"Reflection on Open Letter Draft"

For the class peer review on our final projects, an open letter, I reviewed Jenny and Clay's drafts. For the rest of this blog post, I will be reflecting on the feedback I received on my own draft and what I have learned from that feedback using the bulleted list from A Student's Guide To First-Year Writing pages 253-6. 

Sullivan, Matthew (2007) "something to see here" via Flickr
Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License

1. Did you demonstrate an ability to think about your writing and yourself as a writer?
Yes, I provided a lot of context about the type of writer I used to be compared to now. However, after reflecting on the feedback received from my peers, I should add a few more examples with textual evidence in order to better support my claims and keep my reader interested.

2. Did you provide analysis of your experiences, writing assignments, or concepts you have learned?
I provided various explanations of experiences I had throughout the course, however like I already mentioned, I should provide further examples and evidence to make the analysis stronger. 

3. Did you provide concrete examples from your own writing (either quotes from your writing or rich descriptions of your writing process)?
A few, from the blog posts and deadlines but not enough! I want to add textual evidence and hyperlinks from the final version of Project 3 because I feel like it would be a good way to exemplify the skills I have gained throughout this course; Project 3 was a more independent project that I felt strongly about. 

4. Did you explain why you made certain choices and whether those choices were effective?
Kind of, but not exactly (depends on which examples I am talking about)... maybe this would be effective to add to when I talk about organizing my time. 

5. Did you use specific terms and concepts related to writing and the writing process?
Yes! I tried to incorporate/explain most of the steps and concepts my newly improved writing process. However, I am worried that maybe it is a little too long and list-like. I might remove parts of it that are seemingly less important than others and focus on the new concepts that were really useful to me throughout the course and outside the course as well.

In general, I plan on revising the overall conventions of the genre I am writing in as well as my writing style. I tend to write wordy sentences, and for a letter, that writing style might not be very effective to keep my audience's attention. Additionally, I plan to revise the content within my letter by making sure I provide sufficient explanation for my examples as well as make sure that the examples are clear and effective.  

Draft of Open Letter

Reneman (2013) "Draft" via Wikimedia
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License

Dear Peer-Reviewers,

My "draft of open letter" is very rough. I am not quite finished yet and plan on adding more of a conclusion! It would be really helpful to me if you could please add comments where you are confused or think I should add more examples or explanation. If you think of any ideas or have suggestions please comment them on the document, I am open to all kinds of feedback including inspiration! Thank you! 

To access my draft of project 4, please click "HERE".

Reflecting More on My Writing Experiences

Dear Reader,
In this blog post I will be answering a few questions about my experiences in this course!

Discott (2014) "A Lecture Classroom" via Wikimedia
Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported License

1. What were the biggest challenges you faced this semester, overall?
The biggest challenge I faced was having to adapt my writing process in order to effectively progress through the course. Because I used to be a procrastinator, it was difficult for me to have to plan out/manage my time in order to complete each deadline successfully. Over time, however, I learned to manage my time well and keep up-to-date with my projects and deadlines. 

2. What did you learn this semester about your own time management, writing and editorial skills?
I learned that my work really is better when I make effective use of my time in order to plan and gradually develop my work, as opposed to writing the entire project in one night and revising it heavily. 

3. What do you know about the concept of 'genre'? Explain how understanding this concept is central to being a more effective writer.
Before this course, I had really only ever written analytical essays (with a strict format); my experience with writing was very limited/restricted. However, in this course, I have learned a lot about various genres of writing as well as when to use them and how to construct them effectively. I think that understanding this concept ('genre') is critical to being an effective writer because you have to understand the conventions of the genre as well as the audience to create an effective/successful work. My first experience with an unfamiliar genre was our first project, the Quick Reference Guide. Through this project, I learned a lot about the various conventions of writing within a specific genre. 

4. What skills from this course might you use and/or develop further in the next few years of college coursework?
Being a journalism major, this course has been extremely useful to me; it has prepared me to write in certain genres that were unfamiliar to me before, that I will have to write in (hopefully) in the future. Additionally, I have learned to manage my time and preparation well, helping me create better work.

