Adolescents and the Media – Informal tone & structure

I found that this “piece” of writing I am not even sure what to call it was definitely a lot different than the other 3 essays and editorials. It was definitely informal tone and had informal structure. It’s not enough to say this was bad it was just “different”. I must say that it was nice how the author had the sub headings, at least if the author wasn’t clear on the point he was trying to make in his/her paragraphs the subheadings would at least some what clarify things. This also made this piece of writing very organized and was fun to read, because with the subheadings you knew what you were about to read. For example the author had a main heading called “What we know” and then subheadings such as media violence, teen suicide, sec, drugs obesity and eating disorders and learning problems.

As far as content goes, the content was pretty good, not only did the author talk about how the media affected children and teenagers with violence, but the author talked about how it affected them negatively with drugs, sex, alcohol, school, etc. I found that was very good because it does have a somewhat bad effect on them. I also found it good how the author had an effective introduction to state what he was talking about and then had to major headings called what we know, and then the 6 or so subheadings and the “we don’t know” subheading.

It is clear that this piece of writing has no formality once so ever in tone and structure therefore talking about it would just be stating the clear obvious. I do agree on what the author says on how young children are watching way too much television, and on top of that the majority of children and teenagers have their own televisions in their room. This means they can watch what ever program they want without being hassled by their parents. I find young children are very curious so if they find something on television that they know they shouldn’t be watching they seem to just watch it anyways, even if they say it’s just for a second, which second will turn in to one hour. And pretty soon they’ll be watching this inappropriate program on a regular basis. I myself had a television in my room when I was small, so I am speaking from experience here.

Debunking Media Violence - Formal

I found that this editorial was a bit shorter than the first essay but was longer than the second. I also found this editorial to be a lot more interesting than the other two essays. When I was reading the other two I was always wondering how much more I had to read, how much longer I had to read, etc. Another words I wanted the essays to be over as soon as possible, but wit this editorial I wasn’t too worried about the length or how long it would take me to finish reading it. This article was very interesting.

I also liked how the author of this article was very organized and new exactly what he or she was talking about. For the first half of the editorial the author talked about how some experts and researches said that the violence in young children was directly related to the violence that they see in the media. Even though I don’t agree with this the author had some good points and some good points, to back up this opinion, and was very persuasive. For example he/she says “Research has proven that media violence has the following effects: increased aggressiveness and appetite for more violence; increased fearfulness and a lack of trust; and increased desensitization to violence and the victims of violence.” The author also has a lot of hard evidence and facts from big time people and organizations which is really good. The author also has a lot of comparisons between around 20-30 years ago to now, and how everything has changed. In the second part of this essay he talks about how the media has no affect on the violence from children or teens. He/she transitions between the two arguments very well, and makes it very clear he/she is switching from one argument to another. I think that was very effective, and pulling off a good transition can sometimes be very difficult. The majority of this editorial had to do with how violence in the media has a very trivial effect on the violence of teens. So I believe this is the side that the author supported. I thought it was effective how the author started out some of his paragraphs with rhetorical questions because it really gets the reader thinking.

This editorial I found was a lot more formal than the Media Violence Formal Essay, simply because it just seemed a lot more serious and well constructed than the other one. The author wrote in third person throughout the entire essay and really stated his points strongly with strong facts and statistics. I noticed that the author used passive voice throughout this editorial. The author surprisingly avoided using colloquial words and expressions like (kids, guy, awesome, a lot, etc.). For example instead of using kids he used children, and instead of using the word “awesome” like an informal editorial would he used wonderful which sounds a lot more sophisticated. And like all formal editorials/essays the author avoided contractions.

Media Violence - Formal Tone

Unlike the other essay on media violence this article was very short, and just because an essay is short doesn’t mean I am going to think it is better than a 20 page essay, because this essay could have had no content and could have been absolute garbage, but in this case the essay was short and straight to the point. Right away I knew exactly what the author was trying to say and there were no discrepancies.

The article talked about how long ago violence was from the newspapers, and from then on it has gone from being in the newspapers to being on television. The author had a lot of facts and statistics that made his argument a lot more persuasive and believable. For example he talks about how researchers have found that most of the television content was extremely violent. In almost half of the television hours monitored, the main focus on most of them was violence. Another very persuasive fact that the author uses is, “Robert Liebert and Robert baron concluded, in a laboratory situation, that watching a violent program or scene made children more willing to be aggressors.” Therefore overall from all this authors’ stats and facts his content is very well organized, thought out and believable.

