How an American businessman turned the world of politics and Public Relations on its head.

For better or for worse, there has been an unstoppable force in politics. A force that has changed the way people will utilize communication, and the strategy in which a candidate can gain support in an election. This force is Donald Trump. While many, including myself, may not agree with much of his political polices, I have to acknowledge his widespread support. The man is doing something right, the question is, what? The answer is complicated but relates back to his way of utilizing media. Trump understands broadcast media, and has been able to have it feature his personal brand.

As the world of Public Relations is evolving in an era of social media and constant communication, Trump has seemed to crack the ever-changing code. Over the past century the idea that all publicity is good publicity has become more accepted. In a controversial statement, Irish author Brendan Behan noted, “there is no such thing as bad publicity except your own obituary.” Behan, known for his wit and intelligence rose to prominence during the 1920’s, and made this proclamation way before its time. His perspective on public relations is now more relevant than ever. A large reason why his words remain true is that Americans have become numb to shock. Our overconsumption of media and information is to blame. We are constantly berated with outrageous stories, particularly through television, that alter how we’ve analyzed media in recent years.

People like Trump benefit from the current 24-hour news cycle. The outpour of information never concludes in the current state of television. If a topical event takes place it is almost guaranteed to be featured on multiple networks, providing vastly different approaches in covering the same subject. This is seen through an info-graphic from the Media Research Center. This organization investigates statistics in regards to media distribution and consumption. The specific info-graphic highlights the amount of airtime each republican candidate received on ABC, CBS, and NBC nightly news coverage solely from scandals. In just March, Trump received over 67 minutes of coverage for five separate scandals. Ted Cruz received 11 minutes of coverage from two scandals, which John Kasich had no coverage from scandals. These events can be clearly defined as negative, as Trump’s instances included sexist comments made towards women, and misconduct from his campaign manager. While these negative events may slander Trump’s image or character, they’re clearly not affecting his polling numbers, as he currently leads in delegates comfortably over his constituents. The allocation in “controversy coverage” also mirrors the current standing in delegates in the GOP race.

Just how much do we talk about Donald Trump? Well, according to another Media Research Center statistic, a lot. Specifically, about 6 times more than both Ted Cruz and John Kasich, and 5 times more than Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. Megan Burnside is a writer for LexisNexis, an online engine for scholarly information and articles. In one of her pieces, she explains how “America isn’t ready to dump Trump.” She adds to this statement by providing media statistics. Burnside notes, “ that Trump dominates 50 percent of mainstream print, broadcast and online media coverage.” Donald Trump has been mentioned 108,832 times in the last 30 days on networks like Fox News, MSNBC, and comedy central. Based on the general opinions of these networks towards the candidate, it is clear that the support of these networks towards Trump is vastly different. Comedy Central stars like Trevor Noah and Samantha Bee have rarely discussed Trump’s rise with optimism. On the other hand, Fox News has often proclaimed Trump as the most legitimate individual to represent the party. This furthers the notion that Trump has understood the importance of staying prevalent in the media cycle, no matter what.

Trump knows himself, and he knows his personality. He has often used his celebrity persona to jumpstart an influx of conversation, giving him a platform like no other candidate. Trump’s inclusion in the GOP race has resulted in record debate numbers according to Neilson Reports. These reports measure television ratings, providing an accurate estimate of how many individuals tune into a program. Specifically, the first GOP debate of the election season attracted an audience of 24 million. This is the most watched primary debate in our nations history. The contest additionally garnered 9 million more viewers than the most ever watched democratic primary. His popularity is also noticeable when observing his live crowds. In his Super Tuesday victory speech Trump boasted, “every place we’re speaking, if we have 10,000 people it’s like a small group. We had 35,000 people the other day in Alabama…this is a movement.” These massive audiences are telling of his status in society. His confidence in discussing these numbers also acts as sound bytes. Sound bytes are becoming popularized by figures like Trump who offer polarizing phrases that feed the current news cycle.

Donald Trumps initial draw as someone the public is already familiar with has propelled his rise. His branding of himself is an important PR attribute; throughout the race he has maintained his ideology that the Trump name is a product. He has spent years making sure his name is affiliated with excellence and success. He has also understood who his audience is. Trump knows that many Americans are tired of the US political system, and that people are hungry for an outsider. He knows that there is a portion of the nation that responds well to his blunt, sometimes crude way of explaining topics. It can be refreshing to have someone tell it like it is in a sense. This is explained the by Cohn Marketing, a prominent marketing organization based in Denver, Colorado. In an article issued on their company’s website Cohn Marketing stated, “Trump’s hitting hot-button issues… he’s doing so in outlandish, Trump-like fashion, but his rants aren’t just rants. They are targeted and strategic.” In PR an audience is defined as ones publics. These publics are in fact a target group, and specifically the one that a PR company sets out to influence. Trumps understanding of his publics is a primary reason why he has been able to accumulate as many delegates as he has throughout the campaign process.

Actions speak louder than words, and while Mr. Trump is a man of many words, it is his track record that has perhaps helped him the most. An advantage that Trump has is that he has concrete businesses and economic ventures he can point to. The sheer image of a Trump hotel or golf course is daunting. The massive and powerful representation of these buildings is familiar and impactful. This is a strategy most other candidates cannot use. Cohn Marketing again notes, “Trumps business triumphs will prevail long after the election cycle is over.” The branding of Trumps own name on his industries shows that he has been PR savvy even before politics. This has paid dividends for his campaign, ultimately allowing him to point to his obvious economic achievements. This also enables him to continue to operate in an avenue that he is familiar with. While the amount of self-confidence and branding used by Trump is no stranger to the business world, his incorporation of it in politics has completely altered the strategy of constructing a successful presidential campaign. This statement holds a great deal of truth; it is one of the reasons why Trump has been able to navigate through the primary process. Specifically in a process where he has had more success than other candidates who are far more established in the political sphere.

Trump has changed the way public relations should be studied. His incorporation of self promotion and social media use in order to stay relevant in a 24-hour news cycle is fascinating. Additionally, his careless attitude in regards to attempting to steer away from controversies is very unique, especially in the political world. This transparency, while harsh has helped him garner support from a wide range of people. While his ways have completely changed the world of public relations, his impact on politics has been extremely negative. An avenue has been established for future politicians to follow in Trumps footsteps. This attitude has almost stripped the sensitivity and patience needed in order to act as a world leader. The mere concept that Donald Trump may have inspired younger politicians to follow in his footsteps is a scary concept, a concept that will be known as The Trump Effect.

 

Fear. Panic. Anger. Terrorism is a word all too familiar to Americans and people around the world today. Terrorism’s goal is in its name. Terror. Aiming to strike fear into the minds of innocent people everywhere. But terrorism did not used to be something that happened in America. America was impenetrable, or so everyone thought. On that crystal clear Tuesday morning in 2001 life was good, right up until just before 9am, when the whole world changed. Nothing would ever be the same, cue fortress America. With attacks continuing to happen in the US, people look to the government to act.  As the American public has seen over the recent years the government has been trying to combat this threat with tighter security measures in public places and stricter guns laws.  Military officers and politicians agree that domestic terrorism is a pertinent threat and the only way to combat this threat is by attacking the source, preventing groups like ISIS from recruiting Americans to commit these vicious acts.

The first step, which is in the process of being taken, is politicians need to accept is that domestic terrorism is the biggest threat to national security, not climate change. Yes, looking at you Bernie Sanders. According to Michael Morell, a military intelligence officer, ISIS poses a major threat to the US both domestically and abroad. But for all intents and purposes, let’s just focus on the domestic side.

In Morell’s article, titled, ISIS Will Strike America, he gives a small glimpse into how real this threat is when he writes “The FBI has over 900 open investigations into homegrown extremists, the vast majority radicalize by ISIS, and a large number of those investigations relate to individuals who may be plotting here” (Morell 2). The most striking piece of information from this quotation is the 900 open investigations. Now, granted, 900 is a very small number in comparison to the number of open murder investigations the FBI has, 200,000 since 1980, but this number is still significant (NPR.com).

The reason this number is so significant is because terrorist attacks, especially in the US are much more rare than murders. The fact that there are 900 open investigations means that there are a lot of people out there intending to do harm on other Americans and not on a small scale either.

Terrorists look to inflict as much damage as possible to as many people as possible when they carry out their attacks. So, while it may seem like there are way more open murder investigations, the level of urgency does not compare to that of the open terrorist investigations. In terms of countering these domestic terror attacks, the government needs to display more urgency by putting plans in motion.

