is exactly as the name presents it to be, an outline of an idea or event broken down into sections in order to present a large amount of information and especially context in a short document.  This can be done by means of graphics, answering the crucial questions surrounding the topic, and providing links to resources from all sides of the issue.

QRG Conventions

- Title addressed to the audience

- Sub-headings written in the form of a question

- Links within the body paragraphs leading the audience to additional readings

- Informational graphics

- Pictures

- Short and concise paragraphs

- Information about all sides of the issue

Formatting and Design

A quick reference guide is often very graphic and designed with the purpose of keeping the audience engaged for as long as possible or to guide them to exactly the information they want to know.  For the long-term readers, the use of graphics, chronological presentation of information, and saving the important information until the end of the article are easy keys to success.  The audience searching for an answer to an exact question can quickly scroll to the sub-heading that addresses there question, read the short paragraph, and click away.

The Purpose

- The title gives the impression that the entire issue will be explained to the reader.  Meaning, the article was written for the audience and to address their questions, not just present the facts about the issue.

- Each paragraph of information is presented under a heading asking a question or statement focusing on one aspect of the topic.

    Ex. In the Washington Post article discussing Gamergate, the article is broken down into questions about the issue; what is the issue, who is involved, why does it matter, and how is this affecting the population.

- There are links to alternate reading and stories from all sides of the issue within sentences of the body paragraph.  These links help characterize the "Quick" aspect of the article, as the audience can be directed to large amounts of information that the author also read and would like to present, but they do not have to directly explain and write about.  The audience can read the article and find some of the context themselves.

- Graphics and pictures are constantly used as perspective and context as well.  The image is the fastest way to guarantee the presentation and absorption of information.  It also breaks up the amount of text and keeps the audience engaged to discovering more about the issue.

    - Ex. The Vox article uses a graphic background, multiple context images of e-cigarettes and cigarettes, and a heavy amount of formatting to keep the reader engaged.

Prati, Marco, "How Do e-cigarettes Work?" Originally
 taken from Shutterstock August 24, 2015

The Audience

The article is meant to appease the mass majority of audiences in one foul swoop.  The audience will cover a variety of different levels of knowledge on the topic, so the information must cover all aspects of the issue to appeal to a greater spread of people.  Some might want to know only the people involved, while others might have glimpsed news on the topic and want the full background.  The article exists for the audience find the bulk of the information all in one defined place.

Imagery and Visuals

The various graphics and pictures are used for quick reference, keeping the reader engaged, breaking up the information, and a combination of perspective and emotional connection to the issue.  Imagery is constantly present in quick reference guides as it is so versatile and comprehensive in it's purpose.  A well chosen and aptly presented image is much more valuable than a heavily factual paragraph in this context.  The New York Times article uses a significant number of graphics to present context on the economic state of Greece, without having to go into to much technical jargon.


REFLECTION:

After looking at Victoria's and Isaak's blogs on the QRG, I found quite a bit more variability than I was expecting.  The information about the format is the same, but the way we all explained it was very representative of our own writing.  Victoria wrote a great comprehensive analysis about the QRG, which she may not have had to do.  The quality of the blog was great, but for discussing a QRG, a naturally fast paced guide, it did not have to be as detailed.  Isaak took the shorter approach while still incorporating the QRG examples aptly and successfully.  I did disagree a bit with the presentation of who the audience was, as I found it to be much more all-encompassing of the general population and not just those researching the topic.  Still, both of their blogs were great and an interesting perspective on writing descriptions.

Cluster of My Controversy

This post includes a cluster map which I have used to organize my thoughts for the larger project of a Quick Reference Guide on Obama's Visit to Alaska.

Below I have included a cluster map created with the use of Coggle.  On the left side of the branch, I have given a short synopsis of the general ideas involved in the controversy.  On the right side, I have listed several different groups involved in the controversy and their roles.

The actual cluster map can be found here.

