Reflection Time! 2.10

During this course, I always found that the way we explored subjects was really interesting. We would start talking about current events, and then before you know it we would have links up from multiple sources, sifting through them and bringing up good points or counters that could be used to further our discussion. From time to time, we'd even find ourselves looking at the works of Stephen Colbert or Boo, the cutest dog in the world. Even though we digressed, (sometimes severely), the conversation always resulted in a deepening of my understanding about the topic at hand. This deeper understanding and structure of conversation will be something that I hold onto in the future. Another thing I will take from this class is my developed habit of reading articles on the NY Times daily. This habit has kept me in touch with the world and allowed me to contribute to conversation where before I would have been silent, and I think that is something that is very valuable.

Final Draft of the Essay

SOPA’s Sphere

In the game of “telephone”, a message is passed secretly between a number of people, and at the end the same message is presented again as the last person heard it. If you’ve ever played this game before, you know how fast a message can be communicated across a group of people, and how that message can be skewed to the point where the original point no longer remains, and is instead transformed into a message perceived by the next deliverer. And even though “telephone” is just a kid’s game, it shares some eerie similarities to the spreading of actual news around a populace. Some call this spreading of news across multiple sources a “news sphere”, a term coined by Jeff Jarvis. This “press sphere” defines the multiple sources that we get our news from nowadays. When fifty years ago the main source of our news was the press, now we have blogs and social networking sites to keep us informed. These multiple sources offer different takes on the news, giving us a more dynamic view of a story. One prime example of where news has been caught right in the middle of this system is with the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, or SOPA. From blogs to Internet “memes”, this bill had the Internet exploding with articles about the subject. And like in the press sphere, the press was no longer our only source of this information. It in fact played a fairly small role, replaced by the overwhelming amount of sources presented by the Internet.

For all those not familiar with the SOPA bill, it was written by congressman Lamar Smith, and essentially threatened to shut down any website containing copyrighted or pirated material. While the goal was just to stop piracy on the Internet, some consequences that resulted from the poor structure of the bill involved the shutting down of sites like Wikipedia, YouTube, and multiple blogs, which have become staples in our current generations lives. With the intrusiveness of such a bill, how could you not expect for the Internet to be in uproar? And with most of our news coming from the Internet these days, you couldn’t even open your favorite browser without seeing something about SOPA. This bill spread like wildfire across the Internet, and the “press sphere”, began to take form. Blogs, tweets, and even sources like Facebook had things to say about the bill, and needless to say, positive feedback was extremely scarce. All of these sources intertwined to give us as a populace a diverse yet mostly negative look at the bill, forming a perfect example of the press sphere.

Even though the press’ role in the publication of news about SOPA was a very small fraction of the total accumulation of the Internet’s vast well of information about the subject, it was by no means an insignificant source. Articles about SOPA made the front page of every popular news website. Sites for the NY Times and CNN took an expected professional approach, and for the most part pointed out the bad and the good of the bill (although there wasn’t much going for SOPA, to be honest). As CNN columnist Julianne Pepitone stated, “the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.” This was the common theme for most news columns about the bill; Good intentions, horrible presentation. The press used their credibility as a professional source of information (ethos), and their professional understanding and evaluation for the bill (logos) to effectively present their information. And while the opposition of the bill was mostly unanimous, Cary H. Sherman, a columnist from the NY Times, argued against the opposition. He asked, “Since when is it censorship to shut down an operation that an American court, upon a thorough review of evidence, has determined to be illegal?” His article brought up some good points, and demonstrated the impartial view that the press needs to have in order to remain professional. This kind of outlook was expected from the press, and gave the public a much-needed professional and fairly unbiased review about the bill. This reporting of the bill allowed viewers to form their own opinions about SOPA, but in my opinion did not stress the danger of this bill highly enough. The press stated the facts, yet did not stress the effects.

If you looked deep enough into an average blog post about SOPA, you could probably find the theme that was common with the press’ outlook on the bill. However, free from the censorship of editors and the professional cap that is put on the press’ authors, the nation of bloggers were able to voice their uncensored opinions, and essentially ripped the bill apart. Because SOPA would effectively hinder blogging to the point where it’s benefits were no longer worth the trouble of actual writing, bloggers had no problem with writing stating their opinions, one way or another. Some attacked Lamar personally, some aided in the protest of the bill formed by Wikipedia and other sites, and others just pointed out the incompetence of the bill as a whole. As Chris Heald, an essential blogger for the Internet weblog mashable.com, said, “these bills are written in an attempt to obscure the truth.” Being among the more mild blogs that I saw, he looked at the bill through an active Internet users eyes. Another blogger, Brian Barrett, stated, “SOPA is, objectively, an unfeasible trainwreck of a bill, one that willfully misunderstands the nature of the Internet and portends huge financial and cultural losses”. While his article was much less mild-mannered, his points ran parallel with Heald’s. Where the press could not go with their articles, the bloggers of the Internet went. This statement, as harsh as it seems, was by far not the meanest out there. Bloggers protected their domain as a mother bear protects her cubs, and through this the public as a whole began understanding the source of hatred for this bill, and gained insight to an extremely biased look at SOPA. This passionate emotion to protect the place that their writing called home was a great way of persuading readers to side with them, and presented a great example of the application of pathos in their writing. Although their credibility was lacking, some of the blogs I read had great logic backing of their arguments, (logos), while others threw caution to wind the wind and blatantly attacked all things SOPA. From the model of a press sphere, it was evident within the first few weeks of a bill such as this that a large majority of the information obtained by viewers would be through blogs.