According to Admiral James Stavridis, the only way to combat this threat is to make changes across multiple areas. Admiral Stavridis has an eight-step plan that he claims will defeat ISIS. Whether or not this is true is up for debate, but it is a good place to start. Some of the biggest parts of his plan consist of increasing intelligence across defense departments. Another portion of his plan suggests that the US needs to incorporate a cyber element into this fight, in order to combat ISIS’s ability to recruit domestically, disrupt operational control, and prevent them from more monetary gains from their criminal activity. This part of Admiral Stavirdis’s plan is in motion, with the Obama administration creating a joint task force with the NSA and Department of Homeland Security.

Recently, the Obama administration has set up a joint task force between the NSA, the National Security Agency, and the Department of Homeland Security. This task force’s goal is to try and prevent ISIS members from recruiting within the US and also trying to locate where these recruiters are located in order to apprehend them. In addition, the government has been adamant recently about overhauling America’s gun laws in an attempt to ultimately keep guns out of the wrong hands.

Some of these new gun laws are as follows. In 2016, the FBI is going to increase background checks on everyone attempting to purchase a firearm. They hope to accomplish this by employing 230 more examiners in order to provide background checks around the clock (ATF). Also, the Obama administration is proposing a $500 million investment to increase access for mental health care. Now, while these new laws may seem like a step in the right direction, that’s all they are, a step.

Ultimately, only time will tell if any plans the US is putting forth to combat ISIS in America will work. Creating stricter gun laws and assembling task forces is a good place to start, but there are always loopholes, for example illegal firearms. This group has found these loopholes in the past, who is to say they will not find them again in the future?

Aside from whether or not ISIS will find a loophole to continue to conduct attacks on America, there is another issue, recruitment. Now, if you are like me, you are going to ask yourself one simple question; who in their right mind is joining ISIS as an American? Luckily, or maybe not so much, there is an answer.

One example of Americans being drawn to ISIS’s ideologies is Elton Simpson. In Garland, TX, May 2015 Elton Simpson opened fire at an event celebrating local cartoonists. Shortly before the assault, Simpson declared allegiance to ISIS on Twitter. Simpson is one of 62 known Americans who have declared such an atrocity within the US. 62 is a small number in comparison to the number who have traveled to Iraq and Syria to fight for ISIS, which according to a discussion on NRP in September 2015, that number is around 250 Americans, however, that is still more about one person per state.

Does 62 still feel like a small number to you? Well take this into account. James Comey, the current head of the Federal Bureau of Investigation said during an interview in July 2015 “ISIS has influenced a significant amount of troubled Americans through social media… urging Muslims who are unable to travel to the Middle East to ‘kill where you are’”(Varandani 1). This quotation from the current F.B.I head is what is going to put fear into the minds of all Americans. 62 probably feels like a huge number now, right?

According to psychologist Arie Kruglanski, people who join the Islamic State and similar groups are people who view the world with sharp definition. These terrorist groups view the world in the same manner. No gray area, everything is coherent. In addition, these extremist groups also allow people to become part of a large, unique group. Kruglanski says that these beliefs are attractive to those who are looking for a sense of identity (Mooney 2). ISIS knows this and therefore is able to recruit vulnerable people within the US simply because these people are trying to find where they belong.

ISIS recruiters know there are people in the US who are vulnerable and easily manipulated. For example, ISIS recruiters often put movie-trailer style videos on YouTube, glorifying their heinous practices and beliefs. To someone who may not know any better, the videos can be very appealing.

This is exactly where the NSA’s task force is needed. Being able to prevent ISIS from recruiting Americans via social media will be a step in the right direction. Also, the previously mentioned information from psychologists like Arie Kruglanski can help to build a psychological profile for people who join extremist groups.

As previously stated in this article however, there is no one plan to prevent and even end domestic terrorism. Colin Clarke, a RAND Corporation political scientist sums it up best when he says “’there is no single key or silver bullet to combating Islamic extremism, which is what makes combating it so difficult. There is no single pathway to radicalization.’”

The fist thing that American people and politicians need to accept is that domestic terrorism will always exist. There will always be extremist groups in America and around the world who are looking to bring harm to others for simple reasons such as they do not like someone else’s culture or their government and therefore feel the need to attack their way of life.

While these new policies involving guns laws and task forces are a step in the right direction, that is all they are, a step. Only time will tell whether or not these policies actually do anything to help law enforcement both find potential terrorists before they strike and make it harder for terrorists to carry out their attacks. The biggest impact these policies have on the public is it gives everyone feelings of security. That in itself is part of this battle as well. If Americans do not feel that there is a constant threat against them every time they leave their homes or go to a crowded area, then that is a victory in itself.

No matter what the government does to prevent attacks, they will still happen. There will always be hate.  As President Obama leaves office in the next few months Americans will have to wait and see how they try to combat this threat.  One thing is for certain though, these extremist groups like ISIS will never be able to dictate the way Americans live their lives.  The American population as a whole will not accept defeat from ISIS or any group like it and will never stop in its quest to combat this threat.

work cited:

Aguiar, Peter. “Here’s How the U.S. Moves Forward after San Bernardino Terror Attack:.” ProQuest. N.p., 29 Dec. 2015. Web.

Bergen, Peter. “Who Are ISIS American Recruits?” CNN 6 May 2015: n. pag. Web.

Crabtree, Susan. “White House Huddles with Tech Firms on Counterterrorism.” ProQuest. N.p., 8 Jan. 2016. Web.

Kruglanski, Arie. “Here Are the Psychological Reasons Why an American Might Join ISIS.” Mother Jones 29 Aug. 2014: 1-3. Web.

Miller. “Obama Administration Plans Shake-up in Propaganda War against IS.” ProQuest. N.p., n.d. Web.

Morell, Michael. “ISIS Will Strike America.” Time Magazine. N.p., n.d. Web.

“Report: 250 Americans Have Gone To Syria And Iraq To Fight.” Interview by Steven Inskeep. NPR.com. NPR, n.d. Web.

Varandani, Suman. “ISIS Influence On Troubled Americans Bigger Threat Than External Attack By Al Qaeda: FBI Head James Comey.”International Business Times 23 July 2015: n. pag. Web.

Image: http://www.nycrimecommission.org/images/domestic-terrorism-chart.gif

Gun Image: https://orgs.law.harvard.edu/acs/files/2015/02/gun-control-l-01.jpg

Unit 3 Reflection:

