Sunday, April 3, 2016

Rhetorical Analysis of Project 3

With Projects 1 and 2 in the books, it is time to set my sites on the planning phase of Project 3.  Project 3 involves creating a public argument over a specific controversy, and I have decided to argue why people should vote for Donald Trump by disproving common misconceptions about him and illustrating his positions on public issues.  In this post, I am going to go over my personal rhetorical situation for this Project.

Author.

1. How will you draw on any or some of the following for Project 3? Be specific about how your plans for Project 3 connect to some previous, current or burgeoning interest of your own.

The reason I have decided on the topic I stated above for project 3 is because with the election season in full swing, I see a lot of lies and slander being thrown at various candidates, and I noticed that Donald Trump is an unfortunate victim to the agendas of people against him. To explain a little bit about me, I am a Computer Engineering student at the University of Arizona, I have lived in Arizona for all but two years of my life, and I would say I politically identify as a libertarian or at least fairly moderate.

2.    What are the preconceptions, previously held opinions and/or potential areas for 
         personal bias that you should be aware of for Project 3? What about any of the 
         following?:

I think it is important to note that I am mixed race (half-Vietnamese, half white), and both of my parents are independents/moderates. My mom grew up rather poor as she was a refugee from the Vietnam war, but now both my parents would be considered middle to upper-middle class. I was raised Lutheran but religion was never strictly enforced in my household. Being from Arizona, I have grown up in a community with strong conservative and religious values.

Audience. 


How are you thinking about your audience for this project? Who are you going to make this for? Describe them.

I feel like my audience for this project would be my peers (college age kids), as younger people tend to fall on the left side of the political scale, and in general do not like Trump. I know a lot of college kids are very liberal and blindly parrot a lot of the misconceptions that are spread about Trump. I've seen a lot of people who would hate you as a person for supporting Trump, which I feel is rather close-minded. So I have to be sure to keep in mind the dangerous nature of talking about politics, especially with a controversial figure such as Trump.

How are you going to relate to or connect with your audience? Are there any specific words, ideas or ways of arguing that will help you relate to them in this way?

I feel like I can relate to my audience because I am a college aged person as well, and I feel like I am a pretty normal person. I am not misogynist, racist, homophobic, or anything, which are some of the main arguments against Trump. Furthermore, I am not white, whom a lot of people believe are the only people who support Trump.


Think of one specific person or a set of people you know personally or professionally who fall within the definition of ‘target audience’ you’re using for Project 3. What could you tell them or say to them in order to convince them of your perspective? What would need to happen for them to agree with you?

One of my friends actually blindly hates on Trump even though he knows nothing about his policies or actual beliefs. In order to convince them, I would have to hit them with facts and not allow pre-existing conceptions interfere with my argument.

Purpose

What do you want to accomplish with Project 3? What affect do you want it to have on your intended audience?

After giving my argument, I would hope that my audience would want to vote for Donald Trump for president, or at least consider him a legitimate candidate whom isn't just the second coming of Hitler.

Once you’ve done all your research and figured out what you think about the controversy you’ve chosen, what still needs to be accomplished? 

I think an important thing to note is that political views can be varied, and people should not vilify others over their political ideologies.  Furthermore, it is important not to believe everything that is said by the mainstream media, because they have an agenda themselves a majority of the time.


What genre?

I will be writing in a standard college essay format. I have a ton of experience in this genre due to my years in AP English throughout High School, so I feel like I will not have too difficult of a time. In terms of expectations, my essay should be professional and organized properly. The fact that essays are professional will help in an argument because it will make the audience think you know what you are talking about. Furthermore, people tend to associate essays/articles as truth because they look clean and are used to the genre.

When

Are there any historical events that might impact how your audience perceives your argument or the kind of background information or evidence you need to include? For instance, does media reporting on any of the following involve your issue/subject for Project 3?

The mainstream media plays a major role in terms of influence on my audience. A large number of media outlets are openly against Trump, who receives a lot of attention (albeit negative) in their programming. Because of this, people have a lot of preconceived conceptions about Trump although they don't really know his true beliefs. And because the election season is in full swing, there is a lot of political tension and information going around.


Who else is talking about this topic? Provide us with working hyperlinks to coverage of the controversy on FOUR different media outlets.


What are the three or four major counter-arguments you’ll have to respond to, based upon what people are saying in the press/media? Be specific and cite your sources using working hyperlinks.


Sunday, March 27, 2016

Peer Review B

For my second peer review I decided to peer review Jack Auslen's  podcast on how professional businessmen and women create texts.

I decided to review Jack's rough edit on form.

Overall, Jack does well in his podcast in terms of genre conventions of a podcast.  He speaks clearly enough, and his added interview audio clips flow well.  There are some prevailing issues that need to be addressed however.

