Final Post (my final draft is the previous post)

Unlike history classes where one learns facts, dates, and events; or math classes where one learns about logically solving problems, English classes are inherently a different animal. So to pick one specific thing that I learned is rather difficult. Being forced to pick something, however, I would say that I have a much greater understanding of the trajectory of a news story. Prior to this class, I considered myself to be rather well-informed about current events relative to my peers, and I would say that I was mostly aware of the general life of a news story. But by examining the news ecology over the last half of the semester, my knowledge of the logistics of the media has very much increased.

This class has also helped my writing ability greatly. In this class, I learned that writing, like every other skill, requires repetitions and practice, and this class has allowed me to practice my writing through repetition. By simply writing blog posts, I’d have to formulate an idea and organize it in a way that wouldn’t be embarrassing for the class (and potentially the world) to see. By posting over 20 blog posts, I have become a better writer simply by writing a lot. To use an athletics analogy, I previously believed writing to be like speed: you either are fast or you’re not. Instead, writing is more like endurance, while some may be able to run longer than others, you can still get in shape and improve your endurance. I used to think that good writers were better than me because they had the writing gene and I didn’t. This class, however, has taught me that regardless of my ability as a writer, I can always improve.

My writing practices have changed because my ability to come to terms with, forward, and counter other’s ideas in order to take my own approach has increased. This has manifested itself in my writing, as I have used Harris’ methods to improve my writing for other classes as well. When critiquing a scholarly article for my humanities class, I found myself using Harris’ tips on forwarding and countering, and the quality of my paper benefitted from it.

Final Draft of my 2nd Extended Essay

Allan Mathis

Eng 105-01

Mr. Leake

11/20/09

Going Rogue With Media Coverage

On November 17, 2009, Sarah Palin released her first book “Going Rogue.” The memoir, which The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart calls “the most anticipated book ever ghost-written,” predictably became an instant bestseller and pushed the former Alaska Governor back into the media spotlight. The book details her experiences as the Republican vice presidential nominee while focusing on the infighting between her and other members of the McCain campaign. As a general rule, when a prominent individual writes a book with promises of attacks on others, the book will sell.

The story of Sarah Palin essentially began on August 29, 2008 when she was introduced as Senator John McCain’s running mate in the 2008 presidential election. The previous day, then-Senator Barack Obama formally accepted the Democratic nomination for president at his party’s convention in Denver, where he spoke in front of roughly 84,000 people. As a strategic move, the Republican Party introduced the relatively unknown Palin the day after Obama’s speech, which effectively drew media attention to their campaign.

Shortly after Palin’s introduction to the national spotlight, she became a rather controversial figure, evoking strong opinions from both ends of the political spectrum. Her status as a mother of a large family from a small town provided her with significant approval from rural, working class whites who lived in what she referred to as “real America.” She simultaneously drew equally significant levels of disdain from liberals to whom she didn’t appeal. Seldom in recent history has a political figure of her prominence created so little ambivalence with the public. Tom Schaller of FiveThirtyEight.com states, “People know who Palin is, and almost all have developed opinions about her.” Jon Stewart describes this phenomenon by saying “whether you love her or hate her, you definitely love her or hate her.” Any time a public figure of her fame releases a book, it is usually newsworthy. Her book’s release coupled with the likelihood of her running for president in 2012 makes the story’s newsworthiness increase exponentially.

Shortly after the Republicans lost the 2008 election, Palin announced that she would be releasing a book about the campaign. This piqued the interest of many because, in the midst of this announcement, reports had come out regarding disagreements between her and her handlers inside the McCain campaign. In the months following the election, Palin remained in the news most notably for her resignation as governor of Alaska, which she announced July 3, 2009.

When Palin’s book was released on November 17^th, she once again became a central focus of the news cycle. Mark Whitaker of NBC News states the cyclical nature of news stories regarding Sarah Palin:

Media debate about why Palin is getting all this attention is also pretty laughable. Cable and network news producers cover her on television to boost ratings, print editors put her on their front pages and magazine covers to sell newsstand copies, and then everyone turns around and tsk-tsk’s: “What’s all the fuss? Is she good for the GOP? Is she good for America?”