1. I think that my title does grab the reader, because when you first look at it, it doesn’t give the impression of being an article about domestic terrorism. I tried to be a little clever with the title. One thing that gave me the idea for the title was during my research authors kept talking about how these domestic terrorists could really be anyone, so I tried to incorporate that into my title. The subtitle however does. The subtitle gives the reader an idea about what exactly they’ll be reading about in my article.
2. The introduction is intended to grab the reader’s attention from the first three words. I chose to just use three words, instead of an opening sentence to grab their attention, also trying to induce a sense of urgency in the reader. The problem is located towards the end, where I write about where the root of the domestic terror threat lies, and that is in preventing ISIS from recruiting Americans. Also, in order to lead the reader in I mentioned how America has changed in the years since 9/11, what it was like before and after and how America will never be the same.
3. I tried to offer up an idea that I could really dive into. My idea being how to prevent recruitment. I chose this because there were several avenues of approach that I saw. One idea being how is ISIS recruiting? Another being what kind of person joins ISIS from America and why do they join? These topics allowed me to look into recent events in the US and how law enforcement responded and also how the government responded.
4. I tried to keep my thoughts organized in an order that made the most sense and also flowed well. The most helpful thing I thought was when we scrambled our drafts in class. This is because by having someone else put it back together in an order they thought made the most sense really helped me see how an audience would read this piece. I also tried to keep the paragraphs are short as I could, since this is a magazine article, but at the same time not cutting them short of any information I thought needed to be included.
5. NY Times magazine article readers are definitely a more educated group overall than people reading Huffington Post articles, so they are more likely to have more of a background or at least some prior knowledge of my topic. This being the case, the biggest thing I needed to make sure I did was find and include accredited sources, sources people have heard of and trust. But finding these sources was only half the battle. I needed to make sure that my writing was strong and that I had a strong argument present. In my article I tried to address key points about this issue while also focusing most of my argument on an area that most people may not think about, recruitment.
6. I think I conveyed my stance well. Making it known that ISIS recruiting Americans is an issue and needs to be stopped. I also tried to convey that while this issue may not get a lot of attention it still is a big issue. I found statistics from NPR and newspapers to back up this claim as well, trusted sources that the reader knows.
7. For my research I tried to find as many quality sources as I could, knowing I probably wouldn’t use all of them, but I wanted to have a solid base to work with and choose the best ones. I also chose to include an image to show how domestic terror attacks have increased over the years. In addition, I also included an image that was symbolic of gun laws. It was a handgun made of words that represented the pros and cons of gun laws.
8. I incorporated a primary source with a chart that showed the increase of domestic terror attacks over the years. I included this to show the reader that this is truly an issue. In addition, I included many secondary sources that both introduced new topics and build off of other topics. One example of this is when I broke down ISIS’s ability to recruit within the US. I chose to explain how they do this and also the psychological profile of someone from American who would join ISIS.
9. In the beginning I tried to create sense of urgency in the reader by starting out with just three words instead of sentences. Also, I tried to use pathos by mentioning 9/11, because I knew that would strike a nerve with people, making them think back to that awful day. Overall I think that my use of sources helped to develop my argument and help make a strong point.
10. The visuals I used I chose because I wanted to give perspective. I don’t think that people realize how big of an issue domestic terrorism is and the image of the graph I hope will help convey that point. The other image I used was of a handgun made out of words that were the pros ad cons of gun control. Gun control is a hot topic today in the US, so I needed to include it in my article and I thought that this picture perfectly conveyed the two side of the argument.
11. When I first started writing the biggest challenge for me was figuring out how to start. I had a lot of information from my research, so I needed to figure out a way to present it in a manner that made sense and flowed. The one thing that helped me the most with my organization, as I said earlier was the scrambled draft. This is because I was able to see how someone else thought I should order my paragraphs, which ended up being relatively different than how I had originally ordered them and I liked the new order a lot better, it was much more organized.
12. I used hyperlinks to the articles that I found to be the most interesting and that I thought readers would benefit too from reading. I think that the articles give another perspective, for example, Michael Morell’s article, he was a military intelligence officer, so I think reading about how he views the situation from the point of view of someone who has dealt with these threats first hand is very beneficial for readers. I also hyperlinked the URL for the interview with psychologist Arie Kruglanski, because I that article went into great depth that I honestly just didn’t have room to go into in my article, given the word count limit.
13. I made sure that all the grammar in my article was perfect. Also, I edited t=it to make sure, one that I didn’t have any run on sentences where I was just going on and on and giving the reader too much information at once. Second, I wanted to make sure that none of my paragraphs were too long, since this is a magazine article, the paragraphs need to be as short and concise as possible without losing any details along the way.

A sprinkle of rain won’t cause a puddle, however persistent rain will flood the land. Why can’t individual gun safety work the same?

Americans have always prided themselves on their right to bear arms, however many Americans feel that this right is under attack from gun regulations and limitations. However when you take a step back and look at the statistics on gun violence in this country, it is clear that America is messing something up. The united states is the leading country for gun related fatalities and injuries in the world. Many of these deaths are children under the age of 12. It can be argued that Americans are shooting themselves in the foot by resisting, heavily I may add, reasonable gun regulations to help prevent crime involving firearms as well as gun related fatalities. What gun regulations can be or have been implemented and are effective? Who is resisting these regulations and why? Is regulation worth seeking, or are we too stubborn? Will this problem continue to get worse in the future? How can people as individuals address this problem?

According to the Gun Violence Archive there has been over 15,000 incidents involving firearms across the United States so far for the year of 2016. The Gun Violence Archive “is a not for profit corporation formed in 2013 to provide free online public access to accurate information about gun-related violence in the United States. GVA will collect and check for accuracy, comprehensive information about gun-related violence in the U.S. and then post and disseminate it online” (GVA). This is alarming considering it has only been 4 months into the New Year. As a result of these incidents there have been over 3,876 deaths and 7,822 injuries. As of right now the United States is headed down the same track that it has over the past decade, with each year growing far worse than the previous. Is there nothing that Americans can do to help prevent further gun violence as a nation?

The question isn’t what can we get the government to do in order to fix this problem for us, with that state of mind we will continue to head down the same track as the previous decade. The question that Americans as individuals should be asking is, what can I do to make my home a safer place for my family and those that live around me? For the families that own a firearm, they should be asking themselves how can I keep this out of the hands of people I don’t want to touch it?, as well as is my family well informed on how to operate a firearm safely? People who do not own firearms still play a key role in the regulation and safety of firearms, even if you don’t realize it. Staying well informed on how to handle and respond to a workplace shooter, or reporting a firearm on the street can help save lives from unnecessary gun violence.

Some may say that government regulation of what firearm we can and cannot own, as well as the regulation of people who can buy the firearms, is a violation of their constitutional right to bear arms. However how can you argue that the government is abusing their power by regulating firearms, when it is clear that there is a lack of regulations? According to Kate Masters “For nearly two decades, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention has devoted scant resources to the study of gun violence, even as fatal shootings constitute a public health issue claiming more than 30,000 lives each year.” This is unacceptable considering the CDC has a multibillion dollar budget, of almost $11 billion, which should be dedicated to researching ways to prevent threats to the public health and safety. “Instead, they say, senior CDC brass made the conscious choice to restrict gun research, rather than risk political retribution…Right now, there is nothing stopping them from addressing this life-and-death national problem”(Masters). It is astounding that a government agency whose main purpose is to prevent threats toward the safety and health of the general public, would rather let the threat continue unhindered rather than face political outcry and potentially address a serious national health crisis. This lack of interest from the CDC in the study of gun violence “has greatly inhibited the ability of social scientists, law enforcement agencies, and policymakers to understand the scope and causes of shootings — while also limiting understanding of interventions that might save lives.” It is clear that political scorns and discontent is more severe than the threats to the health and safety of Americans. Either that or the government does not recognize that the United States has a serious gun violence issue, considering it is the highest rated country for gun violence among 23 other high income countries accounting for over 82 percent of all gun related deaths among all 23 countries.

 

So you may ask yourself now, Why don’t the people put pressure on politicians in order to make things happen politically?

According to the International poll of 1,384 people done by Yale University researchers Benjamin Miller and Peter Aronow most Americans support stricter gun ‘laws, estimating about 53 percent of Americans supporting stricter gun regulations. Whereas “41 percent believe the federal government already requires universal background checks for gun purchases. There is no such law, and Aronow and Miller believe that the misconception could be reducing pressure on politicians to pass stricter gun laws” (Masters). Miller also goes on to say that people are more likely to base their decision on voting on gun regulations based off their idea of fair gun regulation or their misinformed idea of current gun laws. However, it goes to show that a majority of Americans are misinformed about gun laws and regulations that are currently in place. So, this is where we can fill in the “activism gap” that Miller addresses. If Americans take the time to become informed about current gun laws in their state, without even knowing it they are contributing to a national effort. This is a perfect way for individuals who are not comfortable being activists to contribute to addressing a public health issue. Miller goes on to say “We’re thinking of running an experiment where we inform subjects about the current laws that background checks aren’t required for gun sales at gun shows or over the Internet and see whether that shifts people’s positions on stricter gun laws”(Masters). Hopefully this future national survey will shed some light on the degree in which Americans are misinformed about gun policies in this nation.

 

Now, to put things in perspective, gun violence doesn’t just consist of homicides involving firearms, it also includes a large number of teen suicides and child related deaths and injuries according to the Gun Violence Archive and Jennifer Mascia’s article on TheTrace.org. Mascia highlights 15 statistics that help portray gun violence in America over the course of a year. These statistics are honestly shocking and certainly need to be addressed as soon as possible, either by regulation by the government or by the people. In 2015 the amount of gun related deaths surpassed the amount of deaths caused by motor vehicles. “While motor vehicles have been getting progressively safer, guns have killed people at a consistent clip over the past 15 years” (Mascia).

A key reason for this is the use of a firearm as a method of suicide as well as the increase in the amount of firearms available in circulation as Mascia points out in her article. The increased amount of weapons in circulation are easily available to the public makes it easy for anyone to buy a firearm, making this firearm easily available for use in crime and for suicide. Now don’t get me wrong, I am not saying we should make it impossible to buy firearms, I’m saying we should just know who we are selling the weapon to before we sell it to them. Crime is a matter in which the police should handle and the government should prevent and unfortunately is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to gun violence in the United States.

