1. In Unit I this semester I had a lot of trouble trying to working with a few articles at the same time. Trying to incorporate Food Inc., Consumer Reports, Organic Illusions, etc was very difficult to me. Trying to synthesize different texts was the hardest thing we did this semester. If the “Sort it Out” assignment was not given, I would have been extremely lost. Also learning about the writers project helped in all units. We had to find the projects of each food article and see what each author was trying to say but also when we were researching our topic for the next units, we again had to determine what each article was trying to achieve. I really enjoyed the second and third unit projects because it was about something that I was interested in. Unit I was by far the most difficult because of having to synthesis texts.

I thought a highlight of the semester was a few assignments that helped me immensely for each project. I sometimes would be extremely confused on what we were writing about or what we were doing for our final draft and there were a few assignments that made everything clear to me. The “Sort it Out” assignment for unit 1 helped me organize my thoughts. I was able to clearly determine what each project was, find similar topics being discussed in each article, and then find quotes that agreed or contradicted with the same topics.

 

The “web” document for unit II helped me write out everything I wanted to address in my TED talk.

 

 

Lastly, for unit III the last assignment we did in class. When we had to write list out all of your sources and label them as a secondary, primary, or scholarly source. I’m sure I was not the only one but I was very disorganized with all my sources, I had a ton of paperwork from a lot of research and never really put it down on paper the sources I was going to use so this really helped organize me.

 

The challenges I faced this semester were solved a lot by organization. Organizing my thoughts and putting them down on paper especially helped me when synthesizing texts and helped me in unit I, II, and III.

 

2. I had a term paper due two weeks ago in my sports psychology class. We needed three journal sources. My paper was on athletic injuries and MPFL reconstruction surgery. I went on the library database and almost all of my sources were from ProQuest to find scholarly journals about my topic. Without doing the research I had done in this class, I would not of even thought to use the library’s databases. The research we did in writing was different from other research I have done for classes because I would normally just have to get any source for assignments, never a specific source, a primary or secondary source. I didn’t even know the difference between the different types of sources. In writing I had to go onto databases, find databases that had my topic, select key words that would give me the information I needed, but also eliminate the articles I didn’t want. For other classes, I just go on Google and normally use the first few results.   However, because of the research done in writing, I used the databases to find journal sources for my psychology paper.

The main difference I’ve seen for different research writing situation deals with genre. This was shown with the unit II and III assignments. I used some of the same research but it was composed very differently. For my TED talk I took my research and tried to find pictures that best represented the quotes or information I was taking from a source. For unit III, I was able to keep the quotes but also have pictures if I thought it would help get the point across to readers. There was one picture of Brazilian officials spraying mosquitos in my TED talk and it was the only picture I could find. I thought it was easier to describe the picture in a TED talk versus the unit III article. In the TED talk I was able to say, “this picture shows…” and just talk like a normal conversation. In unit III, I placed the picture where I was talking about what Brazilian official are doing about Zika but it still could be unclear as to what’s happening in it.

3. I was not as interested in Food Politics as I was with my social controversy. When we were in Unit I, I believe that we were given all the research and articles we needed to read and watch to come up with our article. Everything that needed to be included was handed to us so no research was really needed. It was completely different in Unit II and III. It was definitely a lot harder and time consuming having to get our own information but it did enhance my engagement on the topic. I would see different opinions and new information coming out about Zika that would I would find very interesting and want to learn more about. Especially being able to pick our own topic, I assume most of us picked a topic we wanted to learn about so that made us engaged when we were doing things for our topic. For unit II when we needed to complete the “Sources that matter” worksheet I was getting very annoyed of research. Having to find six different databases got very tedious. I would find a few articles from two or three databases and think those articles would good enough but having to keep looking was very annoying. Especially because I had trouble finding some databases, it was very time consuming.

I thought the first unit was the longest. It dragged on for so long and not being that interested in food politics compared to the other unit assignments, I was bored with the first unit. It was interesting at first but I got less engaged as the unit continued and got creeped out from food politics and never cooked the raw chicken I had in my freezer.

4. I would continue with my Unit III NYT article. I can see why its weird that I want to continue working with a article that I wrote two days before the final draft was due, but I really think I could add a lot more information if I had time. I would first want to take it to the writing center but I would want to add more insight from athletes. I looked very hard for athletes from other countries opinions on the Zika crisis but I think maybe if I tried going onto websites that other countries use to see other opinions on Zika. My first draft of the essay was about how it’s not fair to women athletes because they are the ones mainly affected by Zika and question if it affects athletes from underdeveloped countries. I think if I had more time I could work that into my final idea that the public can’t try and pressure athletes or backlash them if they choose to not compete in the games. I could incorporate the idea that the public just can’t pressure female athletes to compete. Maybe if I could find fans reactions to Solo’s quote because she is very well known in America and a key component to the defending Olympic champion soccer team. I could tie their reactions into how the public can’t decide if the virus is actually dangerous or not because it’s the athletes that are sacrificing themselves and putting themselves at risk.

 

5. I would want to show my mom my Unit III NYT magazine article. I would want to show my mom because she is a nurse in the wound care center of her hospital. My mom being a nurse and having the maternal instinct, is very careful when it comes to health issues and being protective as a mom. That’s why I want to show her this article because I want to know what she should think athletes should do. My mom loves sports and has always been a huge fan of soccer because I’ve played it all my life. I want to know her reaction after reading the quote form Solo and Musnicki. I know a part of her would be worried for their kids if they contract the virus, but the other part of her wants to see a competitive Olympic games. Because I have played soccer all my life, I would imagine my mom putting myself in one of the female athletes shoes. I would hope my mom would say to go to the Olympics because if I had the chance to compete in the Olympics for the soccer team, I would go no matter what. I respect my parent’s opinion a lot and would need full support from them to compete. I’m curious to see what my mom thinks about competing or not for a daughter of hers, an athlete she doesn’t know personally, or if it was herself. I would want my mom to say yes to all situations. Take in the information we know about Zika and what we can do to prevent it and try as best as you can to try and not contract the disease.

