Short Assignment 4: Wikipedia Fact Check

Wikipedia Fact Check: The Walt Disney Company

Did you know that on this day in 1923, Roy and Walt Disney founded The Disney Brothers Cartoon Studio, which would eventually become the Walt Disney Company?

·                What kinds of sources do the article you are assessing use? 

   The types of sources include news articles by TIME, The New York Times, and other respected news organizations, Disney’s own financial records, industry related reports, and the archived web pages of several organizations, including the Catholic League.

·                Are any of those sources unreliable or not well-respected? Why do you think so? Are there any you are unsure of? Why? 

I am unsure of some of the news articles, because news can be biased, especially entertainment news, and in addition, the Walt Disney Corporation has become ‘Hollywood Legend’, which could lead to some exaggeration.

·                Check five individual facts in the article against the sources. Are the facts reported correctly in Wikipedia? If not, what is incorrectly reported? 

The facts are reported correctly.

·                Do you think the information in this article is generally reliable based on your analysis of the sources? Why or why not? 

I think it is generally reliable, since the sources are reliable and the article is styled like a timeline, and doesn’t contain anything sensational, apart from the amount of money that Disney earns annually (!).

·                Do you think the information is reliable based on the level of detail? Why or why not? 

Yes, because the level of detail includes over 80 sources, and information for further reading.

Analysis

In Lazere’s ‘Reading And Writing for Civic Literacy’, he states: “The word bias is an ambiguous one; it is usually, but not necessarily, used with a negative connotation. Bias can simply mean a particular subjective viewpoint….”

It was through this lens that I examined the sources of my selected Wikipedia article, especially in light of the standing that Walt Disney holds in the American Public’s hearts and minds. I wanted to make sure that the chronology of the growth of The Walt Disney Company was not misrepresented by an overzealous fan.

Fortunately, since the company has been in the public eye since the early 20^th century, there is a wealth of factual public records that can be used to verifiy the reliability of this article.

Class on Blog 10/14

According to Corbett and Eberly, Spectator Culture affects our ability to argue well in the public sphere because citizens are no longer active participants, but viewers or receivers of public discourse. When arguments are mediated through blogs, however, it gives citizens the ability to participate in public discourse. There are downsides to this, like the oversimplification of complex issues and the growth of ‘social media activism’, which has been praised for raising awareness, but criticized for failing to take action or create visible change. (Remember the Stop Kony’ fiasco?)

In an example of citizen criticism gone wrong, Bouie’s “Criminal Justice Racism”

demonstrates how the way a conversation is framed can effect how it is interpreted.

In this particular case, well meaning change-seekers attempted to use statistics to illustrate the disproportionate rate of minorities incarcerated, as part of the argument for reform. What went wrong can be boiled down to internalized racism and a misguided use of statistics.

Discussion Post

In Carolyn Handa's excerpts from Multimediated Rhetoric, she draws attention to the way the digital landscape of the modern age is used as a rhetorical tool. Handa argues that it is not only the content that can be found online that should be analyzed, but also the stylistic details of how information is presented online.
Any layperson can tell the difference between, say, Facebook, with it's color and personalization, and a more stark website like Wikipedia.
Handa also discusses how certain websites use rhetorical theories like Kairos and ethos, pathos, and logos in all aspects of their design, creating something tangible.
 In a similar fashion, Killingsworth discusses in 'place' how a website functions as a physical place, that can be visited and revisited. In a way, a digital 'place' can become a utopia, as it can be rendered to a point of virtual rhetorical perfection that is impossible for a physical place to obtain.
While we were working on our Sci/Tech blogs, we discussed how the layout and design might need to be changed in order to appeal to our audience. In a larger sense, how might other online platforms need to be changed to appeal to specific rhetorical needs?

