Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

In this post, I will be discussing three texts that are examples of opinionated public speech and analyzing their rhetorical situations. The link to my table concerning this information can be accessed by clicking here.

OpenClipartVectors. "persons symbol talk." 9/26/15 via pixabay. CCO Public Domain

My Sources

Yes More Drama, the Pleasure of Reading Plays

Natalie Portman, excellent special effect?

Entertainment education debate

Reflection:
I think that my post was very well developed, because it covered a lot of the same material as my peers. In all of the posts that I browsed, each topic (Author/Audience/Contex) was fully discussed and explored at every facet. The time I spent composing the table for my sources was time well spent, in my opinion. By viewing Addie and Tyler's  posts, I discovered that the rhetorical situation of texts varies not only due to topic/discipline, but also because of the intentions and biases of the writer. Each piece had a purpose, and the writers had different ways of accomplishing that purpose.

Developing a Research Question

Moving into Project 2, I'm excited to find more controversial areas in my field of study. In this post, I will share some research questions that I have created.

Robeson, Clay. "Un-Scripted Theater Company." 9/26/15 via wikipedia. 

• CC BY-SA 3.0

Theater always has the chance to reflect and provide commentary on social, political, and moral landscapes, so there will always be opportunity for debate. The Book of Mormon, a Broadway smash hit, has garnered both criticism and praise for satirizing the LDS church. This show has people wondering what topics are appropriate to poke fun at and make money off of. In the realm of performance safety, Spiderman: Turn off the Dark contained aerial sequences that caused harm to several performers. Many were left questioning the line between spectacular performance and personal safety. These controversies, and many others, have led me with the following research questions.

• Are there any social, political, or moral lines that theater can not/ should not cross? If there are, who determines these lines? What purpose do they serve?

• If there is questionable safety in an aspect of a performance, should production staff still work to have it in the performance? When does personal safety become more important than the production as a whole?  What are the roles of unions in this sphere?

• What is the future of live theater in the digital age? Is there a specific reason that live theater should be preserved? What can be done to ensure interest and save this aspect of performing?

• Should ticket prices be lowered so that it is more accessible for lower income individuals to see the performances? What would be the impact of lower ticket prices on the quality of a performance?

I am interested in answering these questions because they explore an aspect of theater that a performer does not usually concern themselves with. In reality, these inner workings of the industry have more influence on the production than anything else. More exploration in these topics will address my concerns about the viability and moral workings of my craft.

Reflection on Project 1

In this post, I will reflect on the experiences I had while crafting my QRG. 

Schmid-Reportagen. "Alaska-Ice."9/23/15 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain 

• What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?

The biggest challenge I faced during this project was getting us to all the blog posts. I think that in the beginning, I wasn't as efficient as I should have been because I was agonizing over them too much. Now, I'm much quicker when writing the posts because I know to get to the point without a lot of pointless elaboration. Practice made perfect when it came to my blog approach.

• What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

I loved writing my QRG, probably because I was completely fascinated by my topic. When the whole piece came together- when my information melded seamlessly with my analysis and visuals- it was so satisfying. I'm very proud of my final project, and have been all along.

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

I found that the question subtitles were extremely helpful in organizing my information and guiding my piece. They gave my QRG a sense of purpose and made it tell a story of conflict and progression. I also really liked filling out the visual cluster (Coggle) because I could answer critical questions about my topic and connect these answers to the controversy as a whole.

• What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

When I tried too hard to fully incorporate certain aspects of the rubric because I feared that I would loose points, I started to completely destroy the work that I had already done. I learned that subtlety is key with these kinds of projects so that everything sounds natural. It is not like a stiff college essay.

• How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

As with projects that I have created before, initial organization and extensive research was a major part of my process.

• How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

Honestly, the QRG was diametrically different from any project I've ever done. It was equal parts fun and work. Its not often that I get the chance to write about pop culture, so that was a facet I loved exploring and experimenting with.

• Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

The QRG has taught me to always be conscious of the conventions in a genre. This is important in future works, because if you are not following the rules of formatting and composition that the genre dictates, you've missed the point of the project completely.

Final Draft of Project 1

To access my final QRG, click here. Enjoy!