The tone of the essay was definitely a formal tone especially after comparing it to the other informal tone argument. This essay definitely seemed a lot more organized and serious than the other informal essay. Some of the reasons why the tone of this essay was formal was because first of all I didn’t notice any contractions, and the author avoided addressing the audience using second person pronouns such as (you, your, etc). The author also avoided using imperative voice which is key in an informal tone but not in this case where the essay is formal. One of the bad things is that formal tone essays usually have longer and more complex sentences, whereas this essay didn’t seem to have well constructed sentences. Overall the author stated his/her points confidently and his opinion was well supported.

The author of the article in the end talks about how even though television violence may contribute to violence, television programs are not to blame completely. There are also a number of other factors that influence the way television affects people; such as their knowledge, interests, positive attitudes, and allowing them to distinguish between right and wrong through actually watching violence. Therefore television is not to blame and we have a responsibility to watch out for our children. The author does make a very good point. Television will always be around, and will definitely not be changing anytime soon so we just need to deal with it.

Media Violence - Informal Tone

This editorial was incredibly long, thus making it really hard to be persuaded. I felt around half way through I finally understood what the author was trying to say and then in the next two or three paragraphs he/she had just completely lost me. Although towards the end of the editorial the author really seemed to get his point across, I fully understood what he was trying to say. This editorial was boring and didn’t keep me interested. Overall In the end though the author saved himself and thankfully got his/her point across to me, and somewhat persuaded me. The author did though have a few rhetorical questions, and did engage the reader a couple times because he/she used words like “we, us, etc)

At first the author talked about Media Violence was a cause of all the violence in this world and he used the example of the Virginia Tech Killer. He said how he probably got most of his sick plans and ideas from some Korean or Asian films. His point was most people get their bad ideas from Media Violence. After that he started talking about how media violence is not the soul cause of violence in society. The author says how media violence only amplifies the violent thoughts already in peoples head. In other words you don’t wake up one day and watch somebody get shot on television then decide to go on a crazy massacre. For example the Virginia tech Killer already had a sick mind and had a whole lot of problems, so he probably all ready had all these thoughts in his mind.

I would say that this is definitely an informal tone editorial because throughout the editorial, the author uses an active voice a couple times, for example he says “If we take most of the exciting research…” The author uses a passive voice, and also the authors point were not shown clearly where in a formal tone the points would have to be clear and stated confidently. The author also refers to the reader in second person pronouns (you, your, etc). The author talks in second person a couple times which makes it pretty informal. Using a lot of contractions would make an editorial informal and that is exactly what the author of this editorial has done. Therefore overall this editorial is completely informal.

Reflection

Some of the reasons why writing a persuasive piece is so difficult is because even though you may think you know your topic well, chances are you only have a limited understanding of your topic. Those that think they fully know everything there is to know about their topic usually end up writing there persuasive piece through their own opinion thus creating a fallacious persuasive piece. Also if you don't fully support your argument then it would be a lot harder to write a persuasive piece. You may also find only a limited amount of facts for your argument, thus creating a not so persuasive piece. Usually when a writer is unable to support their argument with any more facts they tend to compensate for a limited amount of facts with their own opinion, and they believe that is alright. Supporting an argument with your own opinion is complete crap, if you don't have proof, evidence, statistics, etc to back up your opinion then your argument will not be very persuasive no matter how persuasive you think you're being.

The ways in which this can be improved is quite simple actually. If you just simply take the time to fully understand the depths of your argument and you fully understand every aspect of it then you will be set. Also instead of bull-crapping your way through everything by using your own opinion in place of raw facts you should take the time to research your argument and acquire logical facts that will strengthen your argument. Even though you shouldn't use your own opinion in place of fact that doesn't mean you can't use your own opinion to support your facts and not the other way around. Not only should you fully understand your side of the argument, but you should fully understand the opposing argument because that will give you a better understanding of the topic as a whole. This will also help you in writing your persuasive piece. Another reason why your persuasive piece may not be good is not because you don't have a good understanding of your topic, or you don't have enough facts, or too many logical fallacies, but maybe you just don't know how to properly structure your persuasive piece. Therefore reading more persuasive pieces or even researching how to properly structure your piece will definitely make your persuasive piece a lot better.