“At a rate of more than twice a day, someone under 18 has been shot and killed” (Mascia), Totaling at least 756 teens and children killed by firearms. Out of the 756 children killed by guns about 75 percent of these children have been under the age of 12. In 2015 there was a recorded 330 mass shootings, shootings in which four or more people are injured or killed, reported in the United States. Everyone remember the impact the Sandy Hook Elementary shooting had on the victim’s families and friends but also the impact it had on politicians, who immediately after began drawing attention towards gun control, or the lack there of, in our country. However it is sad to say that these mass shootings only account for “less than 2 percent of the annual gun deaths” (Mascia).

So this means that the majority of the children killed over the last year were not done in a mass shooting. Now, this is a serious problem. An incredible amount of small firearm related incidents that did not cause a national uproar are beginning to cause the start of a national health crisis as if they were never noticed. It is sad to think that politicians and the people themselves aren’t willing to take safety into their own hands to help prevent unintentional shootings, in order to allow a stronger focus on the criminal aspect of gun violence for law enforcement agencies. Instead it seems we, as a nation, only become activists when a tragedy occurs. However I though the whole point of gun regulations were to prevent further mass shootings and to help save lives.

How Can Gun owners prevent Child related injuries?

A lot of gun owners argue that locking up their guns in a vault is a hassle and prevents them from having quick access to their firearm during the event of an emergency. And as a result gun vaults often get left unlocked or the firearm remains in the open, easily accessible to anyone even children. Many pistol owners like to keep their firearm stored in a drawer or somewhere they can easily reach. Again this provides the same issue of easy access for children and people who you don’t want to have access when you aren’t around. Both of these situations can be fixed by buying a quick access rifle safe or handgun safe. Both of these gun safes are available on amazon.com for reasonable prices. The best way to prevent a gun related tragedy in your home is to make sure your firearms are secured, with their safeties on, and out of reach from young children. Another precaution as I said earlier is to keep your family informed about firearm safety, and to make sure children know that guns are not toys.

We can prevent another tragedy if we work together as a nation, a little bit of effort from a lot of people goes a long way and can save lives. We can stop America’s gun problem and make it a safer place. It is all up to us as individuals to contribute to stopping gun violence and begin treating it as a public health issue.

Sources:

http://www.gunviolencearchive.org/

http://www.thetrace.org/2015/12/gun-violence-stats-2015/

http://www.thetrace.org/2016/02/41-percent-americans-wrong-background-checks-guns/

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1764757417/FF309D10D99435CPQ/6?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1708138127/FF309D10D99435CPQ/3?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/1733934473/FF309D10D99435CPQ/1?accountid=14214

http://search.proquest.com/docview/465835734/AC1F14CBFD1E4F91PQ/2?accountid=14214

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/13/us/lumberton-nc-store-shooting-manal-abdelaziz.html

http://library.cqpress.com/cqresearcher/getpdf.php?id=cqresrre2013030800

 

 

 

 

WRT 205/Spring 2016                                                                     Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

 

[1]  How well does the title provocatively focus the reader’s attention, as well as the lede? Is it thoughtful, creative, clever? Does it lead the reader into the text and provide some insight into the issue?

1. I think that my title catches the eye of the reader because I feel that the title gives off a sense of urgency or being important. I thought my lede was creative and caught the readers attention by making them think. I also think my lede was simple yet efficient. I believe that my lede lets the reader know what my stance on this argument is and where my article is going to go.

 

[2]  How well does the introductory section of the article invite the reader into the paper, as well as offer up exigency?  How does it locate a problem or controversy within a context that provides background and rationale?

1. Well my introductory paragraph invites the reader by talking about Americans and what they pride themselves on, the right to bear arms. However I then go on to say that we are too sensitive about this right and need to be able to compromise in order to keep everyone safe. My intro provides the idea that guns and gun violence are a national health crisis. I believe that by using “health crisis” provides an extreme sense of exigency.

 

[3] How well does the writer offer up a strong ‘idea’ that requires analysis to support and evolve it, as well as offers some point about the significance of evidence that would not have been immediately obvious to readers.?

1. I used statistics and collected data in order to help drive my argument further in my article. I tried not to use people’s already stated opinion on the subject, rather I used numbers and primary data to show the correlation between the numbers and our society. I believe that this puts a greater significance on the information being provided to the reader.

 

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics?

1. I believe that my thought process during the composition of this article was pretty clear and straight forward. Although I do think that my paragraphs are a big lengthy for an average NYT article. Although I used some images that were used in my TED talk, I believe that they were used correctly in order to help drive my point across.

 

[5]  How well does the writer recognize that a NYTs Magazine audience will challenge ideas that are overgeneralized or underdeveloped or poorly explained? (that is, did the writer avoid cliché and vagueness or address points/issues readers are likely to have?)  How well did the writer decide about how to develop, sequence, and organize material?

1. I tried to avoid using generalizations that could be argued against, and I tried not to be too vague when addressing statistics and sources. I organized my material in a way that got increasingly more revealing and had a little more importance the more I wrote. Basically the more I wrote the more exigent the material became.

 

[6]  How well does the writer research a controversy, develop a persuasive stance, utilize research about the topic,  and join the ‘debate’ by making an argument of importance?

1. I believe that I researched my controversy quite well because I was able to look over 3 years’ worth of gun violence statistics taken straight from police records as well as government agencies. I was also able to look at politicians responses to mass shootings followed by their views and actions towards gun control.

 

 

[7]  How well does the writer meet or exceed research expectations of assignment requirements (6 appropriate secondary sources, 1 visual source, (or more) and primary research? ).

1. I had used over 8 sources for this article, many which were from proquest or JSTOR. In addition to the primary sources that I used, I used many news websites, as well as a visual source.

 

[8]  How well does the writer integrate secondary and primary sources (that support and complicate the topic) effectively into the text, introducing and contextualizing them, and “conversing” (i.e. no drop-quoting) in ways that deepen and complicate the analysis?

1. I believe that I was able to use my sources in a way that gave them a deeper importance towards my topic. I didn’t take quotes and rearrange them to fit my argument. I used information that supported one another in order to help drive a point across. I would use a quote and not explain why it was important to my article.

 

[9 How well does the writer persuade an audience to consider claims made from a particular position of authority on which you have built your research?  How strong and effective is the writer’s use of rhetorical tools (ethos, logos, pathos)?

1. I believe that my ability to persuade the audience to see the argument my way was pretty successful. I believe that I was able to give off the impression that America is experiencing a gun control crisis and that it needed to be addressed relatively soon. I also believe that I had a very strong sense of exigency as well as ethos in my article.

 

 

[10] How well does the writer select appropriate, interesting, revealing visual?  Has the writer placed a visual strategically in the essay and provided relevant commentary on and/or analysis of them?  Do the visuals contribute to the essay in meaningful ways (i.e. would the essay be affected if the writer took the visual away)?

1. I tried adding visuals after long portions of text, in order to provide my reader with a break from reading long paragraphs. However I do think that my placement of visuals with the appropriate relating paragraphs helps drive my point further to the audience. I believe that my visuals help the reader truly understand and see the significance behind the gun violence statistics that are being provided in the article.

 

 

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments?

1. I believe that my drafts have come a long way since the very first draft I wrote. Initially I don’t think that I had much of a vision towards where I was headed with my article. However the more I wrote and the more drafts that I came up with the more and more I knew where I was going and how to go about addressing the audience. I believe that thein class workshops were very beneficial.

 

[12]  How well does the writer use hyperlinks—are they effective/appropriate?

1. I use multiple hyperlink in my article in order to provide the reader with links to relevant, important information about gun violence in the U.S. I also provide hyperlinks to objects that are available for purchase, as well as any interesting ideas the reader may not have any background knowledge on. I also hyperlinked most of my sources.

 

[13]  How well did the writer edit for grammar, style, and usage effectively? Does the writer’s attention to sentence level issues help him/her establish authority or credibility on the issue?

1. I spelled checked and read my article out loud on multiple occasions. I also tried to keep the article in a continuous flow of ideas that related and built off of one another instead of introducing totally new unrelated topics consecutively. I believe that my sources and article appear and sound very credible.