Theilmann, Mira, "Screenshot of My Cluster Map" Sept. 12 2015

Reflection: After looking at Chloe and Mike's cluster, it seems that first off the Coggle app was a popular choice.  I also discovered I included a lot of information in my cluster in comparison to other people's cluster maps.  I may have a  rambled a bit more rather than directly formatting based off of the prompt.  Unfortunately that is how my brain tends to function in terms of writing process.  I did however enjoy seeing two much more refined versions of the cluster map.  It really is a good representation of how people did their research and planned to write their QRG.

Annotated Bibliography

In the following post I have written an annotated bibliography of the sources for the first major project regarding the controversy on Obama's policy on climate change in Alaska.  The formatting is almost correct to the APA style, but I was still unable to fix the problem of indenting all lines but the first in the actual citation.

Brehmer, Elwood. (2015, Sept. 2). Obama paints dire view on climate change. Alaska Journal of Commerce. Retrieved from http://www.lexisnexis.com.ezproxy2.library.arizona.edu/hottopics/lnacademic/.

Although this article comes from a relatively new journalist, it also comes directly from Alaska and highlights information directly from officials and conferences from the state.  It gives the inside perspective of what the Alaskan government and people are actually worried about, while still presenting accurate and relevant information.  I will utilize this source for quotes and the Alaskan perspective on the Obama tour.

Chapin, F. S. III., Lovecraft, A. L., Zavaleta, E. S., Nelson, J., Robards, M. D., Kofinas, G. P....(2006, Nov. 7). Policy Strategies to Address Sustainability of Alaskan Boreal Forests in Response to a Directionally Changing Climate. PNAS. 45, 16637-16643. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0606955103

This article is an inside look at the scientific community in Alaska and the climate change issues that they have recognized and faced for years.  The purpose of the scientists to create this paper was to unite the scientific community with a strong basis about what was happening in their respective region and supply an ample amount of data to start conversation.  They link together climate and landscape data with government policy and what is occurring on a global scale.  This article holds it’s value in that it shows how much data and community can be formed when climate change is recognized and taken on at its head.  I will use this article to portray the active research and communication occurring in Alaska’s scientific community.

Darryl [@GameANew], ok but [@dtftho]. (2015, Sept. 3). @POTUS @WhiteHouse Climate Change/Global Warning is a liberal myth! Weather is cyclical![Twitter conversation between two users]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/POTUS/status/639508843773468672?lang=en&lang=en&lng=en&lang=en

The tweets I chose as a source provide perspective to the public perspective on climate change.  There is little to no evidence or fact included in the tweets.  It is simply a representative of the population interpretation of the controversy.  I will use this to explain the chaos that social media is creating on the conversation on climate change.

Eilperin, J. (2015, Sept. 1). In rural Alaska, Obama works to speed renewable energy revolution. The Washington Post.http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/09/02/in-rural-alaska-obama-works-to-speed-renewable-energy-revolution/.

This article focuses mainly on the impact of Obama’s policy to the people of Alaska.  She presents the situation, the incredibly high electricity rates in isolated tribal cities that are quite literally eroding away.  These isolated towns are the perfect locations to further develop renewable energy, as they have been doing for years, so Obama announced his decision to add an additional $4 million to the funding.  However, the effect of climate change on the people and the state and federal government’s inability to fund the massive project of relocation is happening incredibly fast.  This article is incredibly useful as it showcases the human side of the issue and brings out the importance of highlighting the effects of climate change.

Keating, Joshua. (2015, Sept. 1) Obama’s Alaska Trip Isn’t Just About Climate Change. It’s Also About Russia. Slate. Retrieved from http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/09/01/obama_s_alaska_trip_isn_t_just_about_climate_change_it_s_also_about_russia.html.

This article is another focused on a controversy within a controversy.  It changes the conversation from climate change to the supposed economic battle between the US and Russia for the arctic area and it’s resources.  I will use this article as a hyperlink to give the audience some perspective on how this is an internationally developing story and ever more controversial story, as it appeared after I researched the original topic of climate change.