Because Palin sparks so much interest from the public, the media covers her extensively. This extensive media coverage then in turn creates more public discourse about her, and thus the cycle is perpetuated.

The book, according to sources, details how Palin felt she was underrated and undermined by her handlers in the McCain camp and extensively criticizes Katie Couric. The anecdotes about her disagreements between herself and other members of the campaign over certain issues (e.g. pulling out of Michigan, disagreements over media strategy, etc.), as well as her general disregard for the “elite media” constitute, for her, “going rogue,” which is obviously the overarching theme and title of the memoir.

As a means of promoting her book, Palin was interviewed by Oprah Winfrey and Barbara Walters in the week of its release. During both interviews, Palin was primarily asked questions about her experience in the 2008 campaign, the main focus of her "Going Rogue." Winfrey’s interview focused principally on the contents of her book, as though Palin was any other guest on Oprah trying to sell one. Essentially Palin is an author with intentions of selling her book, however, the possibility of her candidacy in 2012 makes its release all the more newsworthy. Winfrey did indeed ask Palin the obligatory 2012 question, but Palin gave no definitive answer. This surprised no one because it is unprecedented in recent history to announce one’s candidacy this relatively early. Palin’s interview with Walters was relatively similar to her interview with Oprah, as the majority of the questions regarded issues Palin discusses in her book. Walter’s interview did consist of a few minor policy questions, one of which asked Palin how she would rate the current president on a scale of one-to-ten. Palin responded with a four.

The cyclical media coverage of anything Palin predictably continued after her two interviews, as media partisans quickly responded with their opinions regarding her and her interviews. Inevitably, more of the media, including much of the partisan blogosphere, covered this coverage and the story perpetuated itself.

After the initial story of the book’s anticipated release settled somewhat, reviews of the book began to appear throughout the media. Rush Limbaugh referred to it as “one of the most substantive policy books I’ve ever read,” while many liberals were highly critical of its substance and truthfulness. Michiko Kakutani, of The New York Times, gives a rather unimpressed review of the book, stating:

All in all Ms. Palin emerges from “Going Rogue” as an eager player in the blame game, ungrateful to the McCain campaign for putting her on the national stage. As for the McCain campaign, it often feels like a desperate and cynical operation, willing to make a risky Hail Mary pass to try to score a tactical win, instead of making a considered judgment as to who might be genuinely qualified to sit a heartbeat away from the Oval Office.

Reviews of the book are seemingly directly correlated with the given reviewers ideology. Conservative reviewers consider the book to hold significant literary merit, while liberal reviewers consider the book to be poorly written and substantively empty. Kakuntani, in the aforementioned review, referred to the book as Palin’s “erratic new memoir.”

Andrew Sullivan, of The Daily Dish, has been a passionate and significant critic of Palin’s since her national introduction during the 2008 campaign. Sullivan’s been quasi-obsessed with Palin and her family, and has dedicated much of his writing over the last few weeks to criticism of her. Sullivan’s blog is often influenced by its readers, and many readers who presumably have similar ideologies as Sullivan have voiced their tire of his extensive coverage of her in his blog. In response, Sullivan posted an email from a reader whom he felt accurately articulated his motivation for his criticism of Palin:

Please don't kowtow to the readers (I think new readers, in my opinion) who are telling you to drop the Palin Inquiry. Those of us who have read you 5-6 times a day for years know what they don't - that is, the trajectory of your questioning, from the very onset in '08, and your utter frustration with the MSM. They do not get that this is not sensationalistic at all, it is elementally important and absolutely imperative that you never back down and do not stop the pressure. Please. Please. She cannot get NEAR the White House and it is our and your job to stop her, and stop her early. Whatever it takes, the truth must come out and you are the guy to get to it.

Sullivan’s status as an independent blogger allows for him to choose which stories to cover, and his significantly large readership allows him to ultimately influence the news sphere. Sullivan does not necessarily believe that Sarah Palin releasing a ghost-written memoir is a terribly important current event, however the large proportion of his writing dedicated to this story would suggest otherwise. Instead, Sullivan understands that his role as a prominent blogger potentially influences public opinion. Because Sullivan is so adamantly anti-Palin, he feels as though it is his civic responsibility to “warn” the public, so to speak, about her alleged lack of qualifications.