When word of SOPA got out, people wanted to voice their opinion however they could, to as many people as they could. The best way this could be achieved would be through some sort of medium that would allow you to communicate with anyone you know, in an instant. You’ve probably guessed it: FaceBook. During the whole SOPA ordeal, it was impossible to go onto FaceBook without seeing something about the bill. Links were posted, forwarding blogs and other links to their own groups of friends, news feeds were filled with petitions to protest, and then there was the majority that vehemently and quite obscenely voiced their opinions about the bill. But what else could have been expected? If you try to take away something that is basically vital to our generation, there is no question that you will be met with resistance. Use of pathos was heavy, yet the use of logos and ethos lacked fairly severely. Comments were passionate, and urged people to protest the bill if they didn’t want their whole world to collapse. Singular credibility was not that great, but when put side by side with hundreds of arguments about the same things, their credibility was increased substantially. This type of exposure about the bill was extremely influential with our generation, as when your news feed was covered with these types of posts you were inclined to jump on the bandwagon and learn about SOPA yourself. Although not very logical, this source of information was by far the largest that I experienced, and linked me to multiple different articles that let me gain even more insight about it.

Through all of these sources, a press sphere that exposed me to the far extremes of the bill, as well as its mediums, surrounded me. I myself sought an end to the bill, feeling the threat of the termination to essentially the center of my life. As stated before, the main source of my information came from FaceBook, yet I didn’t stop there, as the credibility of my friends is always questionable. Instead, I sought more information and followed the links I was given to different articles, which gave me a more credible look at the bill. Then there was the press, which presented me with the facts, and not much else. The actual bill was of not much use to me, but seeing the actual source of all the chaos after reading into it and forming my own opinions based on the news I gathered from my own press sphere was really interesting.

The press sphere affects me everyday. I most often don’t get my news from the actual press, and instead obtain it in a roundabout way through word of mouth and blogs. The credibility of this type of obtainment is always questionable, but I always try to find the original source and form my own opinion about the subject. I thought the case of the SOPA bill was a perfect example of the press sphere, especially since the Internet was targeted, and thus bringing in a lot of opinion from outside sources.

Works Cited

Jarvis, Jeff. "The Press Becomes the Press-sphere « BuzzMachine." BuzzMachine. 14 Apr. 2008. Web. Feb. 2012. .

Barrett, Brian. "What Is SOPA?" Gizmodo. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. .

Pepitone, Julianne. "SOPA Explained: What It Is and Why It Matters." CNNMoney. Cable News Network, 17 Jan. 2012. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. .

Heald, Chris. "Featured in Social Media." Mashable. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. .

Smith, Lamar. "SOPA Bill Text." Bill Text - 112th Congress. Web. 05 Mar. 2012. .

Facebook.com

Extended Essay 2 (Rough Draft)

SOPA’s Sphere

SOPA’s Sphere

If you’ve ever played the kid’s game “telephone” before, you know how fast a message can be communicated across a group of people, and how that message can be skewed to the point where the original point no longer remains, and is instead transformed into a message perceived by the next deliverer. And even though “telephone” is just a kid’s game, it shares some eerie similarities to the spreading of actual news around a populace. Some call this spreading of news across multiple sources a “news sphere”, and one prime example of where news has been caught right in the middle of this system is with the “Stop Online Piracy Act”, or SOPA. From blogs to Internet “memes”, this bill had the Internet exploding with articles about the subject. And like in the press sphere, the press was no longer our only source of this information. It in fact played a fairly small role, replaced by the overwhelming amount of sources presented by the Internet.

For all those not familiar with the SOPA bill, it was written by congressman Lamar Smith, and essentially threatened to shut down any website containing copyrighted or pirated material. This would effectively shut down sites like Wikipedia, YouTube, and multiple blogs, which have become staples in our current generations lives. With the intrusiveness of such a bill, how could you not expect for the Internet to be in uproar? And with most of our news coming from the Internet these days, you couldn’t even open your favorite browser without seeing something about SOPA. This bill spread like wildfire across the Internet, and the “press sphere”, as defined by Jeff Jarvis, began to take form. Blogs, tweets, and even sources like Facebook had things to say about the bill, and needless to say, positive feedback was extremely scarce. All of these sources intertwined to give us as a populace a diverse yet mostly negative look at the bill, forming a perfect example of the press sphere.