Harrison Hope

Unit 4 Reflection

5/2/2016

Have you ever had a subject that you could cover in your sleep and still get an A? I have, and that subject was not and is still not writing. In high school, my 9^th grade English teacher, Ms. Scoggins, was the most supportive teacher to walk the halls of Chamblee High School. Even though I struggle with articulating my thoughts and attempting to put them down on paper, you could do no wrong in the eyes of Ms. Scoggins. Ever since then I have been able to keep my head up through shitty teacher after shitty teacher until I took writing 105 last year, my first semester of my freshmen year. I barely passed the class due to earning a C minus on multiple papers. Even after visits to the writing center I could not end up on the same page as my teacher in terms of understanding the expectations I needed to meet in order to be more successful in the class. Did this leave me excited to take another writing class my sophomore year? Absolutely not. However, through successful teaching methods, fantastic workshops, and strong support this year, I have begun to look forward to doing research and putting my thoughts and work into words again.

From the get go with Unit 1, I was enthusiastic about researching food politics and watching food Inc. Although I had a strong start and participated in the workshops, the latter end of the unit was a struggle for me; not because of the class but because of poor allocation of time and resources on my end. My favorite portion of unit 1 was watching Food Inc., naturally, but not because we just got to watch TV in class but due to the fact that we had to write down expert quotes and statistics. I am an avid fan of fun facts and random knowledge so having the opportunity to expand my understanding of farming and the food industry’s effect on my everyday life was intriguing. I highly suggest doing that again from a teaching standpoint in the future if given the chance. When it came to the final paper, I rushed to get it done at the last minute which was not only a waste of my time and education but an insult to the teacher as well. In the end though I was able to both identify and apply the art of Pathos, Kairos, Logos, and Ethos along with being able to properly research and cite outside sources.

I consider myself to be a fairly sociable and outgoing so after just squeezing by in Unit 1, Unit 2 was more my piece of cake– Ted Talk Presentations. Contrary to Unit 1, I started off shaky for this unit. When we worked on the Post-It Easel Pads jotting down our topic for discussion I was clueless on what I wanted to research. Although I appreciated the workshop, it was much more helpful for me to just sit at my laptop and start researching on my own, scrolling through pages and pages of potential topics. With categories ranging from domestic violence in the NFL to political campaigns, I was finally able to settle on the topic of Bill H.R. 1013, the bill that decriminalizes marijuana. Once my issue was decided I was able to make a killer PowerPoint presentation to compliment my rehearsed Ted Talk. By mixing in some jokes with factual information, I was able to get back on track in the class by hitting the project out of the park.

Coming off of a hot streak in unit 2, I feel confident that I was able to complete unit 3 to the best of my abilities. For me, the best workshop in this unit was the Scramble draft activity. By having an unbiased proofreader put my paper in order based on how she felt it would flow best, I was able to consider different ways to piece my paragraphs together. In the end I chose to switch up the course that portions of my paper followed making it better than ever.

I have never been too confident in my writing but by the end of this class I am now much more open to constructive criticism and the perspectives of others. I enjoy the challenges brought on by this course and I hope to continue bettering my writing techniques during writing 307 next fall.

InAe Lee

WRT 205

The first assignment in WRT 205, which was writing the Huffington Post Blog Article, was the assignment that gave me some confidence in writing. I think there was some luck for me that my major is public health and the topic was about the food safety. In my other public health classes, the major topic during this time was food safety and nutrition, so the first assignment drew my attention. However, I have never written a blog or an article, so I had to look at some blog articles and compare what differences they have with essays for classes. I personally was not a fan or writing a research paper since high school, because it requires lots of time and resources. Especially, researching on a topic that I do not have any interest on was a painful experience. However, just having a fun and personally important topic to research about was a great start for me. Also, the workshop for writing a strong ‘lead’ helped me writing a strong claim for the article. “Would you still be able to buy the product, if the company includes the image of cows being fed with parts of downer cows and thousands of chickens packed over their manures on their advertisement?” The most challenging part of researching was to find the right sources that will help me in giving information and evidence. By inviting the guest speaker, it was great to know other databases other than Google to find the sources. I found LexisNexis and Scopus pretty helpful, in terms of how organized their websites were and easier to find the sources with decent information.

Practicing how to do a good research and write a good research paper would not much affect on my career, but in terms of remaining school year and other courses, I think it would be a great skill to use. We did many workshops as a class over the semester and the most helpful workshop for me was how to write a good ‘lead’ and Evaluating Sources. As I said before, in researching, finding the appropriate sources was the most challenging part. After talking doing the Evaluating Sources workshop in class, I learned how to choose helpful sources by finding the writer’s project, Kairos, Logos, Ethos and Pathos. Just looking for those could give me if the source has enough evidence for me to use or not. Using this skill will help me a lot in the future writing and also save me up some time.

Researching on Food Politics and Political Controversies has increased my interest and understanding. Food Politic was a pretty familiar topic due to other class. However, I only watched the clip ‘Food, Inc.’ in other class but not researching and get deeper information about Food Politics. Because food is the most important requirement to stay healthy and happy, when I realized there are some dark secrets in the food industries, I was not happy. I know that my argument will not do much change to our food system, but just researching and writing about the truth made me feel like I did something. On the other hand, political controversies started out as a pretty boring topic for me, because I do not know much about politic. However, the topic I chose matter much to me since it is pretty serious in South Korea and I actually wanted to know more about North Korea by researching. This topic also made me engage a lot but more seriously than the Food Politics.

If I continue one of the topics, I would continue with the North Korea, because it is on going and most relatable topic for me. Whether they are threat or not, whether or not we are divided or united, North Korea would be the biggest concern in South Korea. Also, while I was researching I learned more information that I did not hear or read from the news.

I would like to share the UNIT II with someone outside the class, because the five minutes TED Talk is a great way to share information in a short time with key arguments. Since, I chose the topic, North Korea to hope that people in US could also learn some information about them that they did not know and possibly have some more attention, telling someone about my neighboring country will mean something to me.