 

 

 

 

 

The struggling state of cyberspace in the United States

by: Ted Tambone

Cyberspace privacy and security are becoming an increasing issue as the internet is growing at extreme speeds and more and more of our private information is being moved into cyberspace. However, as its growing and growing, almost nothing is being done in regards to rules and regulation in order to properly manage cyberspace. On top of this hackers are becoming more and more relevant and better at what they do, yet people still struggle with making sure they are accessing the web safely and securely.

The United States government has been struggling with a legal basis regarding cyber privacy as much of the current laws were made in 1947 with the National Security act. That was over half a century ago when computers didn’t even exist and the thought of portable phones wasn’t even in people’s minds. Making the laws created back then struggle to relate to todays internet crazy and driven times. Its tough to pinpoint exactly where the government stands and does regarding internet privacy as everything is done behind closed doors. However, a lot of information was leaked by Edward Snowden about the NSA (National Security Agency) back in 2014. Including creations of backdoors in security technologies, hacking into people’s private accounts and even producing their own viruses and malware to be put on private computers. The creation of backdoors isn’t a one-time thing either. It was recently in the news again in the last few months as the FBI wanted Apple to create a backdoor in all iPhone in order for the FBI to enter the phone of the San Bernardino shooters. This would however allow them access to basically every iPhone that they got their hands on and also would lower the security in all of the millions of iPhone in circulation. It ended up going to court but before any decision was made the FBI said “never mind” as they found their own way into the iPhone. So this creation of a backdoor for their own use is a trend that they tend to have and needs to be stopped.

Now one of the biggest issues with the current state of cyberspace privacy with the United States government is that there is absolutely no transparency. What the NSA and FBI are doing is completely done behind closed doors. This means that the general public and everyone not directly involved in the surveillance, is mostly making educated guesses with nothing more accurate. It makes it difficult to pinpoint exactly where the government stands with this issue and exactly what they are doing. There are arguments on both side about how effective transparency would be and if it would effect the United States national security in a negative way. I would argue that transparency wouldn’t mean that the exact specifics of what they do is released and publically known information. But rather we know on a broader level what they are doing. This would allow the general public to more easily gauge if they believe what the government is doing is right or not without threatening to lower the effectiveness of our national security. As there is no question that the NSA and FBI are doing their job as for example, all suspects in the Brussels attack recently were already on the United States no fly list. Showing that the current state is at least doing its job when it comes to national security

Now there is no doubt that the current program that is in place by the NSA and the FBI works in terms of national security. For example there is an article by International Business Times, that is titled “The four times NSA surveillance programs stopped an attack.” Each of the four given examples stopped the potential of some large bombing plots throughout major cities in the United States, including New York City. These being four of the fifty that are claimed to be thwarted by the director of the National Security Agency. So there is no doubt at all that at least they are doing their job at least when it comes to national security. But are they doing it the most effective and best way?

My argument is simple, transparency. That is the only thing that is missing with how the NSA is being run at this moment. It is ridiculous to think that in order for the public to be aware of what the NSA is doing, someone has to be a “whistleblower” and go into hiding in order for information to become available. The government would be able to hide information that if it became transparent would compromise their effectiveness with fighting national security and make sure just to relay information that would allow the public to have a better understanding of what they are doing and what they have access too.

On top of the issue of internet privacy, security is also becoming more and more prevalent as the internet continues to grow. There are “more than 1.6 billion social network users worldwide with more than 64% of internet users accessing social media services online.” More and more people are beginning to not only use the internet but post private information and pictures, increasing the need for security in order to hopefully deter hackers. It was reported by Heimdal Security that 99% of computers are vulnerable to hackers being able to take full control of the user’s computer. That means that the issue isn’t just with new users of the internet but even experienced internet users are most likely not taking the proper precautions in order to make sure that their computers and private information that it contains are safe from potential hackers and other security threats. Without changes being made on a large scale then the issue will just continue to rise.

The government does little to help with cyber security, another rising issue regarding cyberspace that needs to garner more attention. Some statistics that show how prevalent of an issue is is becoming, specifically with businesses in the United States are from the Bureau of Labor who gathers their own data. The stats that I am using is in regards to an Information Security Analysts which is an occupation that “plan and carry out security measures to protect an organization’s computer networks and systems. Their responsibilities are continually expanding as the number of cyber attacks increases.” According to their data the occupation is growing at a rate of 18% which is significantly faster than the average occupation according to them. The quick rate that the occupation is growing shows the rise in demand as cyber attacks become more common and costly. Another statistic that backs this up is the median pay which is $88,890 per year. The average median pay of all occupations is $35,540 which shows how willingly companies are to pay these workers and how important they are to the companies that hire them. On top of this a new executive decision is becoming more and more prominent with large companies called a CISO which stands for chief information security officer. This position is relatively new and their main goal is to make sure their information and technology is adequately protected and safe. The stakes are getting high enough when it comes to keeping companies’ information safe that it requires an executive in charge of just that.

Each year there are becoming new ways for hackers to gain information and more attacks that need to be stopped. These include “Headless worms, machine-to-machine attacks, jailbreaking, ghostware and two-faced malware,” That CNBC article estimated that there is going to be 6.8 billion connected devices being used in the 2016 year which is a 30 percent increase from 2015. They believe that it will continue to grow at astonishing rates and hit 20 billion by 2020. These devices are also becoming more and more a part of our daily life’s as they contain our photos, and other personal details including credit card and banking information. The article also brings up the somewhat new technology of “the cloud” which is providing even more risk to the people that utilize it. Stating that it’s a relatively easy way for hackers to take advantage of and gain access to both public and private networks, and along with it all of the information stashed inside. With these new technologies new ways of preventing cyber attacks need to be formed. Hackers are going to be constantly inventing new ways to enter private networks and the cloud and there needs to be a more uniform way in order to stop them.

Technology is evolving at an astonishing rate and with it is comes an increase in cyber attacks. On top of that the situation of cyber privacy in the United States is hidden behind closed doors even though the problem is getting larger and larger. If the issues aren’t addressed by the government then they are going to continue to spiral out of control. The solutions aren’t even that difficult or complicated. All it requires is some transparency with the government and a uniform policy in order to make our cyberspace safer and secure. The ball just needs to get rolling.

Reflection:

1) The title is supposed to give the reader an idea of what the article is about while also sparking their attention. The lede is supposed to convince them that there is a big problem that needs to be addressed and convince the reader to continue reading in order to gain more information on the article.

 

2) In the beginning of my article my main goal was to give brief background on the situation which naturally included how large the current issue is. On top of that I mentioned how nothing is being down as it begins to spiral out of control, making immediate action a necessity.

 

3) I tried and bring in evidence that isn’t the statistics typically brought up in the situation, yet is still able to back up my point. I made sure to analysis these stats to help it back up my argument.

 

4) I organized my article in a relatively simple fashion, only having 4 sections including an introduction and conclusion. I think this helped make it more clear and concise even though it is still a relatively long article.

 

5) I combatted this by having consistent arguments and point throughout that were backed up with statistics and evidence as much as possible. In order to hopefully make it more difficult to refute at all.

 

6) I showed how important the issue is as well as how little is being done. I also gave a few solutions and argued toward their pros and cons to the best of my ability while providing evidence to help support.

 

7) I had a plethora of secondary sources as well as a primary source which was the department of labor who had collected their own statistics that I used to help back up my point. I also included a photo at the beginning representing cyber security to help further draw in the audience.

 

8) The quotes that I used were smoothly placed into my article, if there were no quotations on them it would be tough or even possible to tell that they weren’t my own writing. Which was my main goal when implementing them.

 

9) I used quotes from reputable sources as well as statistics in order to help back up my points sand arguments and to further strengthen them.

 

10) My goal in the visual was to help draw in the audience. It was something that I noticed was very common with articles I saw online and I tried my best to replicate it in my own article.

 

11) My draft and final are very different articles. For example, after the peer evaluations I changed the order of almost all of my paragraphs to make it more clear and concise. I think it helped my article overall in a huge way.

 

12) Hyperlinks are used in order to visit the page of websites that I mentioned in my article.

 

13) I proofread my article multiple times including a few times out loud in order to help make it flow and sounds as fluent as possible.