Clarity, Part 2

While continuing to revise my QRG, I will focus on four more topics of clarity found in Rules for Writers. In this post, I will discuss what I have learned from the reading and also from looking over my QRG with these topics in mind.

Jurvetson, Steve. "Apollo Synthetic Diamond."9/23/15 via Wikipedia. Attribution 2.0 Generic

1.) Active Verbs

The book suggests the use of active verbs instead of passive ones. This choice expresses meaning more emphatically and vigorously than its weaker counterpart. It also recommends replacing "be" verbs that make the sentence needlessly dull and wordy.

2.) Needed Words

Some words, when left out of a sentence, can cause confusion or break important grammar rules. In compound structures, sometimes extra words are needed to fix a sentence that defies grammar or idioms. Also, comparisons should be made between like items.

3.) Misplaced and Dangling Modifiers

Limiting modifiers need to go in front of the words they modify.The same goes for phrases and clauses; they should be reordered if they are oddly placed. Also, split infinitives should be avoided when they are awkward.

4.) Variety

Rules for Writers suggests varying sentence openings with adjectives and participial phrases. Inverted sentences are also recommended, along with different sentence structures.

Revising my QRG, I found that I am pretty good at avoiding dangling modifiers and adding needed words, but I can always review my work to include more active verbs and variety so that my writing is more interesting. I will give some examples of sentences in my QRG that needed revision.


For example:
Selma, the Martin Luther King, Jr. biopic, was nominated for best picture and best song, but became central to the racism debate because it failed to garner nominations for its black stars and black female director.

This sentence could be changed so that it is more interesting considering the sentence structures around it. I could say:

Although nominated for best picture and best song, Selma- the Martin Luther King, Jr. biopic- became central to the racism debate....

This gets rid of a boring "be" verb and gives the sentence a different beginning. 


Also:

To Levinson and others who believe strongly in film as an art, it is important to preserve one’s right of opinion and value every film based on skill, regardless of ethnicity.

This sentence is in need of the word "to" in front of "value" to clarify the direct objects of the verb "preserve."

Identifying Basic Grammar Patterns

In this post, I will provide the link to the longest paragraph in my QRG project. Using the paragraph, I highlighted parts of speech, sentence patterns, subordinate word groups, and sentence types.

Verma, Nikhil. "Dear People of the World, . . . Sincerely, Grammar" 9/23/15 via flickr. 
Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic

To access my paragraph, click here.

In this exercise, I found that it was very difficult to identify sentence patterns, intransitive verbs, and subordinate clauses. I think that my writing has good fluency and variance of sentence structure, but I think that it would be beneficial to be able to easily identify these grammatical aspects. That way, if something does not sound right, I can pinpoint the problem in the sentence. And as always, a better grasp on the grammar rules can only make you a better writer!

Paragraph Analysis

In reviewing my paragraphs individually, I was surprised by some of the weaknesses I found. In this post, I will link to my paragraph analysis copy of my QRG and discuss some of the traits I found in my writing, both good and bad.

Edwards, Scott. "Revise." 9/20/15 via eartraininghq. Public Domain.

Strengths: All my paragraphs were really fluid. I could read through them easily and they all sounded very natural. Chloe did recommend that I change my wording to sound more natural. She recommended that I change my sentences to sound more approachable than verbose. I also centered each paragraph around the main idea very well. I think it will be easy for readers to identify the purpose of each paragraph. I develop each paragraph well by sandwiching my quotes and providing adequate analysis.

Weaknesses: The one thing that some of my paragraphs need is more about the centrality of the information to the controversy. I think it would be helpful for readers to have more of a detailed description of the source's relevance. In some of my paragraphs, I think I assume that readers know more than they actually do. To address this issue, I will contextualize my sources more in my revisions.

You can access the copy of my draft with comments here.

Reflection on Project 1 Draft

I reviewed Chingiz and Rachel's QRG drafts and provided some insight/ corrections/ suggestions. The peer review process has been invaluable to my project one process. Having my peers look over my work has helped me ensure that my controversy makes sense from an outside perspective. In this post, I will discuss what I've learned about my own project through the peer review process.