Not much would be needed to realistically improve these skills, because it's not that we are idiots and can't do the work, it's just that we are not fully applying ourselves, and only once we see a big fat 50 on our mid term when we will smarten up. If we just take the time to read over all this essay, editorial and persuasive stuff we will be good to go. If we truly take the time to read all the million and one comments you make on your writing pieces and learn from our mistakes then most of us will be fine.

Obama's Inauguration Speech Analysis

This speech seemed a little different than the other two speeches that he delivered it was similar in length to the second one, but I guess since it was an inauguration speech the crowd was a little less cheery and had a lot less applaud, because in his first speech they applauded and cheered after every second, in the second one they clapped at almost every paragraph, but in this one there was like 10 applauds and cheers for Obama.

Although just because there wasn’t as much excitement in this speech nonetheless the speech was just as great as the other two speeches Obama had delivered. Obama delivered all three speeches effectively which I’ve probably said about his previous two speeches. In all three speeches his delivery was just outstanding; his pauses were great because it allowed the audience to have a chance to absorb what he was actually talking. His tone of voice and annunciation made understanding and listening to his speech incredibly easy, and there was no discrepancies in anything he had to say. And even if there were, Obama had plenty of repetition to clarify major topics. Even something as simple as his hand gestures really made the speech a whole lot better. Just like in the previous two speeches his use of Rhetorical questions, like when he says, “Who suggests that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans.” Obama uses reader inclusion a lot in this speech because he uses words like, “we”, “us” “the people” a lot which of course is referring to the audience and America. Not even for a second did Obama exclude the audience in his speech, and that is what makes his speeches so profound.

The only difference I found in this speech than the other two speeches was obviously that this speech was a lot more serious than the previous two speeches. Also in this speech Obama got a little more serious and started talking a lot about the current issues in the United States and what his plans were to resolve these issues. Although in terms of Delivery there wasn’t much difference at all, the same goes for rhetorical devices. It was just the different issues and the more controlled audience that made this speech any different than his other two speeches.

Overall I enjoyed all three of his speeches and there weren’t any noticeable flaws that I could point out in all three of them. I will now definitely take an interest in his speeches, because now I know what to look for in his speeches, and I know his speeches will never bore me because he delivers amazing speeches.

Obama's Victory Speech Analysis

Obama’s speech was a lot shorter than his acceptance speech, but none the less it was just as great and not just because it was around half an hour shorter. Obama’s speeches could be 2 minutes or 1 hour and they would both be just as strong, just as powerful, and just as inspirational, because Obama is a great speaker and gets his message through in such a great way.

Obama’s speeches are quite similar in fact both of his speeches has similar ideas and concepts. Not only that but he uses a lot of rhetorical devices such as rhetorical questions which he uses very effectively, reader inclusion like when he talks about how this victory is all about “you the people” He doesn’t even say how winning the election is his victory to him and how he’s all happy, but he says how the victory is all the Americans victory. He also includes the audience when he says, “The road ahead will be long. Our climb will be steep, we may not get there in one year or even in one term, but America – I have never been more hopeful than I am tonight that we will get there. I promise you – we as a people will get there.” This clearly means that Obama is all for the people and nothing is about him. Obama also has a lot of repetition, like when he starts talking about schools and churches, young and old, rich and poor, black and white, gay and straight, disabled and not disabled. He was clearly using repetition to get his message out. Obama not only includes who ever voted for him in his speech, but he talks about how even though you may not have voted for me he still needs all of their help on his mission. Obama overall used a lot of anecdotes, rhetorical questions, and repetition to really get to the audience/reader. These have really enhanced his speech in both of them.

These particular devices are used because it really gets the message across to the audience, especially reader inclusion, because by using reader inclusion he really let the audience know that he is all for the people, and he also wants to get the audience/reader interested in what he has to say, because if you had a speech that was all about you, I am sure the reader would have your full undivided attention. The story is the same with Obama and his reader inclusions. Obama uses rhetorical questions because it really get’s the audience thinking, especially if his rhetorical questions have to do with something really important. After Obama would use a rhetorical question he would pause a bit and then say “yes we can” Obama repeatedly did this throughout his speech which really made the audience applaud and scream for him.

Overall In both Obama’s speeches he delivered them both with passion, power, persuasion, and honor. I have not been to much of a speech listener because I always thought they were boring and a big waste of time, but after hearing Obama his speeches really get me interested and don’t bore me even the slightest bit, and no doubt his future speeches will all be the same.