Hollywood: A Poor Representation of America and its Diversity

By Alana O’Neill

 

To say all races were created equally would be a true statement. However, to say that all races are treated equally would be inaccurate. Throughout American history, it is prevalent that as time goes on, racism has become relatively less severe. This is not, however, to be confused with the assumption that racism no longer exists. It is seen in more subtle forms that can easily be swept under the rug with a bit of smooth talking and playing innocent. Yes, there is no longer the obvious blackface in films anymore, in which white actors would paint their faces black to play people of color. But there are subtle forms of racism that are still alive today, with connotations that seem to mimic aspects of blackface. Blackface was originally used so that people could avoid working with people of color as well as a way to mock harsh stereotypes in a condescending manner. Modern day there is whitewashing. Rather than changing the actor to fit the character, now people change the character to fit the actor.

Of course, manipulating the character is just one example of whitewashing. People can be whitewashed on the set and behind the cameras. People of color get less recognition for their accomplishments in the film industry than their white counterparts, as perfectly exampled in the 88^th Academy Awards.

The Daily Show points out that the only recognition the movie Straight Outta Compton received were two Oscar nominations for their writers. Both of these writers are white. Mind you, this is a movie based on real life events starring black people, about NWA a black gangsta rap group and the adversity they’ve face and their struggle to get to the top. I am not arguing that the writers are undeserving of their nomination, I do think, however, the movie deserved more nominations than just the two for the two white writers.

Personally, I was appalled that this movie was not nominated of an Oscar. I saw Straight Outta Compton when it came out in theaters and not only did the movie make me laugh and cry, but I also had a great time jamming out to the music. Their story moved me and was inspiring, making it insulting that the movie did not receive the recognition I, and many others, believe it deserved. The Oscars did a great job in highlighting the lack of recognition and acknowledgements for black actors, directors, and writers, however they did a poor job in honoring their theme: The lack of diversity in Hollywood.

All people of color can be, and have been whitewashed in the film industry. Sometimes it is subtle and sly, like in The Hunger Games, and sometimes is it far more obvious, Like in Aloha and Gods Of Egypt.

I have read the first Hunger Games book and did not even pick up on the subtle whitewashing at first. I only noticed it existed after doing some research on it. The book describes the protagonist lead role, Katniss Everdeen, as “olive skin, dark hair, and grey eyes.” I then looked up what olive skin tone was, and technically it falls between a four and five on the Fitzpatrick scale (which measures how different skin tones react with ultra-violet light). A four on the scale is described as a person who is, “minimally sun sensitive, burns minimally, and always tans to moderate brown.” With examples being, “Mediterranean type Caucasians and some Hispanics.” A five on the scale can be described as a person who has, “sun insensitive skin, rarely burns, and tans well” while examples being, “some Hispanics and some blacks.”

Regardless of a person’s interpretation of what “olive skin” is, it is evident that Katniss is racially ambiguous.    The whitewashing occurred, however, behind the scenes during the casting call. The director, Gary Ross, called for “…Caucasian, between ages 15 and 20…”

This completely closed the door on any actress of color from even being considered. The controversial topic arose of whether Jennifer Lawrence should have been casted and if she’s even deserving of the part. The lack of the opportunity for diversity has nothing to do with Jennifer Lawrence and it is important that people understand this. She very well could have still been picked to play Everdeen even with a casting call including minorities and darker skinned women. This is about how the book opened the door for a minority actress to be in a strong female role and the door was abruptly closed before even giving anyone a chance.

Many young women were excited to finally have a person of color as the strong lead female role in a movie where the character is pretty hardcore. With the lack of this type of attention towards people of color in a leading role, it becomes easy to understand why this book was somewhat a sigh of relief for the young women of color; the book made them hopeful.

The popularity of the series would have been a great opportunity to promote a minority for the lead role. Whether motives for the unfair casting call were driven by money or by favoritism (or both), people of color clearly were not given an equal chance. A beautiful opportunity was presented to go against Hollywood norms and give the role of a very popular series to a woman of color, and the fact that this was not even considered screams that there is a problem within the industry.

I also took the time to watch Aloha to see some whitewashing firsthand. I’ve first heard of the movie because of the negative comments it has received about the director’s casting decisions. I found it very odd to see Emma Stone (a white actress with blonde hair and light eyes) play a mixed character. In the movie, she even talks about her racial background, which was another red flag to me. The director knew the character was part Hawaiian and part Asian and doesn’t even manipulate the plot in order to cast this white actress. He rubs it in the audiences’ faces (at least that’s how I felt) that the character is mixed but that he doesn’t give a care in the world to cast a mixed actress. At least in some instances of whitewashing, which I will touch on later, the director manipulates the tone of the film to make it more white and Eurocentric, thereby “justifying” the direction to cast a white actor where he/she may not belong. In the movie, Allison Ng says that her father is half Hawaiian and half Asian while her mother is of Swedish decent. Apparently in director Cameron Crowe’s eyes, being half white is enough of a reason to cast a fully white actress. Being half white makes it okay to ignore the colored half of the character.

Another form of whitewashing involves a different type of manipulation. Sometimes directors alter the plot or the character to make the movie fit more of that white, Eurocentric template. An example of this is the movie Lincoln. This movie is highly disputed because the whitewashing is much less evident than in any of the other examples. Some people feel that the director, Steven Spielberg, didn’t accurately capture the essence of the real-life event.

Lincoln is a movie about the emancipation of the slaves in America. History shows that freedom for people of color was a collaborative effort between free and enslaved black people along with white people. The movie seems to portray the white characters as too much of a “hero” type role; as if black people were helpless and were waiting for the heroic white men to swoop in and save them. The movie does not seem to honor the hard work from BOTH races to make America free for all, which is where the controversy lies. Corey Robin, a political theorist, journalist, and professor, sums it up perfectly. He states, “Emancipation was not a white man’s affair. It was a multiracial affair, in which blacks, slave and free, played a central role. Spielberg and Kushner are not being faithful to the historical record; they are distorting it. Not by lying but by constructing the field glasses through which they would have us look at, and misperceive, the past.”

This is a very subtle form of whitewashing being that the movie, in a sense, is tailoring to the white folk. I, along with many others, am not saying white people did not play a huge role in the emancipation of slaves, I am saying that they were not the ONLY people to play a huge role.

It is very clear that whitewashing exists in Hollywood, but why? Some people claim that this issue is not race driven, but money driven. Directors feel obligated to hire the big name white actors in order to generate the most profit on their films.

Tailoring to the white majority seems to be the route many directors and writers take, because if the majority of the people are watching, the more money the film will make. While this makes sense, it also saddens me because this seems like a difficult rut for the film industry and film viewers to escape from. There is a huge lack of representation of minority groups because there is much more money in representing the white majority. It makes it difficult for me to imagine, at least in the near future, Hollywood providing equal opportunity for all races. I understand that movies are a lot of work and directors may be put in a tough situation on whether to stay morally accurate to the races of the characters or to reward all the hard work of everyone involved with the movie by doing his/her best to make as much money as possible and get the movie as much recognition as possible.

This is where the public comes into play. The issue of whitewashing in Hollywood does not solely put the blame on the film industry; viewers have a stake in this issue as well. Hollywood seems to be money driven, so to change the lack of diversity, the majority of viewers have to pay more attention to race representation and unjust actions by filmmakers.

 

If the majority makes it clear they will not accept whitewashing in Hollywood, I believe Hollywood will stop whitewashing.

 

 

Reflection:

WRT 205/Spring 2016                                                                                Grading Rubric: Unit III NYTs Magazine

 

[1] I think the title encompasses everything I talk about in the article. It starts with Hollywood, which represents the film industry, and goes on to mention how Hollywood’s vision is so skewed about the diversity America encompasses. And Hollywood is so popular and so well known by everyone that it’s shocking that there is such an issue that continues to happen in modern day film.

 

[2] I think my introductory section tends to meander a little. That was the part I struggled with the most. I talk about the issue and give historical background about how racism in the film and theater industry evolved as well as the connotations behind such actions, like when I mentioned blackface. However, I don’t specifically mention Hollywood, but my thought process was that the title took care of that, since it clearly states that I will be talking about Hollywood. I think I could have had a stronger element to invite the reader in. I think it offers up exigency because I state that whitewashing exists modern day.

 

[3] I think I offer up a strong idea well because I explicitly state that whitewashing is racist, without a doubt in the reader’s mind that I think otherwise. However, most people don’t see it as racism. I then immediately go into examples that explain in further detail why whitewashing is racist. When I had peers review my writing during unit II, the most frequent comment I got was that people had no idea whitewashing was actually going on, it its very clear once it was pointed out. I pulled examples from the 88^th Academy Awards, Straight Outta Compton, The Hunger Games, Lincoln, and Aloha. All of these examples are current, which also shows that this is an issue that not only has bee occurring since film and theater started, but still occurs today.