Eusebius. "Loch alsh." 9/19/15 via Wikimedia Commons. Public Domain.

Audience

1.) Who is going to be reading this essay? Who am I trying to reach?

In actuality, only my peers and my instructor will be reading my QRG. For the sake of the genre, however, I am directing my information and analysis towards a general audience that has little to no background knowledge about the topic.

2.) What are their values and expectations? Am I adequately meeting those expectations?

The values of my audience can vary greatly because I'm writing to a general audience. The expectation, however, is that I provide a comprehensive and thorough scope of my controversy. I am meeting this expectation because I provide insight from both sides of the argument and hyperlink to additional information.

3.) How much information do I need to give my audience?

I need to assume that my audience has no understanding of the topic. That being said, I have to be brief in giving information, because too much text will overwhelm the reader.

4.) What kind of language is suitable for this audience? What tone should I use with my audience?

The genre allows for a relaxed tone and simple language. Since the QRG is directed towards a general audience, the language has to be accessible to everyone.

Context

1.) What are the formatting requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?

We have discussed the conventions of a QRG heavily in our class periods and also in the assignments on D2L, so I feel like I have incorporated these traits into my writing well. The one thing I still need to include is more graphics, charts, and visual pieces that break up long stretches of text.

2.) What are the content requirements for the assignment? Do I meet them?

The project asks that I provide an adequate amount of knowledge to readers and that I give my own detailed analysis. I feel as though I have done that well for both sides of the argument.

3.) Does my draft reflect knowledge or skills gained in class in addition to my own ideas and voice?

The emphasis of 109H has really been conventions and analysis, and I feel that my draft adequately reflects this new knowledge. I thoroughly delve into the motivations of each side of the argument and discuss why their rhetoric is relevant to the controversy as a whole.

4.) Have I addressed any grammatical issues?

Jennie's corrections addressed most of the grammatical errors I had overlooked. I did correct them; now, I need to look back and read through my draft once more to ensure fluency and check for grammatical errors.

 

 

 

Clarity, Part 1

When reviewing our QRGs, clarity should be a major aspect of our revisions. The conventions of the genre demand that paragraphs be short and clear, meaning every word counts. In this post, I will discuss some of the facets of clarity found in Rules for Writers.

clkerfreevectorimages. "diamond gem." 9/19/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain 

1.) Wordiness

As a lover of the English language, I sometimes struggle with putting too many words into a sentence. This section really made me aware of empty/inflated phrases. These words can be cut because they don't lend anything to the sentence anyway. It also reminded me to simplify the structure of my sentences when possible. This is accomplished best when one reads their writing aloud.

2.) Exact Words

Since QRGs have to be brief, nouns have to be precise. The tip to "prefer specific, concrete nouns" is helpful because it will help me get to the point quicker. Specific nouns also convey more meaning. This is useful in analysis.

3.) Balance Parallel Ideas

This section basically reviewed the grammatical concept that two parallel ideas should have a link and the same grammatical form. It's not something that I usually think about in my writing process, but it is key to making a complex sentence sound correct. Also, repeating function words such as "by, to, that, because" signal parallel structures that the reader might miss.

4.) Shifts

Emphasized in this section was "consistent verb tenses." Since the QRGs cover a large span of time and may jump back and forth, it is important that the tenses make sense in the context. Also, point of view in person and number should be consistent. There are may subjects in my QRG, so I must ensure that my paragraphs are not switching sentence by sentence with regards to POV.

Reflection: In reviewing Rachel and Chingiz's QRG drafts, I discovered that fluency (wordiness as defined by Rules for Writers) was a big issue. The other three topics/ mistakes were not as common, because my peers were clear and direct with their words. As person who loves literature and writing, it is fairly easy for me to see when things aren't flowing correctly and sound awkward. I love those who are more science-based, and their set of intelligence really interests me, but it seems as though they have a harder time getting their sentences to sound natural.

In Rachel's draft, she writes:

I sugested that she change the first part of the sentence to "the aforementioned evidence shows that." I thought that this edit would help her sentence sound less clunky but also tie into what the evidence means.