Obama's Acceptance Speech Analysis

First I read the speech, and then I watched the speech and both had a different affect on me. Before I read the speech I thought it was going to be incredibly boring and time consuming but as I read the speech I found that it wasn’t long and boring at all, I surprisingly enjoyed reading it, and it made a lot of sense. After I read the speech I watched the video and even though it was 50 minutes long, there wasn’t a second where I was uninterested or bored.

Obama has great character and style and really knows how to get a message across to people just by the way he talks, his jesters, pauses etc. Obama is exceptionally confident and this really get’s the audience interested in what he has to say. Obama indirectly tells America that America has done nothing to do with how bad America right now, it’s all Bush’s fault and America itself is not to blame. The government was corrupted and was not for the people at all. Obama is clearly a motivational speaker and has a way with words. They’re so inspirational and clearly can give America and even Canada hope.

At some points in his speech Obama actually incorporated the audience which is reader inclusion. And nothing makes an audience more interested and aware then including them in a presentation or in this case a speech. For example he says, “It's time for us to change America” or “if you commit to serving your community or your country, we will make sure you can afford a college education” By incorporating the audience this really shows that Obama is all for the people and his only interested in what is best for the people and America. From this speech Obama has really deeply connected with the audience in so many ways. At one part of his speech he had a whole list on rhetorical questions that really “wowed” the audience. Obama mentioned how he will end the war in Iraq responsibly, (key word responsibly) so he definitely will not be doing anything stupid like Bush. He also said he would finish the fight against al Qaeda and the Taliban in Afghanistan.

There is a big difference between reading his speech and actually listening to him and watching him. When you read the speech, it doesn’t sound as convincing, and persuasive, and it sounds just like any old boring speech. When you read the speech you don’t know how the writer of the speech would read it you don’t know when to pause, and there just isn’t any emotion created when reading it. On the other hand when you are listening to it or even watching it this is so much more powerful especially from a man like Barack Obama. You really have a better understanding of what he’s talking about, and you can really understand those little details that you thought meant nothing when reading it where it can mean a whole lot more when you are actually listening to it.

Finally, I found that watching this speech really gave me an understanding of what kind of person Obama is and how much he is going to change America for the better. Obama was in no hurry to finish his speech, even though it was a pretty long speech; he just took his time, paced himself and said what he had to say at a moderate speed. At the beginning of his speech and through his speech even though he was interrupted abruptly by the audience due to over excitement and applause he handled the situation well, he let them applause because he knows everyone is so happy for him and after a couple seconds he got right back to his speech smoothly and effectively. Obama made sure he got through to the audience the best way he could. With a speech as long as Obama's it's difficult to keep an audience interested but Obama seemed to pull it off.

Review

Rhetorical Devices

• A rhetorical device is a technique of using language that will increase the persuasiveness of a piece of writing.
• Some examples of rhetorical devices are: Rhetorical question, Emotive language, Contrast, Hyperbole, etc.
  
• An example of a Hyperbole (using exaggeration for effect) would be: "while we await your decision, the whole school holds its breath"
  

Structuring an Argument

• Opening - The introduction, some openings include a quotation, question, or anecdote
• Provide Background Information - provide information about your argument
• Define the terms and explain the issues - tell the audience what you mean; for example, "what is drinking?"
  
• Present the thesis - what is the arguments claim, what should be done, etc.
• Give Proof - this includes statistics, examples, quotes, or any other evidence to persuade the reader.
  
• Answer opposing arguments - specific arguments must be provided and then refuted.
  
• Conclusion - Sum up the points of the argument to show how the evidence proves the thesis.

MLA Citation

• MLA stands for Modern Language Association
  
• it's most commonly used to write papers.
  

Literary Devices

• Authors of nonfiction, fiction, poetry and drama use a variety of tools to create emotional mood, an attitude, a setting, and characterization .
• Literary Devices are one of the most effective implements that an author possesses to draw a mood more artfully.
  
• Some examples of literary devices are: Allusions, Alliterations, Flashbacks, Irony, Metaphors, etc.
  

Dramatic Devices

• dramatic devices are elements of the play, which allow the writer to build tension or other intended effects.
  
• These effects influence the action of the play and the response of the characters and audience.
  
• An example of a dramatic device is a soliloquy.