Kruse, J. A., White, R. G., Epstein, H. E., Archie, B., Berman, M., Braund, S. R., Chapin, F. S. III....(2004, Dec). Modeling Sustainability of Arctic Communities: An Interdisciplinary Collaboration of Researchers and Local Knowledge Holders. Ecosystems. 7, 815-828. doi: 10.1007/s10021-004-0008-z

This paper is very extensive in discussing the physical, economic, and social effects that climate change can create.  They present the problem, possible ways to address the solution, and explain why this is such an important topic to discuss and research further.  They also want to push for a focus at the community level, they want further research and policy to be adapted, but they realize change must have a solid basis in the general population as well.  This paper is highly comprehensive in it’s conversation on multiple variables in the climate change issue.  I will be able to use this information as evidence and explain the possible processes that may be considered in addressing the situation in Alaska.

Nelson, Colleen McCain. (2015, Sept. 2). President Obama’s Alaska Tour Is About More Than Climate Change. The Wall Street Journal. Retrieved from http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2015/09/02/president-obamas-alaska-tour-is-about-more-than-climate-change/.

This article is yet another distraction, but it also pulls up a key issue on how climate change is viewed in the public.  Often climate change is disregarded for lack of caring about the beauty of the environment and the living things that humans share the planet with.  Climate change is often heavily dismissed by a large portion of the population because of this.  This article perfectly demonstrates this public viewing of climate change, so I will use it to show why this viewpoint is a major issue in regards to environmental policy and change.

Reilly, Mollie. (2015, Sept. 2) Bristol Palin Is Not Happy About Obama Restoring Denali’s Name. The Huffington Post. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bristol-palin-denali_55e772eae4b0c818f61a91b5.

This article represents one of the red herring controversies within the larger controversy of Alaskan Climate change and Obama.  The mountain name was changed to the name of the native language, which many who supported President McKinley were unhappy with.  The name change was rather controversial in the first place, so the change to Denali has been considered a respectful and culturally sound decision.  Newsgroups and social media have been hyper focused on this name change. drawing the focus away from climate change.  I will use this to talk about how using a buzz person like Bristol Palin, draws in this red herring attention.

The White House. (2015, Sept. 1). On Board with President Obama: Touching Down in Anchorage [Video File]. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watchv=NXOXiBZw5CY

This video came directly from the President, the individual at the source of the controversy.  It is part of a series covering his Alaska tour with the intent of bringing conversation to the issue of climate change.  The video features majestic shots of the Alaskan landscape intermittent with explanations of Obama’s policies and statements on the importance of protecting the US natural resources.  This video gives direct perspective on exactly what Obama and his team wanted the media to cover and the public to understand about the tour.  I will be using this video as direct perspective from the center of the controversy.

Worland, J. (2015, Sept. 1). Obama's Trip to Alaska Shows Both Sides of His Climate Change Legacy. Time. Retrieved from http://time.com/4018544/obama-climate-change-alaska/.

This article discusses the complications that Obama faces at every turn regarding his climate  and renewable energy source stances.  In an attempt to please the environmental advocates, provide funding to Alaska's renewable energy research, and put a focus on climate change Obama highly publicized his tour to Alaska.  Worland discusses how this act of appeasement brought disdain from all sides of the issue, whether it was complaints about his continued support of oil drilling, the possible impact of extracting that oil, or that the tour itself was a waste and drew up nothing but controversy.  Worland presents a level headed account of the data on Alaska's climate change, the current US developing policy on climate change, and the turmoil Obama must now face.  I will use this article as a solid base for the background of the issue and establishing why exactly this situation is a controversy on a national and worldwide scale.

NOTE: Here is a link to a guide to the APA format.