In Chingiz's draft, he writes:

 While I understood the dramatic effect he was going for in his sentence with the fragments, it doesn't quite make sense to the reader. I advised him to break up the first sentence and combine the last two in order to improve the fluency of the paragraph.

Thoughts on Drafting

The Student's Guide writing handbook provides expert insight on the topic of drafting, but not all of the suggestions are appropriate for the genre we are in. In this post, I will analyze the advice of the reading to find what is relevant to the project and what is not.

no author."Hand And Pen clip art." 9/18/15 via clipartpanda. Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 

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

• The PIE organizational method is helpful in some ways, because it ties in neatly with the rubric expectation that we provide evidence and then analyze. However, considering we are not writing a conventional essay, this may not apply to every individual paragraph. Instead, it can be incorporated in the entire piece here and there.
• The introduction tips are crucial to our project. It is important that the beginning grabs the reader's attention, but not in the glaring ways that the book describes like the anecdote or rhetorical question. Forecasting what the piece will be about should be the purpose of the intro, and it should not be filled with unnecessary "fluff." The key to the QRG is conciseness.
• Organization is important to remember, because the QRG needs to tell a story. We need to provide the connections so that readers know how one thing lead to another in our controversy
• The relevant suggestions for writing a conclusion for our piece are: "answer 'so what'," "look forward," and "paint a picture." It is important that our conclusions are an amplification of our analysis

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

• Our QRGs don't necessarily have thesis statements. We are not really taking a stand or arguing anything, just providing information and analyzing it critically. We can, however, use the handbook's thesis advice about making things interesting, precise, and reflective of our paper in our introduction paragraph.
• In-text citations are not necessarily useful in this context, because we are hyperlinking and including pertinent information that justifies the use of the direct quotes from certain parties in our debates

Reflection: In reading Mark's post, I was reminded that we need to stay away from the argumentative writing that the handbook details. Our QRGs should allow readers to come to their own conclusions. Addie's post reinforced the idea that we have to assume the reader is coming in with minimal to no background knowledge.

*Things to look at in my draft*

1.) I should ensure that my piece remains reasonably unbiased and thouroughly explains the thoughts and feelings of both sides of the arguement.

2.) I should revise my conclusion so that it also "paints a picture" of the conflict for my audience

3.) I need to ensure that the organization I have in my piece tells the story of my conflict

Draft of Quick Reference Guide

To my valued peer reviewers:
Here is my draft of my Quick Review Guide. It is by no means finished, but I feel that it is a strong start and covers most of the major topics. My QRG covers a controversy that happened at the beginning of the year over the 2015 Oscar nominations. Many found that the list of nominees was severely lacking in diversity. Reviewers, please check to see if I am remaining reasonably unbiased throughout my piece. Also, I want to make sure that I am accurately assessing the credibility of my sources. The pictures, sidebars, and graphic pieces will come later when I know how to better format them in my piece. Also, if you have any suggestions for subtitles that I have forgotten please let me know. I want to make sure I include all the pertinent information!
Thank you,
Ann Emile

Click here to view my draft

Practicing Quoting

In this post, I have included a paragraph in which I practice quoting from sources. The two quotes that comprise the paragraph represent opposite sides of my controversy. The highlighting draws attention to four separate conventions of quoting that I have used.

QRGs: the Genre

From the examples I have seen, QRG's are easy ways for people to get clued in on major events and controversies. As with any genre, these pieces follow certain conventions and cover certain things. In this post, I will answer a few questions about the QRG genre as a whole.

openclipart.com "lightbulb." 9/12/15 via all-free-download.com. Public domain license

What do the conventions of this genre - the Quick Reference Guide - seem to be?

• Title- It describes the guide and why readers should care to browse it
• Skillful use of images- They give evidence in graphic form, provide a cultural portrait, make abstractions concrete, and provide emotional impact
• Subtitles are questions/ major topics- This form of organization makes the piece easy to scan, lends itself to artful transitions, leads into important topics, and makes the guide tell a story
• Concise paragraphs/white space- Brevity makes the text easy to read, does not burden readers with too much information, and breaks up the "story"
• Hyperlinking- Links to other information on the topic simplifies the writer's job, builds author credibility, and allows readers to explore further if a certain aspect of the story interests them

How are those conventions defined by the author’s formatting and design choices?