5. What was your most effective moment from this semester in 109H? 
Personally, I really enjoyed project 3 and how we were able to choose the genre we wanted to write in. Through this project, I was able to implement the many writing skills/strategies this course has taught me into a project that interests me and pertains to my major. 

6. What was your least effective moment from this semester in 109H?
My least effective moment from this course was probably project 2 on rhetorical strategies. Although I understood the information that I was writing about, the genre/style I was writing in felt uncomfortable to me. Also, it was not as exciting or interesting to me as the other projects because it was less about my interests and my major and more about rhetorical strategies. However, I did my best and completed the project and deadlines! 

Revisiting My Writing Process

Dear Reader,

In this blog post I will be revisiting a few of my first blog posts (1.10 "My Writing Process" & 1.12 "Calendar Reflection") and reflecting on how I have and have not changed as a writer through my experience in the course. 

Koul, Anirudh (2009) "Reflection on the River Thames" via Flickr
Attribution-NonCommercial 2.0 Generic License

After reflecting on these two blog posts on my writing process and time management, I had originally stated that I was not much of a planner, I was a bit of a procrastinator, and I was a heavy revisor. Throughout the course I have progressed a lot as a writer and my writing process has drastically changed. Because of the set-up of the course, I was incapable of procrastinating if I wanted to get all my work done by the deadline (and do it well!). Also, the blogs that eventually became the foundations of our various projects helped me become a heavy planner. Although I am still a heavy revisor, because my work was well-thought out and well-planned, my revising process was much lighter than usual. 

Moving forward, my new skills with time management and as a writer will help me, particularly within my major (journalism). In the next 2 or 3 years of college I hope that I will continue to do a good job with time management and planning in order to create better work. In the future, I hope to be writing articles on current on-goings and in order to do so, I will need to be able to manage my time well. In this course, I have learned to effectively manage time and work as well as create effective plans of my work. 

Reflection on Project 3

Dear Reader,
In this blog post, I will be answering some questions from Writing Public Lives (page 520) on "Reflecting on the Revision Process" for Project 3. 

Sullivan, Matthew (2007) "something to see here" via Flickr
Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License

1. What was specifically revised from one draft to another?
Apart from small details like word-choice and grammatical errors, during my revising process I changed certain aspects of the overall purpose of the argument. At first, I was only writing about Rolling Stone's failures affecting the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA. However, during my revision process, I ended up shifting the focus of my argument more towards how Rolling Stone's failures ruined Phi Kappa Psi's reputation as well as fed the public's misconceptions of university Greek life in relation to rape culture. 

2. Point to global changes: how did you reconsider your thesis or organization?
After peer review, the revisions from my classmates helped me reconsider the possibilities of the purpose of my public argument. I found it to be much more influential to write about university Greek life throughout the nation (and my experiences), rather than just at UVA. Additionally, when I added more information on universities who don't have a Greek system but still have high percentages of reported rapes (Harvard and Yale), I was able to really bring my argument together (that rape is a societal issue on university campuses, not an issue only within the Greek system--which Rolling Stone provokes their audience to think). 

3. What led you to these changes? A reconsideration of audience? A shift in purpose?
Like I explained in questions 1 and 2, my changes were provoked by a shift in purpose of my public argument and what I wanted my audience to take away/consider after reading my project. I wanted my audience to reconsider their misconceptions of university Greek life (that were reinforced by Rolling Stone's article) because rape culture is a societal issue, not a Greek system issue.

4. How do these changes affect your credibility as an author?
By using a specific example, Rolling Stone's article "A Rape on Campus", I was able to building credibility for myself in the beginning of my public argument. Additionally, by adding my personal experiences within Greek life, I was able to use myself as a credible source and evoke an emotional response from my audience.  

5. How will these changes better address the audience or venue?
They provoked more rhetorical strategies in my project and helped me formulate an argument on a topic that has not really been discussed/reported heavily on in the media. 