Short Assignment # 3

   The overarching problems with Mark Leibovitch's essay for The New York Times Magazine "Let Us All Bear Witness To The Conversation!" are a lack of focus that leads to meandering into topics that don't appear relevant, word choice that gives the essay a biting and almost too-mean tone, and a lack of clarification on important facts, like names of places and the chronology of events.
In Killingworth and Palmer's essay "Transformations", news is defined as the presentation of something that the audience doesn't already know. What Leibovitch seems to be struggling with and in fact reacting to is discussion or conversation about a news event being presented as news.
   However, in his eagerness to condemn his fellow journalists, Leibovitch makes several mistakes.
He begins his essay with a topical event: the shooting of Michael Brown. Unfortunately, he fails to include the fact that Brown was shot fatally, and does not include the name of the officer, who was the shooter. By doing this, he fails to give his audience a full picture, which is why I edited the first paragraph to include this information. He also adds prefixes like "so-called", "ostensibly" and "unsurprisingly" to several of his claims, which not only muddies the water for readers, but also creates an argument in Kaufer's fourth level of policy argument. It is clear from his tone that Leibovitch applies different local values to certain aspects of public discourse. But Caitlin! This is an opinion piece! He's allowed to do that!
    That's true, but when Leibovitch uses these prefixes, it's not in reference to his main topic,the news reporting on Ferguson, but in reference to his fellow journalists and public discourse as a whole, like the sentence that begins "In their lofty self-assessments..." In his essay, Leibovitch also includes a smattering of negative adjectives, like insipid, cheap, debacle, and even at one point compares Ferguson to a 'roiling cauldron'. I felt that these had to be removed or toned down in order to give the essay a firmer sense of authority, rather than a sensationalist piece, as it initially appeared to me.
   His other problem was meandering into irrelevance, as he does in his last three paragraphs, where he talks at length about the 2008 presidential primaries and subsequent elections. He even mentions Bill Clinton's presidency, 'Brangelina', and, for some reason, Johnny 'Football' Manziel, who he refers to as only Johnny Football, which is his nickname. I removed the paragraphs about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, following the "Cohesion and Coherence" section in the Style handbook.
I tried to give the essay a sharper focus on the over-all topic of the reactionary trend in popular news media, or what Leibovitch calls 'bearing witness', and to give more depth to the facts as Leibovitch presented them, in the paragraphs about the Brown shooting and the Foley beheading.

Discussion Post #1

  In Jeanne Fahnestock's essay 'Accommodating Science', she discusses how popular science outlets take creative liberties with scientific studies published in academic journals in order to present the findings to a less scientifically literate public audience while simultaneously creating interesting journalistic pieces. Fahnestock highlights several examples of how simply changing the language or hedging uncertainties can lead to hypotheses being presented as fact.
  Interestingly, this essay was published in July of 1986, long before the explosion of the internet, social media outlets, and the rapid dissemination of information.
  The phenomenon described by Fahnestock in 1986 has grown in ways she couldn't have possibly envisioned. With the proliferation of websites like Wired, as well as popular science magazines, television shows like 'Mythbusters', and an endless parade of sci/ tech blogs, science has become part of public consciousness, perhaps more than ever before.
  In today's world, a scientific article can be published, cherry picked for sensational findings, rocketed through social platforms like Reddit, Twitter, and Facebook, and then discussed on Good Morning America as fact before  any chance of repudiation.
  As we discussed in class, it is clear that reporting on scientific discoveries need to be more carefully done, with less rampant sensationalization. But how does society combat the social media aspect?
How can 'citizen journalists' be held responsible for generating sensational headlines that multiply and spread across social media platforms, and are then taken as fact by a lay audience?

Short Assignment # 1

In Richard Harris’ article, “’Uncertain’ Science: Judith Curry’s Take on Climate Change”

Intertextuality is exemplified by fusing together what one could think of as commonly known public discourse, scientific fact, and individual opinion.

The exigency, of the Grant-Davies variety, is the climate change debate. This debate is on going and often vitriolic, with anxious scientists and environmentalists on one side of the aisle, and a mixture of capitalists, conservatives, and advocates of personal and corporate freedom on the other.

Many people think that climate change is a critical matter. ‘Climate Change’, as an individual issue, is often a matter of debate between candidates and sometimes a platform for political parties.

In Richard Harris’ article, scientist Judith Curry expresses her uncertainty that action needs to be taken, as she believes that without knowing what possible natural factors might occur in the next few centuries, it is impossible to take lasting action against climate change.

I believe that Curry is utilizing D’Angelo’s intertextual technique of adaption, as she agrees with the findings of other scientists findings regarding the impact of humans on carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere, but draws a different conclusion from these findings and uses that conclusion to further her point