 

[4] I struggled a bit with style at first because usually I tend to have a very formal writing style, but I tried to sound like I was talking when I was writing. As if it would sound natural like if I were speaking to a peer through my writing. I think I was unique in the piece because I incorporated a lot of first-hand examples from watching the movies Aloha and Straight Outta Compton and reading the Hunger Games and watching the Oscars. Having these examples allowed me to express how I felt from seeing these first-hand and I clearly stated, like in the Straight Outta Compton paragraph, how each piece influenced me. I was also able to share how my opinions, feelings and experiences, mimicked or differed from that of other people. I also pulled from history when I talked about blackface and the movie Lincoln.

 

[5] I think I recognized that well and did a good job to avoid being vague. I went into depth explaining how each example showed racism, even the ones that were very subtle and hard to detect. I also think that many people aren’t fully aware about how many racist connotations exist in modern day Hollywood, so many of the points I made are new thought and make it difficult to challenge without extensive knowledge of the subject. Also during my research, I looked up both sides of argument and formulated a counter argument to null the one that justifies whitewashing. For example, a reason that many people say whitewashing isn’t racist is because it directly has to do with money, rather than favoritism. I countered this by talking about how that proves that this still has to do with racism because the amount of money that a film makes should have nothing to do with the race of the actor. The movie should honor the true race of the characters without having to feel like they are putting their profit in jeopardy.

 

[6] I researched well and understood arguments from both sides of the argument that way it allowed me to strengthen my argument better. By understanding both, it allowed me to come up with ways to disprove the counter argument. I incorporated a lot of research as well as a lot of primary sources, being that they were very easy to acquire. I then added my own opinion to these sources I’ve read. I have also learned a lot about subtle racism throughout the whole process which I didn’t know existed which, I believe aided in having a tone in my argument because I was appalled to learn that all of this was still going on modern day. From what I learned about whitewashing, I was able to notice the subtle racism and oddness when I watched Aloha that I know I would not have noticed before the research. I explain in the article that I found it very odd that a white woman was playing a character and the character explicitly explains her racial background of being mixed when the person playing her is not mixed at all.

 

 

[7] I definitely exceed the requirements for research because all of unit two I used secondary resources to formulate my argument so all of my initial ideas came from that ( and there were about 7 secondary sources I used for that) and obtaining primary resource was very easy for me and I have actually had primary knowledge before even starting the assignment. I saw Straight Outta Compton when it came out in 2015 and read the first Hunger Games book in High School. After the assignment I also watched Aloha. I also incorporated a lot of visuals in the piece, being that this topic seemed like it was a necessity to have pictures. The “olive skin” portion definitely needed a visual to show what the technical color “olive skin” looks like according to the established Fitzpatrick scale.

 

 

[8] I think I integrated the sources well being that it seems like I incorporate them seamlessly. The first source I use is in the introductory paragraph where I talk about blackface and what that was used for in early film and theater then for the rest of the piece I incorporate ideas a formulated myself through primary research as well as the ideas I researched on line. I also talk about how the online ideas influenced my thinking process. I think it complicated the analysis because it shows how racist Hollywood can be even though people claim it is just driven by money.

 

 

[9] I think I do a decent job in building my research because nothing I have talked about lacked support from many other people I have researched. Ethos: I believe I sound credible being that I use a lot of first hand experiences backed up with the experiences and words of experts. Logos: I believe that my piece makes sense being that it is very easy to see whitewashing by simply looking at pictures. And I think that the whitewashing that is subtler, I do a decent job of explaining, like the Hunger Games example. Pathos: I tried to evoke emotion for the reader through my writing, I think I sounded very passionate while doing so. I was debating on whether I should explain how I am a minority and how that could make me seem more passionate about the injustice that is occurring in Hollywood but I opted out because I actually believed that would be counter effective. Many minorities represent their own racial group already and there is still little to no change. Plus, I am writing a piece that shows how Hollywood is corrupt, so no matter who says it, it is true that Hollywood whitewashes. It doesn’t matter my race, the point is not what race is speaking about what race. The point is that a person is speaking about the issue.

 

[10] Yes, I believe I use appropriate visuals because, especially with my topic, visuals are important in allowing the reader to fully understand. I describe the type of character in a movie, and then show the actor playing that part. I feel like I needed a visual in the paragraph about Aloha because people may not know who Emma stone is. One of the best visuals in the piece is the Fitzpatrick scale because it actually gives examples of celebrities who have an olive skin tone. Even though olive skin is ambiguous, if the director were staying true to the context of the book, he would’ve at least considered an actress that looks like the ones I pictured. I also put a visual at the end that I think ties everything together. It’s a chart that shows the distribution of whites and minorities is the film industry both in front of, and behind the camera.

 

 

[11] I showed development because in my first couple drafts my introductory paragraph was much worse, I had the ideas all there but I placed it terribly and didn’t do a good job explaining how whitewashing has similar connotations to blackface. It kind of felt forced in the piece in my original draft and it lacked proper flow. I also realized from the paragraph scrambling that all the paragraphs that I talk about different examples could easily be interchanged. So for the final piece I went back in and tried to tie the end of one paragraph to the beginning of the next one. For example, I mention in the paragraph about Aloha that there are times in which the director manipulates the plot of the character to justify their actions to picking the actor or telling a story a certain way, then I immediately talk about Lincoln in which Spielberg does just that.

 

[12] Yes they are effective and appropriate because I use them to show that something I am talking about can go into further detail. However, explaining this detail myself wouldn’t fit into my article being that it would sound too much like a tangent or it strayed from my initial topic too much. I think the information is appropriate and those who want to know more about the topic in depth have to option to click the hyperlink.

 

[13] I proofread and believe I didn’t make any grammar or spelling errors. I have a tendency to make run-on sentences as well so I went back are tried to edit those as well. I am happy with the final product and think all my sentences are an appropriate length.

Is North Korea a Threat to the World?

By. Inae Lee

Recently, the UN has voted to toughen the sanctions towards North Korea, who has been testing nuclear bombs and ballistic missiles. This issue may not be the most ‘hot issue’ for people from other countries, but as a South Korean, it was a pretty important news.

Although, North Korea is the neighboring country and used to be the same nation, South Korea is being threatened and attacked by North Korea. Soldiers who stands near the peninsula always have to be in between tensions, because there have been frequent attacks including shooting a missile on to a near island or attacking the military base and one of threats almost led into a war.

Because US is too far for North Korea to attack or may be was not an easy target for them, US has not experienced any physical attack such as missile or a bomb from North Korea, yet, they have threatened US many times with words.

Threatening other countries could be just seen as them trying to do their ‘communist’ thing, but since few years ago, their threat does not seem as simple as it was before.

When South Korea and US thought North Korea’s claim in owning and developing a nuclear bomb was a ‘bluffing’, witnessing their practice in nuclear bombing has alarmed us. Also, the fact that “North Korea, which had always referred to its nuclear weapons as a deterrent, has increasingly talked about a preemptive strike” is one of the reasons why US and other countries have to take their threat seriously.

Considering the numbers of North Korea’s threats are increasing and  getting more aggressive, it is becoming beyond the problem just between the North and South Korea. I should start by telling how and why North Korea has become every country’s problem.

North Korea has created after the Korean War ‘ended’ in 1953. The Korean War was a fight between the communist and the democrat. The communist, China and Russia had the Northern part of Korea and the democrat; US had the Southern part of Korea. While the war has been going on for three years and when it still did not seem to end, they decided to pause the war by dividing the Korea into two, north and south. While right after the division, North was more developed than the South, but when south started to grow rapidly and won over North Korea’s economy so easily, north felt threatened. This is when North started in trying to prove their power by using violence and threats. Their action seems like a child of a family who tries to get mom’s attention by getting into troubles.

Despite of North Korea’s negative behaviors, because South wants to reach out hands to North for a union, South have provided them grains, money and other resources. However, instead of giving out the resources to their citizens, the government has sold them and used the money to invest on their nuclear project and producing other weapons.

The big question many people are most interest in is “Is North Korea really a threat to us (the world)?” The possible answer is they could become one if we do not take them seriously. Even though they seem isolated from the world and not that strong, they have been trying their best to develop on their military. The government does not spend their money on their people, which they should considering in their enormous gap between the rich and the poor. Instead, they used their money on investing their weapons.