 

[1] The title focuses the readers attention very will. The lede was thought provoking and forced the reader to continue reading to find out the answer for themselves. Yes, it asks the reader to think about how girls are constantly taken out of the classroom for something as silly as clothing and how this has directly effected society as a whole and acceptance.

[2]  The introductory section of the article invites the reader in really well. It forces the reader to not only look at the positive things schools teach our children but also the underlying negative things that are being taught without our full knowledge. It looks at how dress codes are often ‘sugar coated’ by schools in order to look like a positive thing. However, the more cases and scenarios you look at, the more the reader can see just how much of a problem dress codes are and how they directly influence sexism and rape culture.

[3] The writer offers up a strong idea and proof throughout the article. I show multiple scenarios where girls are being overly sexualized as well as multiple instances where schools blatantly say that boys education are more valued than a girls. I think the case that refers to the transgender community might not have been immediately obvious to readers and solidifies the point that it really is for the benefit of a boys education rather than helping girls.

[4] The writer shows clarity of thought really well. Everything within the article is organized around a central theme to prove a point. It’s also presented in such a way that the examples are used to make the biggest point as well as a statistic.

[5] The writer does this really well by acknowledging both sides of the argument. For example, I talked about how schools claim that the point of dress codes are to create a distraction free learning environment, but then I show multiple examples where schools are more focused on boys learning than girls. I organized material really well, first summarizing the topic, then picking out multiple examples and talking about organizations that are in agreement with this movement as well as looking at other groups that are directly effected in order to avoid over generalizations.

[6] I used over 12 sources in order to fully research this controversy. I developed a persuasive stance by using so many examples where women are directly being targeted by sexist school dress codes. I utilized my research by using accurate statistics to make my point as well as the many examples I was able to find.

[7] I exceeded research expectations and assignment requirements. I used 11 secondary sources, 5 visual sources, as well as a primary research site.

[8] I integrated secondary sources effectively by summarizing them as well as using pictures in order to make the topic more relatedly and deepen the analysis. The primary sources was used to find statistics as well as more information and background on rape culture and sexual assault, which is mentioned throughout the article as my main argument.

[9] I persuaded the audience to consider my claims by using so many examples as well as citing multiple agencies that are trying to fight for my main argument which is rape culture and sexism. I think my use of rhetorical tools was strong. I was able to pull on emotions by talking about sexual assault and the numbers surrounding it’s victims as well as logic by looking at examples to prove my point.

[10] I think the visuals I selected were appropriate as well as revealing. All of the visuals used were of the victims to pull on the readers emotions and logic as well as photos showing the large support by outside organizations. I also used a visual with the statistics surrounding sexual assault. I placed the visual strategicially to line up with each story so that the reader could easily make a connection between the visual and the evidence. Yes the visuals contribute in a meaningful way, without them I don’t think the reader would feel as invested in the topic.

[11] I don’t think I did this very well since I was not in class in order to get in peer editing or teacher comments. However, I did reach out to multiple friends and family in order to get feedback to make sure my article was well written.

[12] I used hyperlinks effectively. They were always appropriate, often used to cite a source in case a reader wanted more information on the topic or story I was referring to. I believe it gave me more credibility.

[13] I went through my article several times as well as had family and friends look over it to check for grammar and appropriate style. I believe that my sentence issues being credibility on the issues by using hyperlinks as well as simple summarizations.

Girls are taken out of class everyday for wearing clothes the school system deems “too distracting” for male students.  However, what people don’t see is the damage this lesson has on young women and society as a whole.

School is one of the most important times in a young persons life. It’s a time when young adults learn about the world around them and create their own opinions surrounding said world. It teaches young people that in the society we live in, hard work always pays off and that education is a necessary stepping stone to be successful in the adult world.

What most people don’t think of though, is the underlying lesson schools are also teaching: girl’s bodies are inherently sexual and harassment will forever be inevitable. 

Society has been convinced that dress codes are to teach students about professionalism but since when did showing your collarbones mean you were unprofessional? This is sadly the world we live in, a world where a young girl’s body is seen as inherently sexual and something to be hidden from the male gaze. This overwhelming message of sexism is being broadcasted around the nation to impressionable young students. However, it’s not just the sexist dress codes that are the problem. It’s also the way these sexist dress codes are enforced.

Just a year ago, a teenager in Canada was given detention for wearing a full length dress because her school deemed it inappropriate. The school claims that it went against their dress code because she was showing her shoulders and back.

” If you are truly so concerned that a boy in this school will get distracted by my upper back and shoulders, then he needs to be sent home and practice self-control.” – Lauren Higgins

When the teen in question tried to speak out against the school for the over sexualization of her shoulders and back, she was sentenced to a one-day suspension.

However, this was not the only time a young woman was personally attacked by a sexist dress code. In the UK, Bridlington School announced a plan to ban skirts all together just over a year ago. The school claimed that female students wearing skirts made the male teachers feel “uncomfortable”.

The sad fact is, these are just two of the many cases on an ever-growing list regarding sexist dress codes in schools. The showing of un-sexualized body parts, such as shoulders and knees, have become the epitome of a war zone within schools world wide. Clothing deemed as appropriate by the fashion world, such as leggings and yoga pants, have been banned by many schools. Girls attire is constantly being inspected by school staff, while boys walk by without receiving a second glance.

Schools are quick to respond to criticism, claiming that they are only trying to maintain a ‘distraction free’ learning environment. However, it seems to me that the only learning environment they’re trying to protect is that of the male student body.

However, there are two groups that are trying to fight against this subtle injustice towards women: the Everyday Sexism Project and the Amber Rose SlutWalk.

The Everyday Sexism Project is a website where people from around the world can post about their experiences with gender inequality. The website has gained hundreds of testimonies from young women from around the world who are directly effected by sexist dress codes. Many young women who post on the site claim that they personally feel a strong sense of injustice due to their gender.

