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.

Blog Analysis

As I was looking Cobus' blog, I saw a progression in the way he posted from his first entries to his last. From the start, he seemed to be very comfortable with blogging. He used it as a way to communicate with his followers and, like any good entrepreneur, advertise his merch. Even though I didn't much care for his sales pitches, the insight that he provides towards his life and his personal entries that go towards his fans are very sincere and give me a lot of perspective to a traveling drummer's life. Like I've been saying, I definitely think that his audience here is his fans. Sure, his mom or his agent might follow the blog but the material he puts out is aimed towards the people that love his drumming and follow him because of it. He posts pictures and stories from his life, mostly from when he travels and plays at different venues. His interests just seem to be keeping everyone up to date on his life (a recent post involved him going to the supermarket in America to buy groceries). He is very sincere and has posted many times that he hates asking people to buy his merchandise, because he's in it for the passion of drumming. I think that's one of the main reasons it's so appealing to me, and a lot of his fans.

My Blog

http://www.cobuspotgieter.com/blog/

I chose to follow this blog because i am passionate about the drums and Cobus is one of my favorite drummers. I thought it would be cool to gain some insight to his experiences as a drummer.

Me and the Press Sphere

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, 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.

The Press Sphere

When I was reading Jarvis' article, I found myself thinking about the evolution of the way we obtain our news. Jarvis mentioned how now our news comes from multiple sources, and not from the direct source of the press like in his "how it was" diagram. I began questioning his diagram, as it didn't seem likely that it was true. Sure, a big portion of news came from the press, but did people not stand by the water cooler and gossip back then? Did no one exchange facts that they heard with each other? did none of the elements he losted for this new ecology apply to the days of his reference? I'm not trashing on Jarvis, but it seems unlikely that the news was as unfiltered as he claims it was. I wasn't able to get a firm grasp on what Jarvis' actual opinion was, as I feel like he made some points against this new "press sphere" and some points towards it. But here's my take: why does this new press-sphere have to be bad? these different outlets that allow us to acces different view points on the news enable us more perspectives towards the news, and allow us to form our own opinions about it. And if your worried about the actual news being skewed, I don't think you have to be. Even through bias the facts seem so find it's way through every story, and as Jarvis mentioned, there's always the actual source of the news that we can rely on thanks to technology. With my own experience, almost all my news still comes through the press. I go online and look at articles on CNN and the NY Times. But I do hear plenty of gossip through Facebook and other new venues. But I don't think it's a problem.

News Habits

When I go onto nytimes.com, I have to fight the urge to go directly to the sports or used car section. I think since those two things are very important to me, I always want to know what's going on. But then I realize my real objective of actually going on the site so I backtrack and think about what I really want to be looking for. When looking for articles to read, I generally to try and find ones that would relate to me personally or big topics that would seem important to know in case someone started talking about it. One thing I have been keeping up with lately is the presidential race. This is important to me because now that I am able to vote I want to be informed in order to make a smart decision. It is also important because I have always felt that being able to have a smart, back and forth debate with someone about politics is an important skill to have. I find that when I'm looking for any article on nytimes.com, I become interested in the ones about are about influential current events, or one's in general that I think would spark a good discussion. This strategy generally lands me on a pretty solid foundation of information about the current world, however I've found that neglecting the smaller articles can deprive me of really controversial or neat stories. From reading the New York Times I've felt a little more informed about the world, and it's given me more confidence in talking about current events with my friends and family. The style of writing that is associated with articles has also rubbed off on me a little bit, and I've found myself wording things in such a way that it's comparable to an article that I read that day. I think reading about the news is a great habit to upkeep, and I will definitely be following up on the news every day from now on.

Obtaining the News

After reading a lot of my classmates blogs, I came to the overwhelming realization that the Internet plays a major part in the way we receive our news nowadays. Every blog I went to mentioned something about the internet and the use of sites like the New York Times and CNN to obtain their every day news. This is yet another example of how big of an influence the Internet has started playing in our lives. I realized that what seemed to be happening in my life was also occurring in others. I read multiple times of the use of Google to confirm a fact that was heard outside of a reliable source, and the relative ease people have been finding by using the internet to obtain their news rather than using traditional methods such as watching the news on t.v or reading a newspaper. As I was reflecting on all this I began to think about how someone like Hedges would react to the vast amount of reading that was being done on the internet due to news sites, demonstrated by me and my classmates. Certainly he cannot think that a traditional way of obtaining news, like reading a newspaper, would require significantly more literary knowledge than it would take to read the same article online. It is not the paper in our hands that makes us more literate, it is the way we are able to interpret and comprehend things. And could that really be affected via the vessel by which we view the news?