Her ability to transcend the news ecology stems from her divisiveness. Conservatives love to love her, while liberals love to hate her; either way, everyone loves to talk about her. Three years before the next presidential election, prediction-guru Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.com has already begun his extensive analysis of her electability. The fact that she is so controversial and intriguing exists because she has become the symbol of conservative, Christian, working-class, rural whites in this country. Chris Hedges identified an intrinsic divide in this country between the “image-based culture” and the “print-based culture,” and Palin’s ability to appeal to her supporters while drawing disdain from “elitists” makes her the embodiment of this cultural divide. As a Sullivan reader states, “It's in all the rhetoric--Palin represents ‘real America.’ Obama represents effete, Merlot-sipping braniac ‘elites.’” Whether or not Palin supporters are “real” Americans while Palin critics are “elitists,” the terminology of this divide is irrelevant. The news around Palin’s book is not even about Palin herself; instead it’s about the country’s embedded cultural divide that she’s come to represent. Matt Taibbi, on his Taibblog, states:

Sarah Palin is the Empress-Queen of the screaming-for-screaming’s sake generation. The people who dismiss her book Going Rogue as the petty, vindictive meanderings of a preening paranoiac with the IQ of a celery stalk completely miss the book’s significance, because in some ways it’s really a revolutionary and innovative piece of literature. Palin – and there’s just no way to deny this – is a supremely gifted politician. She has stalked out, as her own personal political turf, the entire landscape of incoherent white American resentment. In this area she leaves even Rush Limbaugh in the dust.

Many rural, working-class whites see America’s changing economy and demography, epitomized by a biracial president, and are concerned. This concern, from a specific sector of the population, was palpable during the nationwide health care debate. Sarah Palin represents an ambiguous nostalgia for a “real America” and unfortunately utilizes this emotion as a political tool, but whether she uses this cultural divide as a wedge intentionally and surreptitiously or not has yet to be determined.

Works Cited

Whitaker, Mark. "Spare Palin the Self-Righteousness." MSNBC. 18 Nov 2009. MSNBC, Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34000354/ns/politics//>.

Kakutani, Michiko. "Memoir is Palin's Payback to McCain Campaign." The New York Times. 14 Nov 2009. The New York Times, Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/books/15book.html?scp=1&sq=going%20rogue&st=cse>.

Sullivan, Andrew. "The Daily Dish." The Daily Dish. 20 Nov 2009. The Atlantic, Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/>.

Silver, Nate. "FiveThirtyEight." 20 Nov 2009. FiveThirtyEight, Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/>.

Matt, Taibbi. "Sarah Palin WWE Star." Taibblog. 20 Nov 2009. True/Slant, Web. 22 Nov 2009. <http://trueslant.com/matttaibbi/2009/11/20/sarah-palin-wwe-star/>.

2nd Essay Extended Draft

It can be found here

Taking One Last Approach

For Harris, “Taking an Approach” is essentially what a writer does when they collect his or her ideas to articulate a stance. Unlike “Coming to Terms,” “Forwarding,” and “Countering,” “Taking an Approach” has less to do with other people’s ideas and more to do with the individual writer’s. In a quick albeit probably over simplified way of explaining “Taking an Approach,” one can argue that it is basically “Coming to Terms” with one’s own ideas as opposed to another’s. “Taking an Approach” is obviously influenced by others, but it not simply “forwarding” or “countering;” it instead combines the two, sort of. “Taking an Approach” is how exactly one intends on moving the intellectual conversation ahead, and what literary tools he or she will employ to do so.

A large influence of the approach that one will take is their intention in writing. The New York Times, as a serious, if not the serious, literary news outlet, will obviously be taking a different approach than The Daily Dish or FiveThirtyEight. The Daily Dish’s usual approach is essentially Andrew, whom us readers feel we’ve come to know, giving his take on current events. Because the readers of The Daily Dish are aware that this is an opinionated journalist, there is an inherent casual sensibility that’s created. The New York Times, on the other hand, takes a more rigid and serious approach. The nucleus of The Times reports the news in a serious and factual manner, while segregating their opinion section from their reporting section. The Daily Dish’s approach is less concerned with breaking news to its readers; instead it simply offers analysis.