REFLECTION:

Looking back at Evan's and Alex's Annotated Bibliographies I discovered that I definitely wrote a lot more than I actually needed in my explanatory paragraphs.  Evan wrote in the same style that I did, APA, while Alex wrote in AMA, a style that I have only ever heard of.  It's interesting to see the slight differences in the information each style requires.  The AMA style is definitely more wordy than that of APA, so I now appreciate having a very clear citation style.  I can't imagine having to learn a mishmash of a bunch of different styles that only have the tiniest of differences.  Citation is incredibly important, but it is odd to see how nit-picky the different styles can be.  I think I did alright in my own Annotated Bibliography, but I definitely appreciate only having to worry about a style I already know.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Social media has a habit of spewing opinions and rants immediately upon the discovery of a controversy, dulling the true intentions and actual evidence with buzz words and exclamation points.  I decided to choose one source of the most direct of sources, The White House youtube page and an obscure Twitter conversation created by Darryl (@GameANew) and ok but (@dtfotho).  

On Board with President Obama - Touching Down in Anchorage - The White House

Credibility

This youtube page is confirmed to be the official youtube page of the White House.  It holds an archive of behind the scenes videos of Barack and Michelle Obama, speeches, informative videos on policies, and various videos discussing US history.

Location

This video was published with the purpose of showing exactly what Barack was visiting, speaking on, and trying to do in terms of his bringing light to the climate change in Alaska.  It was shot in order to show the beautiful landscape of Alaska, in hopes of inspiring the will to protect such a diverse environment while including key information about exactly what Obama wished to speak on during his tour.

Network

The youtube page currently has a 585,895 subscriber count and regularly includes videos with top members of the federal government and the most accurate of information.  The comment section is a mixture of conservatives and liberals, with a surprisingly tame level of controversy lingo.

Content

This video is coming directly from the personal camera of Barack Obama and his team.  The page also includes a link to the main government run page, http://wh.gov/Alaska, explaining Obama's tour and it's purpose.

Contextual Updates

There have been a series of videos posted about the tour, from the beginning to the end.  These cover a mixture of speeches, behind the scenes, and climate change information.  Along with an updated twitter feed on Barack Obama's personal twitter.

Age

This particular video was posted on September 1 and the channel has been posting for at least 6 years consistently.

Reliability

This source is most definitely reliable, although it inherently does have a solid bias towards the Obama administration.

Conversation on Obama's Twitter Discussing Climate Change Created by Darryl and ok but

Screenshots from my computer - Comments from @GameANew and @gtfotho
on an @POTUS tweet on "President Obama on his trip to Alaska" Sep. 3

Credibility

This is a conversation between two basically anonymous commentors from the depths of twitter.  They are very active twitter users, but they do not represent any clear organization or give their real names.  There is little to no credibility about the information from either individual, but Darryl specifically represents a strong percent of the voices on Twitter that seem frustrated with Obama's actions and climate change.

Location

Both Darryl and ok but appear to be very far removed from the actual location, Darryl living in Clarion, PA and ok but living in an undisclosed location according to their twitter pages.

Network

The two individuals are on completely different ends of the spectrum in terms of their twitter followers, Darryl has a large number of those he is following and a low number of followers, while ok but is following a very low number of people and over 2,000 are following him.  I am unable to see the content of the followers as I do not have a Twitter account.

Content

The content from the two pages follow very consistent themes, neither of which relate to the topic of climate change.  Darryl spends his time retweeting large quantities of information about his favorite and rival football teams, while ok but has a more varied compilation of pro LGBT, feminist, and most recently anti-Trump tweets.  The conversation between the two has no basis in fact, it simply represents the general population conversation on the matter.

Contextual Updates

Ok but is the only one of the two that actively posts about political or social issues, but most express dislike for the actions of the opposite party.  Darryl, if he posts anything non-sport related, is confined to his opinions on being an ignored independent voter.

Age

Ok but has been on this twitter page since 2012, while Darryl has been on twitter for an unknown amount of time.

Reliability

This conversation is only reliable in that it posts the climate of conversation happening on Obama's own tweets.  The lack of education and factual evidence is by far the majority of the content filling up Twitter on the issue of climate change.