Even though the press’ role in the publication of news about SOPA was a very small fraction of the total accumulation of the Internet’s vast well of information about the subject, it was by no means an insignificant source. Articles about SOPA made the front page of every popular news website. Sites for the NY Times and CNN took an expected professional approach, and for the most part pointed out the bad and the good of the bill (although there wasn’t much going for SOPA, to be honest). As CNN columnist Julianne Pepitone stated, “the way SOPA is written effectively promotes censorship and is rife with the potential for unintended consequences.” This was the common theme for most news columns about the bill; Good intentions, horrible presentation. The press used their credibility as a professional source of information (ethos), and their professional understanding and evaluation for the bill (logos) to effectively present their information. This kind of outlook was expected from the press, and gave the public a much-needed professional and fairly unbiased review about the bill. This reporting of the bill allowed viewers to form their own opinions about SOPA, but in my opinion did not stress the danger of this bill highly enough. The press stated the facts, yet did not stress the effects.

If you looked deep enough into an average blog post about SOPA, you could probably find the theme that was common with the press’ outlook on the bill. However, free from the censorship of editors and the professional cap that is put on the press’ authors, the nation of bloggers were able to voice their uncensored opinions, and essentially ripped the bill apart. Because SOPA would effectively hinder blogging to the point where it’s benefits were no longer worth the trouble of actual writing, bloggers had no problem with writing stating their opinions, one way or another. Some attacked Lamar personally, some aided in the protest of the bill formed by Wikipedia and other sites, and others just pointed out the incompetence of the bill as a whole. As Brian Barrett, an essential blogger for the Internet weblog gizmodo.com, said, “SOPA is, objectively, an unfeasible trainwreck of a bill, one that willfully misunderstands the nature of the Internet and portends huge financial and cultural losses.” Where the press could not go with their articles, the bloggers of the Internet went. This statement, as harsh as it seems, was by far not the meanest out there. Bloggers protected their domain as a mother bear protects her cubs, and through this the public as a whole began understanding the source of hatred for this bill, and gained insight to an extremely biased look at SOPA. This passionate emotion to protect the place that their writing called home was a great way of persuading readers to side with them, and presented a great example of the application of pathos in their writing. Although their credibility was lacking, some of the blogs I read had great logic backing of their arguments, (logos), while others threw caution to wind the wind and blatantly attacked all things SOPA. From the model of a press sphere, it was evident within the first few weeks of a bill such as this that a large majority of the information obtained by viewers would be through blogs.

When word of SOPA got out, people wanted to voice their opinion however they could, to as many people as they could. The best way this could be achieved would be through some sort of medium that would allow you to communicate with anyone you know, in an instant. You’ve probably guessed it: FaceBook. During the whole SOPA ordeal, it was impossible to go onto FaceBook without seeing something about the bill. Links were posted, forwarding blogs and other links to their own groups of friends, news feeds were filled with petitions to protest, and then there was the majority that vehemently and quite obscenely voiced their opinions about the bill. But what else could have been expected? If you try to take away something that is basically vital to our generation, there is no question that you will be met with resistance. Use of pathos was heavy, yet the use of logos and ethos lacked fairly severely. Comments were passionate, and urged people to protest the bill if they didn’t want their whole world to collapse. Singular credibility was not that great, but when put side by side with hundreds of arguments about the same things, their credibility was increased substantially. This type of exposure about the bill was extremely influential with our generation, as when your news feed was covered with these types of posts you were inclined to jump on the bandwagon and learn about SOPA yourself. Although not very logical, this source of information was by far the largest that I experienced, and linked me to multiple different articles that let me gain even more insight about it.

Through all of these sources, a press sphere that exposed me to the far extremes of the bill, as well as its mediums, surrounded me. I myself sought an end to the bill, feeling the threat of the termination to essentially the center of my life. As stated before, the main source of my information came from FaceBook, yet I didn’t stop there, as the credibility of my friends is always questionable. Instead, I sought more information and followed the links I was given to different articles, which gave me a more credible look at the bill. Then there was the actual press, which was more factual than most. Then, there was the actual bill. I found this on the Internet, and even though it was complicated and I didn’t understand most of it, it gave me an idea about how it all actually worked, and was really interesting.