• The formatting greatly defines the conventions because they all lend themselves to brevity and scan-ability. In some instances, authors use graphical representations, side bars, and text options to provide easy emphasis to aspects.

What does the purpose of these QRGs seem to be?

• The QRG seems to be a genre dedicated to providing information on topics that are popular in society. They provide a fairly unbiased review of all sides of the controversy, pertinent facts, and the progression of events.

Who is the intended audience for these different QRGs? Are they all intended for similar audiences? Or different? How & why?

• All of the guides seem to be aimed towards readers with little-to-no prior information on the issue but a desire to know more without having to do intense research. The more "social issue" pieces seem geared towards the general population as the language is simple and direct. The pieces about economic and health issues seem more directed to educated individuals with more background knowledge.

How do the QRGs use imagery or visuals? Why do you think they use them in this way?

• Images and visuals in the guides evoke emotional responses, break up long stretches of text, and communicate ideas in a way that is largely up to interpretation. I think they are utilized to make the guides seem more like a journey/story and less like a news report.

Reflection: In reading Charles, Annelise, and Tyler's blog posts, I discovered that we all are fairly certain and consistent in our understanding of the conventions included in a QRG. I think that this is not only due to the discussions that we had in class but also the very nature of QRG's themselves. The articles are so distinct and concerned with conventions that it's easy for us to quickly identify what the rules of the genre are.

Cluster of My Controversy

Clustering in a visual map benefits my writing process greatly, because it allows me to carefully plan and organize with the information I've gathered. The Coggle below details the key players on each side, what statements they have made, what their values/ideologies are, and the spaces that they are sharing their opinions in. This mind map will be incredibly beneficial when I begin to create my Quick Reading Guide.

Reflection: In browsing Tyler and Jessi's mental maps of their controversy, I was fascinated by how differently people organize their information. Things that would seem to go together for me went under different categories for someone else, but it still all made sense. Whereas I had major, big branches that supported littler ones, my peers had vines that extended to tell more of a story. I will keep this in mind when drafting and editing my QRG.

Annotated Bibliography in MLA Style

In this post, I will be funneling all my diverse sources into an MLA Style annotated bibliography. Formating MLA was tough in Blogger, so I am providing the Google Drive link to my document here.

Gnokki. "award" 9/5/2105 via openclipart. Public Domain Dedication.

Updated: 9/11/15

Reflection: I found it interesting that, in browsing through everyone's annotated bibliographies, there was hardly anyone using MLA as their citatation style. It's funny that this is the case, since MLA is the format that is drilled into the brains of high school students. One would think that this would make MLA more popular among the disciplines, but in reality it is not.

I was very impressed when reading Jenny and Jessi's bibliographies, because their summaries perfectly encapsulated their sources and their controversies. It is easy for me to see how the annotated bibliography is not only helpful to the author of the final project but also to the readers that need an overview of the sources mentioned.

Ideology in My Controversy

Thinking about my controversy holistically, its important to address information surrounding both sides of the argument. In this post, I will answer some ideological analysis questions about the groups involved in my controversy.

Ver en vivo. "Ver Oscar 2015 en vivo en directo" 9/5/2015 via flickr. Attribution-ShareAlike 2.0 Generic 

• Who is involved in the controversy?

I think that the general groups in this conflict are the academy and its supporters versus those who are extremely passionate about racial equality.

• Who are some of the major speakers/writers within these groups?

I think that the African American Academy president, Cheryl Boone Isaacs, was a major leader on the side that supported the Oscar's nominations as fair and just. Reverend Al Sharpton was a major player for the opposition, calling the Oscar nomination list "appalling."

• What kind of social/cultural/economic/political power does each group hold?

The side that believes the Oscars were racist had the social power of the entertainment industry and actors of color. The opposition had the power of the Academy itself, which gave it considerable leverage in the debate.

• What resources are available to different positions?

Largely, I think both sides were equally equipped in this controversy. Each had a media platform and the same information/event. The side that saw a fair and just Oscars did, however, have the public relations clout of the Academy.