6. Point to local changes: how did you reconsider sentence structure and style?
I reconsidered my style when I added my personal experience with university Greek life. I write...
"Being a woman and a member of university Greek life myself, I have experienced and witnessed the effects of these stereotypes. Whether or not some of the stereotypes stem from truth, it is ridiculous to claim that the entire Greek system is at fault for all reported university sexual assaults. I, for one, have never felt unsafe or uncomfortable within the Greek community in any environment."
...By shifting my style from what seems to be more evaluative into more personal, I hoped to gain trust/credibility with my audience.

7. How will these changes assist your audience in understanding your purpose?
The changes assist my audience in understanding my purpose by evoking emotional responses, building credibility, and pointing my audience more towards the idea that their judgements of the Greek system, inspired by Rolling Stone's journalistic failures, are not always true and that they shouldn't blame Greek life for rape culture when it is a societal issue. 

8. Did you have to reconsider the conventions of the particular genre in which you are writing?
No, despite the many changes I made during my revision process I did not have to make any changes with the conventions of my genre (an opinionated blog/essay for Buzzfeed). 

9. Finally, how does the process of reflection help you reconsider your identity as a writer?
After reflecting on my writing and revision process for Project 3, I feel that my identity as a writer has progressed so much since the beginning of the semester. Without even realizing it, I was able to apply various rhetorical strategies in my writing that effectively support my argument. Also, I was able to write in a genre that I have never (formally) written in. I never thought that reflecting on my writing and revising process could reveal so much about the kind of writer I am and my capabilities to write in genres or about topics I am unfamiliar with. The changes I made to my project during my revision process helped me build an effective argument that I think is important and necessary to be heard.

Publishing Public Argument

Attached are the links to my final public argument and my final notes on my public argument with 3 examples of my genre...

Stansbury, Addie (2015) "My Public Argument" via Google Docs

• My Final Public Argument

• Notes/Review of Public Argument

Reflection on Project 3 Draft

Dear Reader,

For deadline #12, I reviewed Lauren Hart's and Breanna Featherston's drafts for Project 3. In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about my own project.

Huithril (2015) "Edit" via Phanaticmc
Public Domain

1. Who reviewed your Project 3 rough draft?
Ann Emilie Tjorhom and Mark Lubniewski

2. What did you think and/or feel about the feedback you received? 
The feedback I received was really helpful, particularly the feedback from Mark in the "audience" section and the feedback from Ann Emilie in the "purpose" section. Mark wrote, "at this point, it seems as though the mishandling of UVA was prompted by existing misconceptions about Greek life established beforehand, rather than Rolling Stone’s article building a fundamentally new image in people’s heads - after all, if Rolling Stone established the stereotypes, why would UVA react the way it did?". I found his point to be really helpful because I had not realized this before. I plan on re-evaluating how I can better explain this to my audience because I understand that existing misconceptions were already a problem but I want to emphasize how that issue combined with Rolling Stone's article failure led to more problems (and therefore, my argument).

3. What aspects of project 3 need the most work going forward [audience, purpose, argumentation, or genre]? How do you plan on addressing these areas?
Personally, after looking over the peer review documents, it seems to me that I need to work most on purpose. Ann Emilie wrote, "Addie starts talking about the merits of Greek life towards the end, which could be an asset to her argument, but end up distracting readers from the causal argument she is trying to make". I realized after reading this that she is right. I plan on reconsidering how to effectively tie-in the "merits of Greek life" with my argument.

4. How are you feeling overall about the direction of your project after peer review and/or instructor conferences this week?
I feel pretty good about my draft, however, there are some changes that need to be made. Hopefully I will be able to combine a lot the advice/recommendations I received from the conference as well as from the peer review documents. 

Draft of Public Argument

Reneman (2013) "Draft" via Wikimedia
Creative Commons Attribution Share-Alike 3.0 License

Dear Readers/Peer-Editors,

When reading my draft of Project 3, an opinionated blog for Buzzfeed, keep in mind that this is a rough draft and I will be making changes (possibly some major ones) as I continue working through deadline #12! I tend to write wordy sentences; if there are too many or ways that I could reconstruct the sentence, please let me know! However, I don't want to change the structure too much because I still want it to sound like my voice/writing style. I also tend to have trouble writing conclusions. Obviously the conclusion of my blog does not need to be very formal/extensive. However, if you have an ideas please leave comments! Finally, if there are any breaks in the text where you are confused or think I should expand, comment! I have left two or three comments of my own on the draft that ask the peer editors questions, so if you think you have a good answer/suggestion, please reply to it. I hope you enjoy my blog!