” I got dress coded at my school for wearing shorts. After I left the principal’s office with a detention, I walked past another student wearing a shirt depicting two stick figures: the male holding down the females head in his crotch and saying ‘good girls swallow’. Teachers walked right past him and didn’t say a thing.” – Anonymous, Everyday Sexism Project

One student on the site claims that she was given three reasons why there was a dress code at her school:

“1) There are male teachers and male sixth formers (high school seniors)

2) Teachers feel uncomfortable around bras, etc. 

3) Don’t want the boys to target or intimidate you”

This powerful and sexist message in schools and society is one of the many reasons why Amber Rose created the SlutWalk. SlutWalk is a city wide event where people gather and march in the streets to fight against “all forms of sexism and bigotry”. Similarly to the Everyday Sexism Project website, SlutWalk allows its users to post about their own battles with sexism. Just like the Everyday Sexism Project, hundreds of posts directly refer to sexist and unfair school dress codes.

These sexist dress codes teach children that the female body is meant to be sexualized and that boys are biologically programmed to objectify said body.

This message prepares our children for college, where one in five women is sexually assaulted. However, rather than fighting this, society will instead blame the victim and let the real criminal get away with little to no disciplinary action being taken. This problem is only furthered by the fact that most of the time, there is little to no disciplinary action when boys are showing harassing behavior. This simply maintains the idea that it’s the victims fault and they should be held responsible for preventing such instances. There have been thousands of cases posted to both SlutWalk and the Everyday Sexism Project where girls are sexually assaulted at school, only to be told that “boys will be boys”.

What schools fail to realize, is that the very act of teachers calling out young girls for their clothing simply perpetuates the over sexualization of said clothing item or body part.

In this case, girls are not the only victims. There have many instances where boys have also been banned from school due to their clothing choices. However, it’s probably not for the reason you’re thinking of.

Boys have been banned from school for having their hair deemed ‘too long’ or wearing fashion choices that are dictated by the school as ‘feminine’. This includes but is not limited to skinny jeans or skirts.

One instance of this injustice came from a transgender student. The student claims he was threatened to have his yearbook photo removed, simply because he wore a tuxedo to prom.

It’s beginning to look like school dress codes are less about protecting children and more about exploiting them. Schools seem to be more interested in protecting widely accepted social norms that exclude diversity.

When a girl is removed from class for showing her shoulders because she’s ‘distracting’ to her male classmates, his education is prioritized over hers. When schools chose to focus on the covering of the female body while ignoring inappropriate behavior from boys, the school is only prolonging and supporting the assumption that victims of sexual violence are responsible for their own fate.

I enjoyed writing about the food industry. I feel like I gained a lot of knowledge from researching. This first assignment forced me to reflect on all facets of an argument. It also helped me realize that when writing about a controversy there is not always one simple solution. What is key in the way to for your argument is to take a stance on an issue and offer a different way of thinking or a start to a solution. I struggled with synthesizing my resources in my first paper. It was difficult for me to relate the arguments in these specific sources to the argument that I was trying to convey. Overall I feel that I have become a stronger writer because of this struggle. Now I know that it is important to weave together sources and not simply state facts.

Some other challenges I encountered was sifting through research on a complicated topic. When I chose the Syrian Refugee Crisis as my final research topic I did not realize how many arguments and sides there are to the issue. Not only did I have to decipher what my sources were arguing but along the way I had to form my own opinion. The exercise of finding different types of sources helped me see that news articles, journals, and even late night news have vastly different views on certain topics. This experience has helped me as a research writer because I feel that I am now able to interoperate the voice and meaning of multiple articles and form my own views on them as a whole.

The Ted Talk exercise helped me to communicate with my audience. Not only did I have to be knowledgeable on my subject, but I had to synthesize my information in a way that would make sense to someone who is not versed on the issues of the Syrian Civil war and Syrian Refugee Crisis. This ultimately helped me format the structure of my research paper in a way that made the most sense for the reader. This exercise helped me incorporate visuals and facts into my presentation and strengthened my knowledge of ethos and pathos.

All of these experiences have helped me become more aware of the language and content of my resources. They have helped me put these ideas together and relate them in a way that strengthens my argument, while commenting on different sides of an issue. By having this skill I am able to better strengthen my writing and I am more effective at conveying my ideas to an audience.

The most recent way that my practices of research and rsearch writing in WRT 205 have helped me are in some of my other classes this semester. In my art history class we are required to analyze different sources and develop an argument for a final paper. WRT 205 has helped me to be able to synthesize sources and my argument in a way that creates a coherent paper. When I have to write this paper of my art history class I will have a better skillset. Many of the assignment that we have done are research based but the articles themselves are less scholarly because of the context and the audience. The field of museum studies and art history is very scholarly and the audience is mostly educated people who are familiar with the arts. This contrasts with the style of writing in this class because the majority of time I will be writing in my field will be for a more scholarly audience. In contrast if I ever want to write for a broader audience, I feel that I have more skills because of WRT 205.

 

As I began to read more and learn more from documentaries, I was more engaged in the topic. I found that the more I learned the more disgusted I was with our food industry in America. I had a similar response to the Political Controversies. Once I began researching and learning more about Syrian Refugees and the injustices they face, I began to have more of a concern for the issue and felt that there is a real injustice that many people are not aware of.

In the beginning of researching both of these topics I did not have a lot of background information. Since I did not know much on the topics I had not formed my onion yet. I learned that it is important to think of both sides of an article and issue and that in fact there are many facets to an issue. Once I realized this I found that is was very important to analyze my texts and find the core of what they were trying to say. By doing this I was able to form my own views on the topics that were informed and considered all sides of the issues. This processed helped my argument and helped me become better informed on each topic.

Once I finished the documentary Food Inc., I was more invested in the topic. This helped me realize that there are different forms of communication outside of articles and newspapers that are reliable. The story that Food Inc. told was interesting and had the most impact on my opinions of the topic. Another example of my interest in the topics we studied was the late night shows and how they covered serious topics in an interesting and informative way. Some of the best information I got was from Ted Talks and Late Night shows because of how they synthesized numerous sources in a way that made sense. Although the journal articles were informative, I found that the news paper articles like form the New York Times were the most up to date on international issues and controversies. These were the most helpful in sparking my interest as well as informing me on these issues.