Because The Daily Dish is much smaller in scope than The Times, the stories that it covers are usually less diverse than The Times, which tries to report on every news event of significance. In essence, The New York Times’ approach is to report the news early in a factual and nonbiased way, while The Daily Dish’s approach is Andrew’s opinion on usually the same stories that The Times reports on. (This is assuming that the stories The Times reports on involve gay marriage, legalization of marijuana, or the Levi/Palin soap opera. Has anyone else noticed this weird obsession Sullivan has with these three topics?)

Also, on a completely unrelated side-note, I was watching ESPN on Friday and they released international soccer team rankings based on a system called “Soccer Power Index” (SPI). Nate Silver, from FiveThirtyEight, created SPI, and I thought that was pretty cool, well except for the fact that the US team ranks 14th in the world. I’m not sure if you know this Silver, but we’re supposed to be the best at every sport. USA! USA! USA!

My Attempt at Self-Countering

This is my attempt to counter myself. My blogpost “The Death of Intellectualism,” is about Chris Hedges article “America the Illiterate.” In the post, I talked about Hedges’ theory that the sharpest cultural divide in America today is not race or socioeconomic status, but instead alignment with either the print or image-based cultures. I will attempt to counter my original statement that I agreed with Hedges’ belief. I picked this post because I take a definite position that is counter-able. I figured forwarding my own blog would seem overly contrived, so I chose to counter instead. As you will see, I state my disagreement with what I said and then try to move the conversation in a different direction. Whether I succeeded or not has yet to be determined, but here goes.

Earlier in the semester, I said:

The American public, according to Chris Hedges, is strictly divided into two
sects, the enlightened and the unenlightened. One third of the nation’s
population is either illiterate or barely literate, so there is predictably a
rather large divide between those who of the print-based culture and those of
the image-based culture.For the most part, however, this divide is largely
covert. The general consensus on what divides America the greatest would be
race, religion, socioeconomic status or political affiliation. I’d have to agree
with Hedges, however, that it is the print vs. image divide that has alienated
this country the most.

While it is undeniable that the print/image-based culture line is a point of division in this country, to say that it is certainly what has divided the country the most, however, is erroneous. Seldom do people in the real world immediately draw distinctions between themselves and others, consciously or subconsciously, based on membership of either the print or image-based culture. It’s hard to look at someone and immediately say “I’m not like that person, they are from the print/image-based culture and I’m not.” Differences in terms of race, ethnicity, linguistics and even socioeconomic status are much more immediately perceivable.

So this begs the question, does the print/image-based culture divide stem from other cultural divisions? Does membership of either the print or image-based culture influence one’s socioeconomic and/or educational status? Or does one’s socioeconomic and/or educational status influence whether they are members of the print or image-based culture? The answer to this question is yes. Cultural status, whether it’s socioeconomic or print/image, is self-perpetual. Therefore the print vs. image divide is not a perceivable divide within itself; instead it’s essentially a combination of all other cultural divides. It is not racial or ethnic, and it is not political or economic either. Because an ambiguous intellectual divide is so hard to perceive, it cannot be the most divisive thing in our culture.

Countering: The Daily Dish vs David Brooks

Joseph Harris’ definition of countering is much less competitive than what I would have envisioned it to be. According to Harris, the goal of countering another text is not to end the conversation or to prove the text to be wrong. Harris instead states that the goal of countering is to push the conversation in new directions and to “open up new lines of inquiry.” (p57)

Harris claims that in order to effectively counter, one first must assess the text’s strengths and aims. He explains that once the author’s aims are identified, then the weaknesses can be expanded on, which in turn pushes the conversation in a new direction.

The three ways texts counter, according to Harris, are by arguing the other side, uncovering values, and dissenting. He stresses that the most effective way to counter is with graceful finesse, not by force. Harris explains that generosity is key when countering because it adds a sense of legitimacy to one’s argument.

The Daily Dish, a socially liberal blog whose principle writer is a self-proclaimed conservative, countered an article by conservative commentator David Brooks regarding how technology has changed the way people date today. The writer from The Daily Dish did an effective job of countering Brooks as evident by the illustration of the weaknesses in Brooks’ claims.