To access my draft of Project 3, please click "HERE". 

Considering Visual Elements

In this blog post, I will be writing about how I plan to design and organize my Buzzfeed blog post for Project 3. 

Grabowska, Karolina (2015) "Black Pencils and Design Word" via Pexels
CC0 License

Creating Visual Coherence:

• What color choices...
• Probably black, white, red, and/or dark blue. I want to choose mild colors for my article. However, I will not have much color anyways since it will be mostly black text on a white background. 
• Font choices...
• I want to use a basic font. Articles generally contain a standard font that is easy to read.

Creating Visual Salience:

• Image selection...
• I will choose an image to be embedded into the top/beginning of my article that is clearly related to my text, supports/relates to my argument, and that will draw the attention of my audience. The image could cause an emotional response or could just be interesting in relation to the title, I'm not sure which route I want to go yet.

Creating Visual Organization:

• Text...
• I will write short concise paragraphs and space them properly so that the blog is aesthetically pleasing for my audience. They will not want to read it if is looks long or difficult to read. Therefore, the spacing between short paragraphs will break up the text making it more organized and easier to read. 
• Images...
• I only plan on having 1 or 2 images, so there won't be too much clutter within my blog post. However, I do want at least 1 or 2 images so that my audience isn't bored by its appearance.

Creating Visual Impact:

• I think that by placing the image at the top, it will guide my audience/readers into the text and help support my argument. I also think that by not adding too many images it will make my blog look more professional and will add to my credibility as the author/designer.

Project 3 Outline

In this blog post, I will be writing a general outline for my argument within the article genre for Project 3. For my outline, I have also created a cluster on coggle; to access my cluster, please click "HERE".

Stansbury, Addie (2015) "Project 3 Outline Cluster" via Coggle

Introduction (Frame the Consequences): 

• Start out by introducing the problem(s) - (Rolling Stone and their failure to write an ethical article and complete sufficient research on Jackie's alleged UVA gang-rape... provide sufficient background information/context that will lead into the purpose of your article)
• Frame the consequences
• Long term - (The specific journalistic failures I will mention could have/have had lasting effects on journalism/the reporting of sexual assaults, could prevent women from coming forward about their assaults, reinforces stereotype that women tend to fabricate rape/sexual assault stories for attention, leaving one of our country's best universities with a tarnished reputation, reinforcing the stereotypes of fraternities/Greek Life on college campuses, tarnishing the reputation/credibility of Rolling Stone, etc.)
• Short term - (Caused a ruckus/various protests on the UVA campus, etc.)

Body (building argument):