 

I would continue working on my Syrian Refugee piece because I feel like there are so many different factors that I did not get a chance to cover. There are so many issue concerning the refugees and I feel like I only covered the basics of what is happening. I would like to follow up with what the United States is doing and how they are choosing to deal with the crisis, how the UN is dealing with the lack of resources, how Syrians are living in these refugee camps and how that is affecting the children, and I would like to go further unto how we might start to educate these people. There are so many facets of this issue that it was impossible to cover all of them. I felt that in my article I needed to start at a level of informing the audience and to try and break that cycle of fear. There is so much happening with this topic that was a difficult issue to tackle.

 

 

5.

I would share the Ted Talk with people outside this class because I feel like the majority of Americans are not aware of what is really happening with the refugees. I think I would like to share this information first with the Syracuse campus but then also reach out to other parts of the community. I think it is important for people to know the facts, especially before they vote. I think it is difficult to change someone’s opinion on an issue like this, but I would hope that I would get people thinking about how we are treating these refugees. Hopefully people would react positively and would want to help educate Syrian Refugees and their children.

John Carino

WRT 205 Reflection

[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?

The title of an article or piece of writing is a very powerful tool. A writer has essentially one line to draw the attention and interest of a reader. A catchy title has to be provocative, or maybe raise a question that may intrigue a potential reader. With this article title I chose to propose a question that relates to the topic I continue to discuss. “Was Japan just in their decision to scrap Zaha Hadid’s competition winning design?” I do a few things here, I place an action that is an important part of my article, presenting that Japan had scrapped Zaha Hadid’s design. This way the reader has an idea of what the topic I may be exploring is. I continue by questioning the justness and morality of this decision, hopefully gaining the interest of the reader who may now be thinking and curious of what they could have done to raise this ambiguity of their actions.

 [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?

I began my article with a lede that presents statement about money in reference to architecture, then lead that into how that relates to Japan’s actions. I share a broad statement about Japan’s overall reasoning for scrapping her design, but then hint that that may not be the real and only reason. This gives the reader some context to the situation, but intrigues them to continue reading. The problem that it locates within the controversy is that Japan is making a claim for their reasoning, I begin to hint that this claim may not be as accurate and true as the say it is.

[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.?

               I am making a bold claim by saying that Japan lied to and deceived Zaha Hadid. This argument requires thorough support through analyzing all perspectives and developments of the situation. I also believe that as an architecture student there were aspects I was able to see analyzing and studying my sources that others may have not fully understood or picked up on. I attempt to relay these in my article in a clear and understandable way.

 

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

               I articulate my own style when I input my opinion when appropriate. I also chose a topic that I believed not many people outside of the architecture discipline would know about. I hope that the readers would gain new insight into a field they did not know much about and how influential something like this could actually be to them.

[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?

I attempted to avoid vagueness and general statements by integrating many quotes and first hand details from sources that are difficult to misinterpret. My piece synthesizes years of development of this case, which has been in development since 2012. I follow the progression as a narrative, analyzing and giving my opinion on each development along the way.

[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? 

               I originally came across this controversy through research when attempting to find architectural controversies at an international scale. This topic in particular interested me as I was able to form a basic opinion pretty quickly from my first few sources I read. I knew however it would require more extensive reader to be able to construct a strong supported argument that could convince an entire audience. The implications of this controversy go beyond just Japan and Zaha Hadid and her firm, as it could affect thousands including the local community and the millions of people watching the Olympics if the stadium is unfinished or has any flaws due to a rushed construction. I hope in my argument to share the controversy, and not only who is at fault but what consequences their decisions may have.

[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? ).

               As this topic is significantly centered on a physical structure, visuals are a powerful tool that I utilize to support me argument. For example showing the similarities between Kuma’s design and Hadid’s. I also show the amount of progress Hadid had made in her design already when Japan scrapped it, presenting how she should rightly be paid for her work. I also integrate many quotes from many participants in the controversy, giving the reader personal opinions that give new perspectives to the situation.

[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?

               Integrating quotes is important, I give context to my quotes so that they cannot be misinterpreted. Allowing for a quote to be misinterpreted completely defeats the purpose of utilizing one. Quotes are power tools, that when integrated correctly can really help create a convincing argument. I use quotes in my article in just that way.

[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)?

               I am able to persuade the reader by sharing multiple sources that are factual and opinionated that reach similar conclusions about the morality of Japan’s actions and decision making. By being clear in my writing, my ideas can more easily be absorbed by readers.

 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)? 

               I utilize multiple visuals, including a video to help the reader understand a visual context to the argument I am making. Visuals are particularly important in my article because architecture is a profession that manifests itself through buildings and images. Without giving a visual context to the reader, I cannot possible fully relay to them all the information they need to make their own decision or opinion of what to believe.

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

               Various drafts are import to narrow down and figure out exactly what claim you want to make. They are also important to figure out the best way to organize the order of paragraphs and how to frame your argument, as well as integrate your own opinion in supported ways.

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

               I utilize hyperlinks by embedding a video that is very revealing to a point I make. In particular that Zaha Hadid and her firm had put a significant amount of work and progress into their design. What better way to describe that then share a video showcasing the work?

[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? 

               Having good grammar is always good because it shows you are well educated and have reviewed your work multiple times. Style is important because it gives your work personality, and when you are making a claim and trying to convince a reader of something, some of “you” has to come through your writing so it is not bland, and your reader can relate more. Using the style of a New York Times article with short paragraphs helps the reader grasp each argument, piece of information, and claim one piece at a time. It also requires the writer to place more precision on each of these paragraph, making sure each is clear and articulate.

Was Japan just in their decision to scrap Zaha Hadid’s competition winning design?

John Carino

In the world of architecture, sometimes the decision to build comes down to money. Money drives everything, and often it unnecessarily complicates situations. In the case of Japan’s scrapping of Zaha Hadid’s 2020 Olympic Stadium design it seems money have not been the main reason despite their claim.

When Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe scrapped British-Iraqi architect Zaha Hadid’s design for the 2020 Tokyo Olympic stadium, it was due to claims of spiraling material costs. While rising construction costs is an existing problem, Zaha Hadid and her architects argue the reasons behind the Tokyo government dropping her design were illegitimate and go beyond just the rise of financial issues.

In 2012 Zaha Hadid Architects won an international competition with their design for an 80,000 seat stadium that would be used for the 2019 Rugby World Cup, the 2020 Tokyo Olympic Games, and would exist as the home for Japanese sports for the next century.

Zaha Hadid’s world famous works include the 2012 Aquatics Centre for London’s Olympic Games as well as the in-progress production of the 2022 stadium for the football World Cup in Qatar.

For the 2020 Olympic Stadium project, Hadid produced a “streamlined design with two gigantic arches, resembling a cyclist’s helmet” (Kyodo). Hadid is known for her futuristic and progressive designs, and, this design in particular started to turn heads, but not necessarily for the right reasons.

Zaha Hadid’s design for the stadium began receiving heavy criticism from famous Japanese architects as soon as it won the international competition. These high profile Japanese architects include Toyo Ito, Sou Fujimoto, Kengo Kuma, as well as Fumihiko Maki. Between these architects there was mutual agreement that her structure was too large and expensive, they also stated that Hadid did not understand the building site’s context, which also upset the site’s community.

The local community of the stadium site held a 500-person protest in outrage against the design. Along with believing the costs were too high, these architects and community members believed her hyper-modern futuristic design did not integrate well into its surroundings. While a hyper-modern design may seem appropriate to send a message to the world about Japans forward-thinking and technological advances, they felt it did not appropriately reflect cultural Japanese values and would inappropriately stand out in their community.

Her design disappointed more than just Japanese architects. Barcelona’s Olympic Stadium architect Arata Isozki called her project “a monumental mistake” (Japan). He claimed it left him “in despair”(Japan) and saw it as a “disgrace to future generations” (Japan). Zaha Hadid was shocked and disappointed in her treatment surrounding the project, especially when they dropped her design to host a new design competition so late into the design process.

Zaha Hadid had a different perspective of why her design was scrapped. She claimed, “This shocking treatment of an international design and engineering team, as well as the respected Japanese design companies with whom we worked, was not about design or budget” (Press).       

Hadid stated they just did not want a foreigner designing their national stadium. She called the Japanese architects who criticized her hypocrites, because they had all worked abroad themselves. She even stated “The fact that they lost is their problem, they lost the competition. If they are against the idea of doing a stadium on that site, I don’t think they should have entered the competition” (Japan).

“Due to 25 percent rise in costs across Tokyo’s construction market, the authorities used costs as an excuse to swap for a Japanese architect”(Press)

In response to the claims of a steep annual increase in construction costs Hadid responded “It is not the case that the recently reported cost increases are due to the design, which uses standard materials and techniques well within the capability of Japanese contractors and meets the budget set by the Japan Sports Council” (Japan). She claimed the increased cost of her project was a result of rising construction costs, not due to her design. Hadid argued by scrapping her design, they were setting them up for an entirely new set of problems and costs.

“It is disappointing that the government did not even consider working with the existing design team to build on the two years of design work they and the Japanese people had invested”(Wainwright). – Spokesperson for Zaha Hadid architects

This video rendering that expresses the extensive work Zaha Hadid and her team had already placed into the project.

Hadid argued that the Japanese government did not even attempt to work with her to revise her design. She claims they could have made it work, arguing that all of these delays that the government caused may make the stadium not ready for the Rugby World Cup and possibly even the Olympics, including an extended construction deadline which increases costs significantly after such a long construction delay. Hadid claimed her project construction would have already been in progress.

“Work would already be underway building the stadium if the original design team had simply been able to develop this original design, avoiding costs of an 18-month delay and risk that it may not be ready in time for the 2020 Games” (Press).

In July of 2015 Japan hosted a new design competition to pick a project to replace Hadid’s. Hadid’s argument seems to gain validity as the winner of the new design competition was Japanese architect Kengo Kuma, one of the architects that had previously criticized Hadid. Outrage continues to be drawn as his design had striking resemblance to Hadid’s design in plan and circulatory design aspects.

Zaha Hadid began to suspect collusion by the Japanese government as it seems their reasons for scrapping her design continue to become more illegitimate with its new developments, claiming: “sadly the Japanese authorities, with the support of some of our own profession in Japan, have colluded to close the doors on the project to the world” (Zaha Hadid accuses).

Hadid claimed Kengo Kuma’s replacement design has “remarkable similarities to her own” (Zaha Hadid accuses). She argued that they are very similar in shape and layout. She even asserted, “in fact much of our two years of detailed design work and the cost savings we recommended have been validated by the remarkable similarities of our original detailed stadium layout and our seating bowl configuration with those of the design announced today”(Press). Kuma responded to these accusations claiming, “In the design, I would like to say there are no similarities at all” (McCurry)

While Kuma’s design had a cost estimate of $1.4 billion and Hadid’s came in around $2.3 billion the multitude of factors and controversies surrounding Japan’s decision-making and treatment of Hadid seem unjust. They did not even attempt to work with her, and the tension grew between Japan and Hadid as legal issues arose surrounding Hadid’s payment for her work.

Organizers of the Olympics were refusing to pay Hadid for her scrapped design until she gave them all of the copyrights on her designs and signed a gag order. They also demanded that she and anyone at her firm not discuss or comment on the project. When giving over the copyrights the agreement that the Japanese government is demanding she signs “specifies that the stadium’s new design team is “allowed to use any product of work… regardless of its copyright”” (Zaha Hadid refuses).

Hadid brought forth her issues with the similarities of Kuma’s new design to the Japanese Sports Council. She hoped discussions could be held for her and her firm to be rightly treated and paid for the thorough design work created by her and her firm. If the issues cannot be resolved, Hadid claimed they would “take legal actions if our concerns are not promptly addressed to our satisfaction” (McCurry).