• What does each group value?

I think the group in support of the Academy and the Oscars values the art of good film-making and pure, unbiased opinion. The opposition stands for racial equality, the righting of past wrongs, and the representation of people of color in the film industry.  

• What counts as evidence for the different positions?

Evidence for the group in support of the Oscars includes the fact that the Academy president is a black female, that 12 Years a Slave won big the year before, and that the nominations have been diverse every year since 1997.

The actual list of nominations supports the opposition, because all the films center around white males. Also, diversity is a well known obstacle in the entertainment business in general.

• Is there a power differential between the groups?

In my opinion, the opposition has the upper hand in this situation since racial equality is a touchy issue in the United States. In some cases, we are still trying to make up for past wrongs. Therefore, by pushing the Oscar controversy to centerstage, the opposition creates a winning situation for itself.

• Is there any acknowledged common ground between groups?

Both groups generally agree that movies that feature a more diverse cast have equal merit to less-diverse films and that they should be judged fairly.

• Is there any unacknowledged common ground?

By engaging in the conversation, both groups agree that race is still an issue on the forefront of this country. As much as they might bicker, they all feel as though it is a problem that requires further exploration.

• Do the various groups listen to each other?

There is virtually no discussion among the two camps, as both sides are entrenched in their beliefs. Once the hashtag #oscarssowhite was created, any back-and-forth dried up and it became one side against the other. The Academy director did, in the months after the ceremony, address the racial concerns of the other side and announce the addition of more people of color and women to the Academy voting group.

Evaluation of Social Media Sources

Social media was definitely not quiet on the topic of the 2015 Oscar nominations. From Twitter to Instagram, there were different perspectives and opinions shared. In this post, I will analyze social media sources that I have gathered about the aforementioned controversy.

To view my full Storify, click here.

Source #1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oicts7KOnY4

Video posted on Google+ by Vox account

Tjorhom, Ann Emilie "screenshot-Vox youtube" 9/5/2015 via youtube

• Credibility: The video was posted by Vox, an established media company, and produced by Joe Posner and Estelle Caswell. Joe Posner is video director and founding member of vox.com, and his credentials can be found on his website. Estelle Caswell is a motion graphics designer at Vox Media, and her profile can be found on LinkedIn.
• Location: Vox and the producers are located in NYC, a prominent center for film. However, they do not appear to have been at the 2015 Oscars.
• Network: Both producers have an extensive network of media professionals connected to them from Vox and other sites such as APCO Worldwide
• Content: The information that the video gives can be corroborated, because it includes statistics about the race and gender of Oscar voters and the pictures nominated throughout the years.
• Contextual updates: Vox posts about social issues and hot button topics regularly. For example, recent videos include "The Charleston shooting is part of a long history of anti-black terrorism" and "Activist Bree Newsome takes down Confederate Flag at South Carolina Statehouse."
• Age: The YouTube account for Vox was created March 4 of 2014, but the website has been active for much longer.
• Reliability: The source of the information is credible because it is run by a well-known media company.

Source #2: https://twitter.com/Mumbojimbo/status/574002736922038272

Tweet by @mumbojimbo

Tjorhom, Ann Emilie "screenshot- mumbojimbo" 9/5/2015 via twitter

• Credibility: The author of the tweet is involved with an information subset of Rockefeller University called "Natural Selections." He is also the Grants Management Specialist at The Rockefeller University.
• Location: Keller is located in NYC which, as mentioned with the Vox source, is a hub for film and televison. Jim was not at the Oscars, however.
• Network: The author is connected with @Natselections (Rockefeller University) and 347 other professionals on LinkedIn.
• Content: The information that the shows he mentions are popular can be backed up by TV ratings and social buzz. But the fact that they like them because they are non-white centered TV shows can not be corroborated without a poll.
• Contextual updates: Jim Keller does post on pop culture topics often. He recently commented on Kanye West's win at the VMAs and retweeted a post about the new film Straight out of Compton.
• Age: The account has been active since March of 2009.
• Reliability: Considering his connections with a prominent university and his professional connections, I would say that the account is credible.