• Major Supporting Arguments (pretty much the consequences listed above)
• Rolling Stone didn't follow SPJ's Code of Ethics for professional journalism and therefore shouldn't be trusted as a source for ethical/truthful reports (hurt their own reputation as an organization)
• Sexual assault victims may fear coming forward about their attacks because they fear people won't believe them
• Journalists may feel resistance to report on stories concerning rape/sexual assault (this has a major effect on the importance of bringing awareness to the issue of sexual assault not only on college campuses but within our society)
• The failure of journalism's reinforcement of the stereotype against women that they fabricate sexual assault stories for attention
• Leaves one of the country's best universities with a tarnished reputation 
• Reinforces the stereotypes of fraternities/Greek Life on college campus in relation to rape and other sexual assault
• Major Criticisms
• People will argue that Rolling Stone could not have prevented the fact that Jackie lied about her attack 
• People will argue that whether or not Jackie told the truth, the story she told Rolling Stone was an awakening story that was meant to bring attention to the seriousness of rape on college campuses
• People will argue that Jackie could still have been attacked that night, even if she fabricated many details
• Greek Life/fraternities on college campuses are known to be one of the most dangerous and common places for sexual assault to occur 
• Topic Sentences for Rebuttal Points
• Rolling Stone could have prevented the loss of their credibility by following SPJ's Code of Ethics for professional journalism and not reporting on an alleged gang-rape that had no supporting evidence or argument from the alleged attackers in the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity at UVA.
• Whether or not the highly detailed "article" that Rolling Stone published about Jackie's alleged attack was meant to bring awareness to sexual assault on college campuses as well as within university Greek Life, Sabrina Erdely and her team at Rolling Stone failed to complete proper investigation and published a story that was extremely fabricated and had various severe consequences that effected various groups of people. 
• There is no evidence that any attack occurred on the night Jackie stated she was gang-raped by multiple men at the Phi Kappa Psi fraternity. Rolling Stone should have never reported on an attack this extreme without evidence or any knowledge of it's accuracy. 
• Greek Life/fraternities on college campuses have been haunted by the stereotypes of being a club for partiers, kids who aren't serious about school/education, and a common place where sexual assault occurs. False stories like the retracted UVA article by Rolling Stone only reinforce these false stereotypes.  
• Evidence
• "Phi Kappa Psi suspended the activities of its UVA chapter the day after the article was published, and its national leadership said they would cooperate in the police investigation and launch their own internal investigation." - NYmag
• "Phi Kappa Psi says in a statement that it "did not have a date function or a social event during the weekend of September 28th, 2012," and none of its members worked at the pool during that time. While the article suggests the gang rape was part of an initiation ritual, the fraternity does not have pledges in the fall." - NYmag
• "The University of Virginia's Phi Kappa Psi fraternity is considering legal action, after a police investigation found there was no evidence to support a Rolling Stone article's allegations that a student was gang-raped at that frat house." - Business Insider
• "Jackie's friends tell the Post that they're beginning to doubt her account. They say in the past week, she identified one of her alleged attackers for the first time. They discovered the student belongs to a different fraternity, and no one by that name was ever in Phi Kappa Psi." - NYmag
• Develop a Map of Your Argument
• Coggle

Concluding Strategies (Call to Action/Negative Consequences):

• These two concluding strategies best fit my argument because I will be mentioning the failures and negative consequences of Rolling Stone's UVA rape retracted article; so, the Negative Consequences strategy would make sense. However, not only will I be mentioning and explaining the negative consequences, I also want to write a Call to Action about how journalists can prevent these journalistic failures and negative consequences from occurring again (by following SPJ's Code of Ethics for professional journalism). 

Reflection:

After reading and commenting on Jenny and Rachel's outlines as well as reading their considering visual elements posts (Jenny's & Rachel's), I found that our outlines were very similar. Obviously that will be true for most people, however, because we were assigned specific questions and topics to focus on. Additionally, I noticed from their posts on visual elements that because we are all working in similar genres, the format and other visual elements of our projects will be similar. Overall, it seems like all three of us have a good foundation to move into drafting our projects.  

Analyzing My Genre

Enokson (2010) "Fiction Genres" via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

For Project 3, I have decided to write an opinionated blog post (almost like an article, but more personal) that would be published on Buzzfeed. Below I have provided links to 5 examples of the genre I will be writing in. I have also answered questions about my genre from Writing Public Lives page 342.

5 Examples of Articles:

• Example 1
• Example 2
• Example 3
• Example 4
• Example 5

Social Context:
The genre of an article is typically set in a magazine or in an online magazine or news source. The subject of the genre is reporting on specific news events or writing opinionated versions of those events for a specific news source. The audience of this genre is typically anyone with a baseline education who wants to or enjoys reading articles as a source of information on various topics/events. The genre is used to provide a source of information for the general public as well as to display a certain view the author or the audience might have on a specific topic. Articles are typically informational and concern specific events that have occurred recently or events that occurred in the past and are still have effects today. 

Rhetorical Patterns of The Genre:
Professional articles are meant to be truthful/ethical pieces of work that provide various information and sometimes opinions on specific subjects/events. Therefore, unethical or false information is excluded from the genre in order for the author or source of publication to maintain credibility as a news source. Articles that are published online provide hyperlinks to sources where the author received specific information. The formatting is similar to that of a QRG, however, it is a little more formal. In terms of rhetoric, articles generally appeal to ethos and logos (ethics, credibility, and logic). However, in some cases, particularly with opinionated articles, authors tend to use pathos (emotion) in their writing as well. The sentences and style of this genre are typically active and simple/complex depending on the topic. However, like I said, articles are typically formal and so the language, word-choice, and tone are professional. 