Is it not hypocritical for the JSC to claim they are not copying Hadid’s design, then forcing her to give up all her design copyrights so they can legally do just that? While the Japanese government may have had some justification in their decision to drop her design and while their reasoning was not always necessarily wrong, they took an inappropriate and deceptive approach by scrapping her design and trying to legally pressure her out of her copyrights and hard work.

While this situation may seem to only effect the Japanese Sports council and Zaha Hadid and her architects, it actually has massive implications that could affect thousands or millions of people. This stadium will affect the lives of everyone in its local community for generations. The construction of this structure is also important, consider if the project is now rushed because of these issues, could there be safety problems for its users if it is not built to the highest standard?

Perhaps by not going with Hadid’s design Japan may influence millions of people by the consequences of their actions. Consider if the stadium is not finished in time for the 2020 Olympics? This then becomes an international issue that will place Japan in a difficult situation.

Despite the many ways this situation could have developed, tragically on the night of March 31, 2016, Zaha Hadid passed away. The Japanese Olympic Prime Minister Toshiaki Endo respectably responded “although (the design) was scrapped, I would like to thank her for the contribution she made, the innovative design contributed greatly to Tokyo’s bid to host the Olympics”(Kyodo).

While Hadid’s firm may continue to communicate with Japan to resolve these issues, it is more important to reflect on the influence Zaha Hadid had on the architectural profession in her lifetime. She was the first woman ever to receive the Prizker Architecture prize, an award equivalent to the Nobel Prize in its prestige. Her futuristic and organic flowing designs have been recognized and praised by the world and the architectural profession. Japanese architect and critic of her 2020 stadium design praised Hadid whom he claims “had an amazing sense of designing architecture filled with aerodynamics all through her career”(Kyodo). She pushed boundaries, and her work will continue to influence and inspire architects for generations to come.

 

Works cited:

“Japan Scraps Hadid’s Tokyo 2020 Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 17 July 2015. Web.

Kyodo. “Tributes Follow Death of Architect Zaha Hadid.” Japan Times. 1 Apr. 2016. Web.

McCurry, Justin. “Tokyo Olympic Stadium Architect Denies Copying Zaha Hadid Design.” The Guardian. 15 Jan. 2016. Web.

Press, Associated. “Japan Picks Olympic Stadium Design to Replace Zaha Hadid Plan.” The Guardian. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

Wainwright, Oliver. “Bye Bye Zaha, Hello Fried Egg! New Designs Unveiled for Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” The Guardian. 16 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Accuses Japanese Government and Architects of Collusion over Tokyo Stadium.” Dezeen. 22 Dec. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Forced to Throw in the Towel over Tokyo Olympic Stadium.” Dezeen. 18 Sept. 2015. Web.

“Zaha Hadid Refuses to Hand over Copyright for Unpaid Japan Stadium Designs.” Dezeen. 14 Jan. 2016. Web.

 Images:

Image 1: http://www.designboom.com/architecture/kengo-kuma-tokyo-national-stadium-japan-sport-council-12-22-2015/

Image 2: http://archinect.com/news/article/145735758/tokyo-olympics-refusing-to-pay-zaha-hadid-for-work-on-the-national-stadium

Image 3: http://www.cnn.com/2016/03/31/architecture/zaha-hadid-appreciation/

 

 

Many people believe that Donald Trump is a racist, bigot, jerk, idiot, etc. with bad ideas that will cause World War Three. For example how he treats women, makes fun of the other candidates, and talks specifically about different Religions.

Though he may come off that way, he still has many good ideas to better the United States of America. Wether you like Mr. Trump or not you have to think that he does have some decent ideas on boarder control, creating jobs, and ISIS. He might not be the best “face of America” but do we really need a “politically correct” face of America or someone who has no filter and gets the job done?

America is in trouble and needs a strong and smart leader with good ideas to do something to fix the many problems. There are many different problems that we are facing including ISIS, boarder control(especially the Mexican boarder), big companies leaving America for cheaper taxes and labor, and other things. Many people believe that Mr. Trump might be a bad president but have you taken a look at what the other candidates have to offer? They might be just as bad or worse with what they want to do with America.

Lets take a look at Mr. Trumps ideas and how crazy they really are. We can start with Mexico and building a giant wall. There are many illegal immigrants in the United States and tons of drugs pouring over the boarder. He says that he will build a wall and let people come in the legal way. This sounds like a great idea because we are getting taken advantage of by the Mexicans. For Example in 2014 there were 11.3million illegal immigrants in the United States and Mexicans made up 49% of that. Between 2008-14 illegal aliens accounted for 38% of all murders in 5 states when their population is only 5.6% total in those 5 states. But many people still think that building a wall is a crazy idea and not even possible.

Mr. Trump says that the Mexicans are sending over their worst people full of killers, rapists, losers, ect. He claims that they bringing the drugs over poisoning our people and we are sending a ton of money over to them in exchange. They are committing crimes, not paying any taxes and taking jobs. This makes no sense that the people in charge are letting this happen and should be stopped as soon as possible. It would also create many jobs to build the wall but the big question everyone has is who will pay for it. Mr. Trump claims that Mexico will pay for it which many find hard to believe. But many candidates agree with Mr. Trump when it comes to securing our boarders and think that it is a good idea!

Next lets take a look at his idea for bringing jobs back to America. In the past ten years 47 companies have left the United States for places like China and Mexico.This leaves many Americans out of jobs because of cheap labor in other countries. This is a big problem with many people not having jobs or having low quality ones here in America. The jobs that are leaving are well paying, well benefited, good jobs.

Mr. Trump has a solution for this problem, he says to tax the companies around 35% for every item that they sell. This is a good idea since most companies would either take the huge loss in tax(highly unlikely) or have to move back to the United States and start doing business again. But many people criticize Mr. Trump by saying that he himself has had companies in other countries. But this isn’t about Mr. Trump, he obviously will do what makes himself the most money in his personal life. It sounds like he wants to do whats best for the United States by trying to bring companies and jobs back to America.