Extended Essay (Final Draft)

The Age of Literacy

In Chris Hedges’ “America the Illiterate”, he states that America’s populace is rapidly degenerating into a state of illiteracy, shrinking away from written texts and sinking deeper and deeper into an image-based culture where it’s less about understanding and more about settling for the wittiest slogan or the brightest pictures. He says this almost as a superior, someone who has stood above the rest and not succumbed to the magnetism of the Internet or media drawls. But I have to disagree with Mr. Hedges. What if, through the constant advancements in technology and culture, we have moved forward into an era where reading and writing has taken a new form, one of constant growth and contribution? What if this new form molds the ideas of millions into one, multicultural web of information that is accessible to anyone on earth at any time, and any place? It’s true, maybe the common public isn’t writing some of the great masterpieces of yesteryear, but what we are doing is evolving and moving forward, redefining the way we read and write in today’s society.

But what does that mean, “redefining”? The way people read and write has been changing ever since the first pictures were scrawled on a wall with a stick, and the first drop of ink was set on parchment by candlelight. In our generation, a lot of the reading and writing people do centers around their computer, and more namely the Internet. According to Andrea Lunsford, a professor of writing and rhetoric, our generation writes vastly more than any generation before us. This is due to the constant communication via text that everyone relies on to talk to people that aren’t right next to them. I know from my own experience the amount of text-based communication that the common teenager has to deal with daily. It is becoming more and more common to write a lengthy e-mail or message to someone in lieu of calling or meeting in person, which adds to the constant flow of reading and writing experienced everyday by the typical American. Sure, we may not be writing developed essays that enhance our understanding of rhetoric and structure everyday, but the constant practice we get from text-based communication gives us a chance to write something everyday, and, according to Lundsford, has made us especially adept to kairos, or the ability to asses the audience and adapt to that setting accordingly. Kairos may be one of most important abilities to possess in modern writing. When constructing a resume or even sitting through an interviewing, knowing whom your audience is and adjusting accordingly is one of the most important skills you could ever have. Any politician or public speaker knows the importance of this ability, and the immediate feedback that someone can now get from their Facebook post or a YouTube comment has made our generation incredibly good at it. In this sense, writing in the current era has taken a turn for the better, improving the way we communicate in general and giving us constant exposure to writing.

With that being said, I do not believe that we are becoming more advanced writers through this kind of exposure alone. With only a fraction of my own time on the web spent typing, I’ve realized the style of writing, whether it be a Facebook post or a blog entry, is not as organized and polished as a finished essay. The structure that makes a passage flow is missing, and the polished, reviewed work of a real piece is not something you normally see on an average stroll through the interwebs. However, it doesn’t worry me. In my experience, when writing a blog I let the thoughts flow out, not stopping to think of a certain structure to mold my words to. This style, as I’ve seen, is common on the Internet. But is this a bad thing? Not in my opinion. Most polished works have a sense of linearity and mechanical thought. Through the spontaneity of a blog, the emotions of that moment are captured in the words of the author, showing us a deeper, more meaningful side of the piece. This emotional perspective is another thing about writing that has evolved through the Internet, and I think that its importance is often overlooked. Compassionate writing has made strides in the past, and with this new age of writing whenever the mood strikes us, I believe many of the great works of our time will come from bursts of emotion and passion.

In Nicholas Carr’s “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” he says that we as a populace have turned to “skimming” through long pieces of reading, a tendency that has been brought about by the incredibly fast access to all forms of information provided by Google and the Internet in general. It’s caused us to become impatient and tuned to skip through the fatty trimmings of a reading until we get to the meat of the subject. And I would have to agree. Throughout this winter quarter I’ve found myself skimming through the articles that I’ve been assigned to read, only looking for facts or lines that could help me reach my ultimate goal of a blog post faster. This tendency has robbed me of the deeper understanding of the articles that would have come by reading the whole thing. And I think that this is an ailment that has affected a lot of people. The Internet has provided us fast access to anything we could ever want, so when we have to sit down and read an article it seems slow, even painful sometimes. Without evaluating the passages and critically thinking about them, we turn to our skimming ways to find what we really need out of the reading. And with this said, I force myself to find common ground with Hedges. In his article he stated the overwhelming tendency of Americans to vote for a representative based on their skin level motives, and not go any deeper into their true campaign motives or intentions once they’re elected. I have to agree with this point, and I must say that’s it’s frankly quite frightening. This sort of approach to matters like the election of a president could land us as a country in big trouble. All it would take is a smooth talker to land us with an extremist president, ready to take over the world. Now this is obviously a borderline ludicrous example, but it is a good point to make that not critically thinking about something could have some detrimental affects. And I must admit that the Internet and Google have made it incredibly easy to do this.