What The Patterns Reveal About The Social Context:
The genre includes anyone who is interested in the information the article is discussing or anyone who has been affected by the topic/event that is being written about. The genre encourages writers to write truthful/ethical work. Depending on the article and it's purpose, the audience could be encouraged to react or think a certain way after reading the work. The most valuable content of an article is the information and how that information is displayed and stated by the author. The least valuable content are the extra details that most articles contain like images (if there are too many) and/or comment sections for the readers. 

Reflection:
I read Jenny and Rachel's "Analyzing My Genre" posts. After reading and commenting on their posts, I noticed that our genres are fairly similar. Both Jenny and Rachel are writing editorials, so their posts were fairly similar. Though I am writing an article, the conventions of my genre are pretty similar. All three of us feel strongly about the specific uses of rhetorical strategies in our genres. Because of project 2, we already have a good understanding of how to implement rhetorical strategies effectively into our own writing. This will help us successfully build our arguments and credibility in our projects and with our targeted audiences. Overall, I think that I have a clear understanding of my genre, the article, as well as how I want to design/organize it. 

Considering Types

In this blog post, I will be considering which types of arguments that I will be using for my public argument in Project 3. 

(2010) "Men Arguing" via Flickr
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

There are two types of arguments that I am considering for my Public Argument project.The first being the Causal Argument. The Causal Argument, "introduces your argument to the causes of a specific problem or phenomenon in our society" (Writing Public Lives, 414). This is what I plan to do in my writing for Project 3. Additionally, the book states, "by pointing to the cause, you are able to also help your audience understand the potential solutions to the controversy" (Writing Public Lives, 414).

I am also considering the Evaluative Argument for my writing in Project 3. The Evaluative Argument "evaluates the successfulness of a specific policy, idea, solution to a problem, etc." (Writing Public Lives, 414). Both of these argument types would work with my public argument because I plan to explain the problems and causes of problems that Rolling Stone had with their original UVA rape article as well as evaluate the solutions that SPJ's Code of Ethics for professional journalism provides.

Reflection:
After reading and replying to Jenny and Rachel's blog posts on "My Rhetorical Action Plan" and "Considering Types", I have found that we all have a pretty good idea of which argument type best suits what we are trying to achieve in our own arguments. Also, after discussing the different types of arguments in class, I realized that the evaluative argument wouldn't work for my project. A more effective alternative to the causal argument would be the refutation argument. This is because I want to point out the mistakes that Rolling Stone made and explain why they were wrong and why what they thought was okay to publish actually wasn't. Below I have provided the links to Jenny and Rachel's blog posts that I was referring to in my reflection.

Jenny:
"My Rhetorical Action Plan"
"Considering Types"

Rachel:
"My Rhetorical Action Plan"
"Considering Types"

My Rhetorical Action Plan

In this post, I will be answering questions in order to develop my rhetorical action plan for Project 3.

Beltz (2007) "World Map" via Wikimedia
Public Domain License

1. Audience

• Knowledge
• My audience will have a lot of background on my topic/controversy. It is a very well known topic because it had such a large impact when it first occurred. The audience will have gotten their knowledge from the original article written by Rolling Stone, the articles written in response to Rolling Stone's article being retracted, the news, blogs, tweets, etc. Additionally, I am from Virginia and have many ties to the UVA campus and this news of Jackie's alleged attack and Rolling Stone's article were a huge deal in the area for a very long period of time. They still are, because the rumors continue to haunt the UVA campus, whether or not they are true. 
• Values
• The values of the audience vary; some people argue that Rolling Stone is in the wrong and UVA is the victim while others argue that Jackie is in the wrong for lying and Rolling Stone is the victim. The audience that will agree with my argument will have the values of ethical journalism and the following of SPJ's Code of Ethics for professional journalism (like Rolling Stone). Additionally, regardless whether or not Jackie is telling the truth, particularly because we don't know, the audience will expect empathy towards Jackie in writing. She could have been attacked but fabricated her story. 
• Standards
• I will be using a lot of research found in my articles I used for Project 1 (QRG). The information against Rolling Stone's credibility as a news source can be easily translated to my audience by provided various examples of where and why Rolling Stone went wrong and why it is their fault, not Jackie's. 
• Visual Elements
• I don't really understand this question, however, if I am interpreting this right, my audience will respond to visual images/elements that evoke emotion. My information against Rolling Stone's credibility and how the public cannot trust them as a source will evoke emotions possibly of anger or disappointment.  
• Purpose
• My audience will be reading/interested in my argument because they share the same values and beliefs as me regarding Rolling Stone. I hope to expand their understanding on how Rolling Stone and its writers failed as journalists by not following SPJ's Code of Ethics. It will encourage my audience of journalists to write ethically in order to maintain credibility and it will encourage my audience of news seekers to be wary of things reported in the media.