There has been a lot of talk about the war on terror and our current president Mr. Obama. The biggest issue with this is how to combat ISIS and what we should do with Syrian refugees. As many Americans think Mr. Obama is taking a conservative approach to combating ISIS. He also wants Syrian refugees to enter the United States by the bunch.

Mr. Trump is the complete opposite. He says that he would whip out ISIS immediately by blowing up their fuel and other ways that he does not want to open the book too. He also said that no Syrian refugees nor Muslims should enter this country until we know what is going on and how to have them go through very strict security. Many people call Mr. Trump crazy and racist for his ways about ISIS and the refugees. But do most Americans feel safe with Obama as president? Or would they want a better conducted strong fight against ISIS and a thorough check on refugees? Im guessing the second one.

Is it racist to have no filter in trying to protect your country? Many do not blame Mr. Trump for saying the things that he does. There are things to back his thoughts up about some of the people that he talks about. For example have you ever heard about Sharia law? To sum it up it is a law that some Muslims follow, it means that their way/god is the only one and you should believe in it also. 1 in 5 Muslims in the United States approve of violence in order to institute Sharia. Mr. Trump also wanted to keep and eye on mosques in America. People also thought that was a crazy idea until one got raided in Europe and a bunch of weapons were found.

Most people say that the way that Mr. Trump talks is nasty, disrespectful, unfiltered, not politically correct. Is that a good thing or a bad thing in todays world? Lets look at the bad side first.

He could make an entire race, country mad and hate the United States more than they already do. He could make a leader very upset and start a war with us. He could also start riots and protests that turn into violence. Well lets just sum it up, he could ruin the entire country.

But on the positive side he does not care what people think and says what he wants compared to other politicians that are funded and say things because of who is backing them and what the people want to hear. He could get Americas economy booming by creating more jobs and bringing companies back to the US by lowering taxes. He could build a wall and tighten up the boarder making it hard for the bad people to get in and easy for the good people. I think of Mr. Trump as president just like I think of investing money and that is risk reward. You might take a high risk and lose everything but you could also make a great amount of money.

I believe that Mr. Trump would be a good president for many different reasons. I think that most of his ideas make sense when you think about whats at stake. For example I believe that building a wall would benefit the United States. Keeping drugs and illegal immigrants out is not a bad idea. It would create many jobs to build the wall and watch over the boarder. If people want to enter the United States they should pass strict security tests and come in legally. Also with what recently happened in Paris, many of the attackers traveled throughout Europe because of their weak boarders. Having strong boarders is a must have with what is going on in Mexico and in the middle East.

Mr. Trumps ideas to bring jobs back to America and to create more jobs could also work. This shows proof through his past on creating many jobs with his business background that he has. His idea to tax the companies very high will cause them to either come back or face the harsh penalty.

I think that his outlook on ISIS is powerful and not weak compared to Obamas. We need a strong leader not a weak one, obviously we don’t want to get into world war three. I think that denying the refugees is not a bad idea either, cant they find a country closer to them that will take them in? Do we, the United States have to be the whole worlds caretaker and policemen? I do not believe so. There is a difference between doing what is right and doing what is right for yourself. You have to look in the mirror and ask is this a good decision for me?

If you think that Mr. Trump is racist just because he calls all illegal immigrants bad people then go look at the statistics, you will probably agree with him. Or how he said to hold off all Muslims from coming into this country until we know whats going on. Why don’t you ask some family members who had family in the Word Trade center in 2001 about keeping an eye out for terrorists. Just because he has had a few run ins with women does not mean that he hates all women. He is a little on the agressive side of things when it comes to American safety but what is the problem with that? I hate going to the mall, sporting event, anything where there is a large gathering of people due to these terrorist attacks that have been happening. So yeah I agree with Mr. Trump on tightening up security a lot at the boarders, don’t you?

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? Yes, I believe that it catches the readers attention as some will think “heck yeah!” and others will think “heck no!”. It gives a nice lead onto what is being talked about throughout the article.

[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? It gives them something in common to relate to in their views wether they are with Trump or Against him. It also brings up a hot topic with the presidential election coming up and the different problems in America. It provides background and rational through all of the arguments and debates in the past and up to this point about Americas issues and fixing them between the different ideas of the different candidates.

[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.? The writer shows ideas from both sides of the views but leans towards one side the whole time then at the end explains why.

[4] How well does the writer show clarity of thought; uniqueness of presentation; evidence of style; and historicized topics? The writer shows facts and his own opinion un a nice way to show both sides of the argument. His topics that he uses brings in old information on our previous president and uses him as a benchmark for the problems that need to be fixed in America today.

[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? I think that the writer covered all bases of the argument that most readers will pick as side and agree with mostly what he has to say. I think that he did a good job at making the argument well rounded that people will find a side. The writer organized and sequenced the material nicely giving an overview of the topic and situation, switching into specific topics and then showing what his views are on the topic.

[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?  The writer had good research on the topic and knew what he was talking about. You could see that he did leaned towards one side of the argument for a persuasive stance. He used the research in good spots throughout the article where he needed credibility and he made an argument and talked about it at the end.

[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? ). The researcher used many sources throughout the article and had a few visuals to go along with them.

[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? The writer does a good job at blending in the sources and using them to back up his information that he used. He uses many statistics as sources to backup what he is saying/trying to argue in the 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)? The writer talks about things like fear, money, drugs, violence, etc. to get the readers at a personal level. He uses open ended questions about the things stated above to get the reader thinking about their self and family.

[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)?  He selects visuals related to the topic and even at a lower scale of some of the issues that he talks about. Yes the visuals contribute to the piece in a meaningful way using the main character of the essay as a visual.

[11] How well does the writer show development of final article using various drafts, in-class peer editing and workshops, and/or teacher comments? The writer took into consideration the main idea that was passed around class to comment on a sheet of paper. It helped a lot to create a better argument and add onto the draft to bring the whole piece together.

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

He used links to show Donald Trumps website and the specific issues

[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?  I believe that he had a flowing piece with good sentences spaced nicely. Most sentences were strong to give him credibility and helped him with the issue.

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.