In this respect, reading has taken a hit. It has become more of a chore than a comprehensive process, and has been replaced by something much faster and more accessible. But that technology also counters its downfall by providing something of extreme usefulness that I’ve mentioned before. Access. In our very first article by Andrew Sullivan, he stated that, “Every writer since the printing press has longed for a means to publish himself and reach—instantly—any reader on Earth” (Sullivan). The Internet gives anyone and everyone the ability to do this. Blogging is probably the most ideal example imaginable. The ability to create your own web page for free and publish your writing for anyone to read has revolutionized reading. Maybe the Internet has made us stingy readers, but it’s giving us more avenues to explore practically any text we could ever want. When looking at the Internet logs of my fellow classmates, I was surprised to see a constant theme of checking news sites and reading the most interesting articles. Not only did this give me hope for our generation as a whole, but also it again furthered the point that reading has been made extremely accessible via the Internet. Skip a couple of decades back, and you would have to go out to a vendor or street side to grab a newspaper. Now, it’s as simple as typing in a website to your URL bar and you’re reading the most current events. With the development of things like the Kindle and the iPad, hundreds of books can be stored into one useful device that can be packed away in a small bag and taken anywhere. So even though some people argue that the Internet has turned us away from reading, the fact is technology has given us the means necessary to read more than ever was available in earlier generations.

As Lundsford stated, “technology isn't killing our ability to write. It's reviving it…” (Lundsford). Today’s technology has presented us with ways to read and write that have never been possible before. From reading any novel ever conceived to writing to millions upon millions of people, the Internet has taken the world of literacy to new heights, and keeps on evolving. And although the standard definition of literacy from 200 years ago may not be the best mold for today’s world, I believe we have moved forward into a new era of literacy, one that could not be possible without present technology.

Alternative Introduction Paragraph

In this paper, I’m writing to the old, the wise, and the stubborn. I believe that since the Internet has so rapidly taken over our lives, the older generation feels pushed out by the constant advancements in technology in replacement of their quiet, newspaper reading abodes. I believe that with the right reasons, these stubborn pessimists will reflect on their soon-to-be old ways and be assured that the Internet is not taking over the world of literacy. It is simply enhancing and evolving it for the better.

Works Cited

Thompson, Clive. “Clive Thompson on the New Literacy”. Wired Magazine. 24 August 2009.

Carr, Nicholas. “Is Google Making Us Stupid?” The Atlantic July-Aug. 2008. The Atlantic. Web. 27 Jan 2012.

Scribner, Sylvia. "Literacy in Three Metaphors." American Journal of Education 93 (1984): 6-21. Print.

Back to Blogging!

When thinking about how I receive my news on a day to day basis, I realized how much of a generation gap there is between my parents and myself. My dad's habit, almost a ritual, is to come home from work and sit down and watch the news. And I have to admit, I haven't done this in ages. In fact, the only time I would ever do this is when I'm sitting in the same room as my dad as he performs his nightly ritual. No, how I get my news is much different from the ways of yesteryear (I'm not calling you old, dad). The most common way I get my news is from the Internet, and by word of mouth. And I see a problem with one of these methods. By word of mouth, news could be transformed into the version of it most appealing to the speaker, which makes it a much less legitimate source than I would like. A large portion of this word-of-mouth-news-receiving comes from the glamorous Facebook News Feed. Apart from the melodramatic postings of an angsty teen, sometimes you can come across a post about a current event. And even though they might be a little biased, fear not! You're already on the internet, and it takes five seconds to find the true source of the news. This is also why my primary source of news is the Internet. It takes half of a Newton of combined force (estimated, of course) to type in nytimes.com and go bananas. The whole page is filled with articles, and you can pick and choose as you wish and read articles to your hearts content. This makes the news extremely accesible, and I don't see why more people don't do it. If more people would cross the generation gap and use the internet, they would find it a lot easier to keep up-to-date.