Evaluation of Scholarly Sources

While my last post was an analysis of general sources, this post will center around scholarly sources and their purpose. These sources relate to the controversy of my latter post as they highlight the effects of movie awards on the industry as a whole.

Prayitno. "OSCARS statuettes" 9/5/2015 via flickr. Attribution 2.0 Generic

Source #1: "What's an Oscar Worth?" from Economic Inquiry

• What is its purpose? 
• This article examines the impact of film awards on market share of theaters, average revenue per screen, and probability of survival.
• How and where is it published?
• The article was published electronically in March of 2007 and is included in the January 2001 issue of Economic Inquiry. 
• What kinds of sources does it cite?
• Other scholarly journals such as the Journal of Econometrics and Applied Economics make up the bulk of the sources
• Who is the author?
• The authors and their academic titles are conveniently located on the first page of text. The authors are: Randy A. Nelson, Michael R. Donihue, Donald M. Waldman, and Calbraith Wheaton. All with the exception of Wheaton are professors or associate professors of economics.
• Who is its intended audience?
• Since the language and content is approachable, I would say that the audience includes anyone decently educated with an interest in the movie business.
• How did I find it?
• I came across the article via Google Scholar after searching "Oscar nominations."

PubliKado. "film-713228_1280" 9/5/2015 via pixabay. CC0 Public Domain.

Source #2: "Film Critics: Influencers or Predictors?" from The Journal of Marketing

• What is its purpose?
• The authors consider the relationship between market performance of entertainment and the role of critics. It essentially attempts to answer whether the judgement of experts makes people see the movies, or do critics merely relate a public opinion that has already been formed.
• How and where is it published?
• The article was published online 5 years after initial print publication. It is included in the April 1997 issue of Journal of Marketing.
• What kinds of sources does it cite?
• Sources for this article include scholarly books and journals as well as pieces from the Wall Street Journal and Variety.
• Who is the author?
• Again, the authors and their credentials are on the first page of the article. Jehoshua Eliashberg is a professor of marketing, operations, and information management and Steven M. Shugan is a professor of business administration.
• Who is its intended audience?
• Since this article is much more economics-centered with its consumer data and emperical studies, it is geared more towards those with economics backgrounds and business-people. 
• How did I find it?
• I found this article on JSTOR after searching "Oscar nominations."

Evaluation of General Sources

The 2015 Oscar nominations stirred up some controversy this year by significantly lacking diversity. In this post, I will evaluate two sources covering the topic.

Tjorhom, Ann Emilie. "screenshot-WSJ" 9/3/2015 via The Wall Street Journal

This Wall Street Journal article focuses mainly on the different motion pictures that edged out others like Selma, which had more diverse casts.

URL: The URL for this article ends in a .com, signifying that it is most likely run by a company or conglomerate. The ending .com provides no information as to the credibility of the site. You would have to investigate who owns the website for that information.

Author: The author's biography is provided on the site and easily accessible by hyperlink. He has written for the Los Angeles Times and Variety, while also authoring a best-selling book. In addition, he has links to both his Twitter handle and his Google+ account.

Last Updated: Under the author's name, the update time and date is visible. This easily lets readers know how recent the material is and if it has been corrected for inaccuracies. The links on the page lead to television news/opinion articles, other semi-related film articles, and popular articles on the WSJ site. All of the links lead to accessible articles.

Purpose: The article's text seems split between informing and entertaining, because while it details the interesting controversy of diversity in the award nominations, it also tells readers plainly which films are in the running for which categories, possibly to provide needed context and background information. 

Graphics: Heading the article is a slideshow-type display of some of the major Oscar nominees. American Sniper, Selma, The Imitation Game, and Whiplash are all included to provide visual context to the list of nominations for each category, reminding readers visually what each movie was about.

Position on Subject:The article seems to have little to no bias, instead touching on the opinions of others and stating all the facts. It emphasizes two facts that support each side of the argument. For those arguing that the Oscars is race-inclusive, the article states that the president of the Academy is an African American woman. For the opposition, it states that this is the first time since 1999 that there are no people of color nominated in the acting categories.

Links: The imbedded links in the article mainly elaborate on the other Oscar-nominated films. The article does not cite reputable sources or quote experts in the field.