The first thing I noticed was the length of the podcast.  The podcast was upwards of 18 minutes which is pretty long for this assignment.  I noticed that in Sean's genre examples of podcasts they were between 6 to 15 minutes, with 15 being the maximum.  I think you could cut down the podcast through your use of your interview audio clips.  I found that a huge chunk of your podcast was just playing interview clips which can be easily addressed.  Another issue in form was the lack of music/special effects.  Jack noted that he was missing music in this version so there isn't much else to say besides make sure the music is used well in the final version.  One last suggestion that I have is to maybe bring in an additional speaker if possible.  Most podcasts have a couple people on the mic so that they can banter back and forth.  I know this may not be an option but it would be a welcome addition nevertheless.

Jack seems to understand how a podcast should function so there really isn't too much else to say about the form of his rough cut.  One of the things I will take in from his project is that he said a lot of information about why his topic is important which I didn't really target in my own podcast.

Hope my ideas prove helpful!

Peer Review A

For my first peer review, I reviewed Joshua Smith's  QRG which is about the writing process and genres in the geosciences field.

I chose to review his QRG in terms of it's form.

Overall, I would say that Joshua has a good grasp of the the genre conventions and necessary form for a QRG.  He does a good job in his use of headings, subheadings, bullets, numbered lists, and pictures.  Upon first glance, the QRG looks very clean and inviting to read.  However, I feel as though there are some small issues that, if fixed, would make his QRG much easier to access and follow.

The first thing I would recommend is to not use such big spacing between lines.  The double spacing adds too much white space and makes the QRG seem very drawn out and windy, which is the opposite of the intended genre convention of a QRG (which is to be condensed and simple).  Another thing I would recommend is to change the font color and size of the subheadings throughout the QRG.  As it stands right now, the color of the subheadings are rather bland and do not really stand out compared to the actually body texts.  It is important to make the subheadings stand out so the reader can easily find what the current topic is about.  The font size could be a little bigger as well.  The last recommendation I would make is to perhaps have more hyperlinks within the text.  I know there isn't really a lot of things to source to in this project but I feel as though having more links to click within a QRG makes it more interactive and keeps the reader's attention.

Again, Joshua did a great job with his rough cut of his project.  I liked that Joshua linked to a bunch of example genres from his field, and I need to take note of this and provide more examples for my own project. Anyways, the suggestions I gave him would just add more flair and give his project the feeling that a QRG should create.

Reflection on Post Production

So I have finished creating and editing my podcast, so it would be good to look back and reflect on the whole process.
Link to Final Podcast

What were some of the successes (or, things that went right) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

I guess the success would be that I was able to finish my podcast before the release deadline.  A lot of stress went into it and I'm happy that I was able to finish a pretty good product.

What were some of the challenges (or, things that went wrong) during this week’s process work? Explain, with evidence.

The challenging thing for me was my procrastination.  I ended up spending my weekend finishing the project again and stressing out a great deal over it.

How do you think next week will go, based on your experiences this week?

Well now that I have finished project 2 I feel as though the next few weeks will be fairly easy as we are going to begin easing our way into the next project.

How are you feeling about the project overall at this point?

I feel decent about the project to be honest.  I feel as though the podcast genre put limitations on how much research and content I could put out without the podcast getting too ridiculously long.  Furthermore, I am not the best speaker, so I feel as though my podcast isn't as strong as someone who is better at speaking which I feel is an issue with these projects.  I believe being able to assemble audio clips isn't indicative of one's control over the writing process and language.

Editorial Report B

Here is another section of my Project that I edited.

How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

The final version added a little bit more details that I felt were important for the audience to know.  It helped wrap up the podcast better.

How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

The form didn't really change besides me speaking clearer and with less stuttering of words.

Rough Cut

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5-UfIgWwYUJS3Y0NVlxTFV4Mlk/view?usp=sharing

Re-Edited Selection (first minute and 30 seconds of podcast)

Editorial Report A

Now that my project is ready to be released, it is important to go back and look at the changes that were made between the final and rough draft versions.

How did the content change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the content is being communicated more effectively in the re-edited version?

The final version added a little different mood to the podcast.  The new vocals were more relaxed and conversational which I felt allowed the reader to be more immersed as if I was conversing with them.

How did the form change (even slightly - details matter!) when you re-edited it? Why do you think the form is presenting the content more effectively in the re-edited version?

There was some format change between the edited version.  I added an intro beat to the beginning of the introduction to reinforce the idea that the listener is listening to a podcast and not just a person talking.


Rough Cut

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5-UfIgWwYUJN09LbnpKZTBrOTQ/view


Re-Edited Selection (first minute and 30 seconds of podcast)

Open Post to Peer Reviewers

Hello to any potential peer reviewers.

Here is a link to my rough podcast draft:
http://www.driveplayer.com/#fileIds=0B5-UfIgWwYUJeWxXZVh4Q085UTQ&userId=117087872722768396685

I understand that at the moment there isn't any music/sound effects/transitions.  This draft is just a raw compilation of my vocal materials that I would like to be critiqued.  I feel as though my presentation is decent but could definitely use some work.  I tried to speak in a paced manner so anybody listening could easily understand and follow what I am saying.  If I need to shorten the podcast length let me know.