With their effort, they actually have made some powerful weapons including nuclear weapons and missiles. As a result, North Korea’s military has become “the fifth-largest military in the world, trailing only China, the US, Russia and India. It is well trained, disciplined and motivated.” This is a very surprising and unusual statistic that could come from a country with just 1% of GDP growth rate.

People say they would not use those weapons easily, because it is also suicidal for them. The spokesman, George Little has added “North Korea will achieve nothing by threats or provocations which will only further isolate North Korea.” However, looking back at their unpredictable actions, we cannot just sit and watch them making more weapons.

In order to get an idea of how much aggressive their threats are becoming, we have to compare threats they have done so far.

• April 15, 1969: North Korea downs a U.S. Navy EC-121 spy plane, killing 31 Americans
• October 9, 1983: North Korean agents try to assassinate South Korean President.
• January 2002: President Bush includes North Korea in the “axis of evil” in his State of the Union address.
• October 2002: North Korea admits it has carried out a secret nuclear weapons development program.

In the early 20’s, US only had to get involved with North Korea in protecting South Korea from all the threats. However, in the late 20’s, when the Kim Jong-un has became the new leader, after his father’s death, was when the actual troubles began.(https://www.rt.com/news/north-korea-threats-timeline-108/)

• December 2011: Kim Jong-il died and his son Kim Jong-un was named his successor.
• August 2012: North Korea announced to had developed ballistic missiles capable of reaching the US mainland.
• February 2013: They conducted its third nuclear test and threated to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike against South Korea and the US.
• December 2014: North Korea lambasts US over ‘The Interview’, says Obama is the ‘culprit’.
• March 2016: North Korea launches an undersea missile after the harshest sanction from the UN

As seem from the timeline, the level of aggressiveness and the number of threats have dramatically increased since last few years. Also, their method of threats has broadened its spectrum by hacking into other’s system, such as SONY entertainment due to the movie “The interview” . This is why the sanctions on North Korea is getting harsher.

The first sanction started in 2006, to prohibit North Korea from “conducting future nuclear tests or launching a ballistic missile”. UNSCR banned a range of imports and exports to North Korean. Next sanctions became harsher such as completely banning all imports and exports of weapons, new financial sanctions targeted blocking the access of the Kim regime to bulk cash transfers. Then, the harshest sanction has declared in 2016, which included the financial sanctions, freezing economic resources located outside North Korea owned.

The reason why sanctions on North Korea is getting harsher is because sanction did not seem to work on stopping North Korea from practicing nuclear tests and launching missiles to other countries. Now, declaring sanctions on North Korea even started to  seem pointless after seeing how ignorant they are about the sanctions and doing whatever they please.

For the most recent example, North Korea has launched an under-sea missile right after UN has declared the harshest sanction on them. Taking away North Korea’s advantage every time they have done a threatening action does not seem like the most effective way to stop them. I think the most problem about the way UN declares its sanction is the absence of North Korea at the UN sanction conference. Instead of just making more restrictions and report them to North Korea, make the representative of North Korea to be present at the UN sanction conference and make sure they understand them and the consequences.

Since the North Korea is getting stronger and their threat will get more aggressive along the way, not only US and South Korea, but also UN, meaning other countries, has to take some more time on how to solve the relationship between North Korea and the world. Enforcing and limiting advantages of North Korea might not be the greatest way to stop them but it will only make North Korea feel more threatened and anxious.

I hope other countries other than US and South Korea will give more attention in finding a solution to stop North Korea’s threatening actions, because as I have said before, the problem is becoming a global problem. The experts say if North Korea’s threat become a disastrous result, it will be the second Korean War. Considering how powerful the weapons have become since the last Korean War, this would bring the catastrophe to the world, if we do not solve the problem peacefully anytime soon.

 

 

Reference:

• https://www.rt.com/news/north-korea-threats-timeline-108/
• https://www.armscontrol.org/factsheets/UN-Security-Council-Resolutions-on-North-Korea
• Snow, Wayne. “North Korea: Armed and dangerous”, The Atlanta Journal-Constition ; pg.4E. July 27.2003
• “China and the US can and should do more on N Korea”, Gulf Times, February 3, 2013.
• Ryall, Julian; Moore,Malcolm. “US ‘ready’ after North Korea threats increase”. The Daily Telegraph, Edition 1, National Edition, March 27,2013.
• Sengupta,Somini; Choe Sang-hun. “UN Toughens Sanctions on North Korea in Response to Its Nuclear Program” The New York Times, March 2, 2016
• http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/03/world/asia/north-korea-un-sanctions.html
• Field, Anna. “North Korea’s making a lot of threats these days. How worried should we be?” The Washington Post, March 11, 2016
• https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/03/11/north-koreas-making-a-lot-of-threats-these-days-how-worried-should-we-be/

 

Visual Reference:

• http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/15/asia/north-korea-nuclear-program/
• https://www.politicalcartoons.com/cartoon/46202702-cf54-4927-bcb2-666b0b4cb698.html
• https://www.cartoonstock.com/cartoonview.asp?catref=rmgn232

Reflection:

1. I think my title was short and powerful enough to draw reader’s attention. It includes the key point of the magazine article and also enough curiosity to the readers
2. I started by talking about the latest issue related to my topic and relate it to my personal background. People who did not know about the news would be drawn by the introductory paragraph and wonder what the issue is.
3.  I have pertained my tone of warning and seriousness throughout the article by talking about what different threats North Korea have done and how aggressive they have gotten as the time passed by showing the timeline.
4. By keeping the tone of seriousness throughout the article could give reader a clarity of my idea. I am not sure if my article has a uniqueness of presentation except I used the timeline to give easier way for the reader to understand my point.
5. I tried to avoid the vagueness by putting statistical evidence and timely evidence. However, because of the characteristic of my topic ; politic and history, it could seem cliche. I tried to develop my article by starting out with the recent event, then go deeper by stating the actual issue with evidences and end it with my personal opinion and perspective about the issue.
6. The persuasive stance was made by using many sources and showing the historic evidence. I also stated what the UN has been doing about the North Korea such as sanctions and suggested what kind of development could be made. I argued that some more improvement about dealing with North Korea could be made within UN, other than just making sanctions.
7. I used 9 references which includes 3 primary research, 6 secondary sources. Also, there are 3 visual references.
8. I used the sources to make the issue sound more significant by giving the actual statistical evidences and historical evidences.
9. I tried to persuade the readers by showing how weak North Korea was before, and how much they have developed. They are not just a small, powerless country anymore, but stronger than you think. They are not the greatest threat to worry about, but considering their unexpected actions in the past, they could be the one that stabs you in your back.
10. I selected 2 political cartoons for my visuals, which shows the sarcasm and criticism. Other visual includes the quote that North Korea has said towards US. I specifically used this photo to highlight the seriousness and support my evidence.
11. The class workshop about developing my claim has helped a lot to organize my thoughts and find the most strong claim I could think about. Looking at my peers comment about the claim and what else I could include in my article to develop has helped a lot and I actually edited my draft based on those.
12. I have put hyperlinks on the visuals and for the timeline
13. I tried my best to use the right grammar and use bigger words to intensify the article’s idea.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Philip Davoli

Unit 3 reflection

[1] The lede in my paper is provocative, and leaves the reader asking why? It lacks somewhat on cleverness but makes up for it in efficiency.

[2] The intro is something that I’m most proud of.  It gives the historical context of the story, so as to get the reader to care, because its told like a story, and that begs the reader to want to continue.

[3] I took a strong stance in this topic that evolves as the piece continues.  There is no shortage of evidence from which to form an opinion.

[4] Putting it in historical context is the strongest part of this, however, I made compelling arguments and seem pretty convincing.

[5] The piece could have used some pictures and maybe a hyperlink or two, but I think I got the gist of melding an opinion piece with a research piece. (in the style of NYT mag)

[6] I felt after reading this again that the research was in depth, and the reader would have to be devoid of emotions to not feel something after spending a few minute investing in it.

[7] Expectation on research have been met.  I am an expert on the topic now.

[8] I think it might be a little tough to identify the primary source, however, a lot of secondary sources were used.

[9] Given that the research was so thorough, I think the reader would probably read this feeling that the writer was pretty credible.

[10]  The two pictures I used did a great job to capture the readers attention before they read.

[11] This paper certainly progressed through the process.

[12] No hyperlinks in this one

[13] I didn’t fing any mistakes in grammar my last read through.