Tjorhom, Ann Emilie. "screenshot-people" 9/3/2015 via People

Twitter posts about the Oscar nominations are the main body of this People article.

URL: The URL, like the previous article, ends with a .com. These types of sites can both be operated by public companies or run by average individuals. At the bottom of the page, it is noted that the site is owned and operated by Time, Inc. 

Author: With a quick Google search, it is easy to find the author's robust LinkedIn page as well as her connections to other news outlets. The article itself hyperlinks her Twitter handle under her author byline. 

Last Updated: The date of publication/last update is located next to the authors name. It is highly visible so that readers can tell if the information is out of date. The links around the article lead to other pieces about more current news items and one sidebar leads to articles from the website's "partners."

Purpose: The article, with its inclusion of many Twitter posts, aims to entertain and start a discussion. The actual facts of Oscar nominations are not as present as in the WSJ article; instead, the majority of the text talks about the controversy brewing.

Graphics: The title image shows the main actor, David Oyelowo, from the movie Selma. Its purpose is to depict one actor that many feel was snubbed in the Oscar nominations this year. Also, the article relies heavily on screen grabs from Twitter, shared to illustrate the outrage in the social media universe over the lack of diversity in the Oscars.

Position on Subject: Like the WSJ article, this piece remains relatively neutral on the topic. It shares the outrage of people on Twitter but does not make a statement of its own. While it is not as fact-heavy as the WSJ piece, it still manages to keep itself bias-free.

Links: The imbedded links all provide live leads to other articles about the 2015 Oscars. It does not cite reputable sources or quote experts.

My Major

As of currently, I am still an undecided major, worried about nailing down just one field because I have too many interests. But one program I am almost certain I want to be involved in here at the U of A is the Theatre program. In this post, I will be answering some general questions about the discipline.

johnny_automatic. "at the theater" 9/2/2015 via  openclipart.  Public Domain Dedication 

1. What do students in your program learn how to do?
Theatre majors at the U of A take classes in realism, Chekhov, Shakespeare, commedia dell'arte, Moliere, restoration, screen acting and audition techniques. They also work on voice and movement through studio work, and deeply analyze and perform classical literature, period style and movement skills. They also dabble in dance and stage combat.

2. What do people who get degrees in this field usually go on to do for work?
Typically, theatre majors try their hand in auditioning for Broadway or Off-Broadway productions. If they prefer film, actors usually go to the audition hubs in LA or NYC for "pilot season" to try and get small screen roles. Many also become theater teachers or professors as well

3. What drew you to this field?
Community theatre was a huge part of my life throughout middle school and high school. When I started to win awards and was taken on by a professional representation firm, I finally felt that I had what it took to work in the industry. I know that it sounds like a pipe dream, but I really want to make this field work for me, no matter how much hard work it takes. For a long time I debated giving up theatre to focus solely on more scholarly pursuits, but the prospect of giving up such an intrinsic part of myself made me sad.

4. Who are the leaders/most exciting people involved in your field right now? Why? These could be individual people or specific companies, organizations, businesses or non-profits.
I think that the interesting thing about show business is that the leaders and "biggest names" are ever changing. You rarely see, especially on the Broadway side of things, one actor leading the field. A Broadway actress that stands out to me is Sutton Foster, who has made a name for herself playing outrageous and hilarious characters with a special kind of "spark." Also, Idina Menzel has taken show business by storm with her powerful voice; she's done everything from Broadway to TV shows to recording several solo albums.

5. What are the leading academic/scholarly journals in your field? Where are they published?
The Drama Review (TDR) gives a scholarly view on performances and their social, economic and political contexts. It is published by The MIT Press in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Not to be outdone, Theater has covered contemporary theatre for over 40 years. It is published by Duke University Press in Durham, NC.

Reflection: Upon reading Scott and Charles' blog posts about their future careers, I am struck by the incredible amount of excitement that people have towards their future careers. It is encouraging to me that there are people studying what they are because they love to do it, instead of seeking fame, money, or prestige. Scott and Charles' blogs were science-based, so it was refreshing to read about the career goals that are diametrically different from mine.