2. Genre

• Blog
• The genre of blogging is personal/reflective writing and can often be opinionated. It is supposed to be informative on the author's thoughts and opinions for the audience. I am considering creating a blog post for Project 3 because I think it would be an effective way to share my own opinions on my topic while also making the writing a bit more personal and fun. Blog posts are generally written and published on the author's blog page; blog pages keep all of the author's posts in one place and they could follow a certain theme/topic or they could also be random posts the author wanted to write about. If I were to write a blog, it would be very opinionated and I would use various rhetorical strategies to evoke emotion from my audience and gain their support. I would also take advantage of the logical aspects in rhetoric with my writing because I will be referencing the SPJ Code of Ethics in professional journalism. In a blog post, I could add a picture or two to add more of a visual element. The style of blog posts are commonly informal however, some people enjoy writing formal blog posts. 
• Example 1
• Example 2

• Article
• The genre of an article in a newspaper or magazine (online or in print) can often be opinionated and is generally for informational purposes. Articles are usually written to report on a specific happening and provide detailed information about that happening. I think that an opinionated article would be an effective way to inform my readers on my topic as well as express my values and beliefs on the subject. Writing in this genre, I would use rhetorical strategies to evoke emotion from my audience and gain their support. I would also take advantage of the logical aspects in rhetoric with my writing because I will be referencing the SPJ Code of Ethics in professional journalism. An article could have a header image and an eye-catching title. Articles are generally formal, academic, and informative. These aspects of articles would suit my topic well. Additionally, many articles have already been written about my topic.
• Example 1
• Example 2

3. Responses/Actions

• Positive Reactions
• I would like for my audience to reconsider the importance of ethics in journalism not only from the writer's position but from the people seeking information as well.
• I hope that journalists who read my article will be encouraged to practice truthful/ethical journalism.
• I hope my audience will share my values/beliefs after reading my work.
• Negative Rebuttals
• Some people will argue that Jackie is the one at fault and Rolling Stone is the victim. To this, I would argue that whether or not that is true, Rolling Stone is still responsible for what they publish on their website and in their magazines. They knew that they didn't have sufficient research but decided to post the article/story anyways. 
• Some people would argue that we still don't know if Jackie told the truth or not regardless of the fact that there is no evidence and that it is unethical to say that she lied. To this, I would argue that sufficient evidence has been found to rightfully assume that Jackie lied, regardless to whether or not she was attacked at some point.
• Some people would argue that Rolling Stone couldn't have prevented their faults. To this, I would argue that they definitely could have. It was Rolling Stone's responsibility to publish truthful work and they failed to do so. 

Analyzing Purpose

For this blog post I have created a coggle. To access my coggle, please click "HERE". 

Stansbury, Addie (2015) "Analyzing Purpose Cluster" via Coggle

Analyzing Context

In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about the context of my public debate.

Gilbert, Sarah (2007) "grand central bakery" via Flickr
Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 License

1. What are the key perspectives or schools of thought on the debate that you are studying?
Majority of the perspectives on my argument are against Rolling Stone, calling the UVA rape article a failure of journalism for lack of proper research and ethics. However, there are still many people who argue that Rolling Stone was the victim of the situation and that Jackie is the only one in the wrong. 