I read Brooks's column and thought of the 80 and 90 year old slaves
interviewed by the WPA. There is a lot in those oral histories that is, as they
say, old and true. But there's a lot that's old and false. A constant refrain is
the notion that the "moving pictures" were ruining young people, and the next
generation wasn't worth anything. To be clear, that would be the same generation
that gave us Martin Luther King, and effectively finished the Civil War.

This is a theme residing in the conservative soul--a professed,
thinly-reasoned skepticism of the [messed]-up now, contrasted against a blind,
unquestioning acceptance of the hypermoral past. This is a human idea--most
people, like those slaves, believe some point in the past was better. And
indeed, in some case the past was demonstrably better. But the writer who would
argue such has to prove it. He can't just accept his innate hunch. He has to
bumrush and beat down his theories of the world, And should they emerge
unbroken, that writer might have something to tell us. It's got to be more than
justifying your prejudice. It's got to be more than those meddling kids.

The writer from The Dish didn’t make too much of an attempt at generosity, which could’ve potentially added strength to his argument. Because The Daily Dish is a blog that leans to the social left, the somewhat-aggressive attack on the conservative Brooks appeared slightly partisan. The Dish strongly disagrees with Brooks’ belief that ‘kids these days’ don’t have the same moral standards that older generations had. The arguments made by The Dish are sound and they effectively show the limits of Brooks’ claim while moving the conversation in a new direction; however, the arguments perhaps could have benefitted from more generosity.

Sullivan Forwarding Silver

In “Forwarding,” Joseph Harris describes writing as essentially a conversation, while defining forwarding as anything that continues the conversation; and he explains the four ways people forward texts. He states that people forward texts by Illustrating, Authorizing, Borrowing, and Extending, and each of these have a unique purpose. Harris is quick to draw a distinction between forwarding and countering. He states, “In forwarding a text, you extend its uses; in countering a text, you note its limits.”

By reading The Daily Dish and FiveThirtyEight along with The New York Times, there are many examples of the blogs “forwarding” other news outlets and blogs. One specific example is the special Congressional election for New York’s 23rd district, which transpired last night. The 23rd district race last had some national interest, and because it is in the state of New York, The Times covered it rather extensively. Also, because it was an election that may serve as barometer for the current political climate, the story received significant focus from The Daily Dish and FiveThirtyEight. The New York Times covered the story initially, and explained how the election may be a microcosm for the midterms next year. Because elections are FiveThirtyEight’s primary focus, Nate Silver obviously covered the story extensively in his blog. The unique thing about The Daily Dish is that it covers a relatively high number of stories for a blog, so it could potentially be argued that the Dish is a hybrid between an extensive entity (such as The New York Times) and a more focused, opinionated blog. The Daily Dish’s role in the media ecosphere is an outlet for political commentator Andrew Sullivan to give his opinion on current events, and he often uses other people’s thoughts to do this. This week in The Daily Dish, Sullivan cited FiveThirtyEight’s Nate Silver to explain his opinion on the 23rd district race:

The Democratic brand is marginal in about half the country, but the Republican
brand is radioactive in about two-thirds of it. The biggest story of the cycle
is that a non-Republican conservative, Doug Hoffman, might win. Counterfactual:
if Hoffman had in fact been the Republican nominee in NY-23 all along, would he
be in the same strong position that he finds himself in today? Methinks not: it
would have been easier for Owens -- who isn't much of a Democrat -- to identify
himself as the moderate in the race.

I found it very interesting that Sullivan would use FiveThirtyEight to explain his opinion. This type of forwarding, according to Harris, would be an example of “Borrowing.” Nate Silver, like Sullivan, is a political commentator, so this is an example of borrowing because Sullivan simply used Silver’s opinion to express his own.

This week, Sullivan also referenced FiveThirtyEight to inform his readers of the odds for the race. Because FiveThirtyEight’s election prediction accuracy is so revered, this would be an example of Sullivan forwarding by “Authorizing.” These examples of forwarding are used by Sullivan to enhance his blog; and because political blogs naturally extend the conversation about current events, forwarding is a tool often employed.