The press sphere affects me everyday. I most often don’t get my news from the actual press, and instead obtain it in a roundabout way through word of mouth and blogs. The credibility of this type of obtainment is always questionable, but I always try to find the original source and form my own opinion about the subject. I thought the case of the SOPA bill was a perfect example of the press sphere, especially since the Internet was targeted, and thus bringing in a lot of opinion from outside sources.

Taking An Approach

I found that Harris' metaphor involving music was a perfect example of what I interpreted as "taking an approach". As he stated, a musicians cover of a song cannot merely be an imitation of the original. Instead, to add more depth and a different take on the song, the covering artist must produce his own rendition of the song. I feel like this applies very well to the concept of "taking an approach". In most academic writing that I've done the process of writing involved taking someone's ideas, and either reinforcing them with my own or countering them with my own ideas. Taking an approach differs in the sense that in order to take an approach effectively, you must take the ideas of the original author and spin them in your own way. This does not necessarily mean countering them, but adding to them with your own concepts. The New York Times takes a definite approach on every article they publish. For example, an article about a desperate village in a different country might have a supportive, sentimental tone with ideas centering around the fact that villages like this need support. On the other hand, an article about a dictatorial leader might have a profesional, condescending approach that points out the flaws and dangers of this leader. I also see it on blogs, as college students take an approach that is applicable to them and their current situation. This adds new depth to any story or article, and I believe that it's not taking anything away as you could simply read the original article to learn about their approach.

Forwarding

Through Jarvis' model, I can see how the press sphere is affecting the way I get the news every day. News doesn't come straight through the source, it's transformed through the eyes of writers, editors, spectators, and commenters. Even on the NY Times web page, you can see how the press sphere is entering our lives. Pictures for stories show me courageous feats and tragic lives, already introducing a bias to the stories through tugging at the strings of my emotions. Then in the actual article there are quotes from various sources, offering new insight into the news. There is no doubt that there are tons of sources that go into the publishing of news that we now see. Yet, news doesn't have to be published to be interpreted as such. News comes from many sources like peers, word of mouth, and even Facebook. When thinking about sources that I come in contact with Facebook is probably one of the most prevalent. But like I mentioned in my last post, I don't see how this is a bad thing. New insight offers new opinions, and through these new opinions you can form your own, which make for interesting insights to all stories and they make for good debate. And where the NY Times might be considered direct from the press, our blogs may seem like the other outlets of news that we receive. They're more opinionated, and more raw than the manufactured goods of the press. Jarvis' model mentioned the outside sources of witnesses, peers, and links. I have seen all of these sources spawned from my peers blog posts. It's a great example for Jarvis' model, showing the strengthening relationship that the press has with the public and outside sources.

- I added this because in this post as I was reading it I found that I had missed the true concept of the press sphere. I needed to add that not all sources must go through the press, and some come to you directly and offer you a different take on the news besides the edited version put out by the press.

Countering

At first thought, it's easy to think that countering would mean the rebuttle of someone's statement or argument. And in fact, this is a part of it. However, according to Harris, there is much more to it. Like Harris says, "countering is not to nullify, but to suggest a different way of thinking...". Countering is not just the act of arguing against something, but more you have to offer up your own way of thinking, and offer it as a replacement for the original author's view. Instead of claiming that the author's ideas are dead wrong, a counter-er might instead claim the author's ideas to be partial, and they need some clarification or additional information. When looking through the blogs, I didn't have to go past my own page to find examples of this. I am guilty of just proving people dead wrong, (Hedges would be a good example of that), but I found some examples where I don't just argue against them, but offer my own opinions with information that can back me up, and either build on the original author's ideas or alter them altogether. I believe that countering with a good standpoint and good information can build on your thesis or argument, whereas just denying someones writing with no opinion of your own can diminish the strength of your argument, and make you look like you just plain don't like the person (from own personal experience, Hedges would again fit this mold very well).

Forwarding

In Harris' chapter about "forwarding" he described the process and attributes of such a task. As he said it, forwarding a text is a way to extend it's uses, and gain readers for that text. But what is forwarding? Forwarding, as I understood it, is the act of passing along a written work to colleagues, friends, or really no one in particular. This act opens up the text towards a greater audience, but as Harris stated, it also causes you to lose control of the texts uses. Forwarding can often help strengthen another author's argument by using examples from the forwarded text, shifting the concentration from that text to the forwarders own. I have seen this done multiple times in different blogs that I have read, and I feel like I have done it quite a lot too. I've found that when commenting on a reading, my fellow bloggers (and me as well) often use that text to strengthen our own argument, whether it be in favor of the original text or not. Commenting on a another text in a blog also opens up that text to a wider and more diverse audience, causing the "forwarding" process that Harris described. In comments that I've seen on blogs they add their own perspective towards the argument in general and the actual text. As described before, this forwarding process opens up the text to a wider audience, however the uses of that text may be different than the author intended, and is vastly out of the original author's control at that point.