2. What are the major points of contention or major disagreements among these perspectives?
The main points of contention are who is at fault for the UVA rape Rolling Stone scandal. 

3. What are the possible points of agreement, or the possible common ground between these perspectives?
That both are at some sort of fault because there was not enough research done and Jackie lied about her alleged attack.

4. What are the ideological differences, if any, between the perspectives?
Many people who blame Rolling Stone for the scandal accuse the people who blame Jackie of being unethical for blaming a girl who could have been raped, whether or not her story was completely true. 

5. What specific actions to their perspectives or texts ask their audience to take?
For my chosen argument (against Rolling Stone), the audience is supposed to recognize what failures occurred in the writing and researching of Erdley's "article" on Jackie's alleged attack on the UVA campus.   

6. What perspectives are useful in supporting your own arguments about the issue? Why did you choose these?
I think that the perspectives against Rolling Stone are useful for my own argument because I think that it was a failure of journalism that Sabrina Erdley didn't complete sufficient research; she wrote a story not an article. 

7. What perspectives do you think will be the greatest threat to your argument? Why so?
That Rolling Stone is a victim because Jackie made everything up and they couldn't have known that she was lying (but they could have assumed since their was no evidence). 

Reflection:
After reading Jenny and Rachel's blog posts on Analyzing Context, I realized that I could have been more specific when discussing the different perspectives of my audience and possible disagreements. Jenny did a great job of providing specific descriptions of different perspectives and audiences as well as considering the major disagreements among the perspectives. Rachel's post was very detailed and well thought out. I realize now that I could have done more in responding to these questions regarding the different perspectives of my audiences. 

Audience and Genre

In this post, I will be identifying 2-3 specific groups of individuals who could potentially be my audience for Project 3 (my act of public speech).

Mirkolorenz (2010) "Data Driven Journalism Process" via Wikimedia
CC BY-SA 3.0 License

1. Journalists or future journalists learning about failures of journalism or simply the Rolling Stone UVA rape failure. 
Like me, future journalists are interested in learning more about journalism successes as well as its failures. To understand and meet the requirements and expectations of professional journalism, one must observe the mistakes of journalism as well. Because the Rolling Stone UVA rape scandal was recent and had such an impact on journalism concerning rape and sexual assault, it is still a hot topic for journalists to learn and gossip about. 

Where would you publish your research?

• Article
• Similar to the articles that I have been referring to for my own research, I could write a magazine or online article for my act of public speech. Writing in this genre, with magazine or online magazine articles in particular, is an easy and effective way of get the desired information and argument across to my targeted audience. 
• Example 1
• Example 2
• Interview Q & A
• This could be a video or written interview where I ask questions regarding the controversy for my act of public speech. 
• Example 1
• Example 2

2. Rolling Stone & fanatics or anti-fanatics  
Rolling Stone has been keeping up with the good, but mostly bad, press that has followed their UVA rape article scandal. They are aware of the mistakes they made in publishing the article and of the consequences that have followed those mistakes. Additionally, many people's views on Rolling Stone have been altered since the retraction of the article. 

Where would you publish your research?

• Article Review
• Though it has already been done many times by several journalists, I could write a review to Rolling Stone's UVA rape article, for my act of public speech, that explains where, in my opinion, Rolling Stone went wrong. The Columbia School of Journalism review is the best example I can think of that picked apart the process and failures of Erdley's story and Jackie's alleged rape.
• Example 1
• Example 2

• Quick Reference Guide
• Although I am not allowed to write in this specific genre because I already have for Project 1, it would be an effective way to organize my information, especially since a lot of the information is spread out over the past year. It took a long time and a lot of work to investigate Jackie's alleged rape as well as where Rolling Stone went wrong.
• Example 1
• Example 2

Extended Annotated Bibliography

fixedandfrailing (2014) "Citations 2" via Flickr
Attribution Share-Alike 2.0 Generic License

In this post I will attach a google doc of my annotated bibliography for Project 3. In this annotated bibliography, I have only found 5 new sources so far. However, there are many sources from my annotated bibliography for Project 1 that I will be able to use in Project 3. 

To access my annotated bibliography for Project 3, please click "HERE". 

Narrowing My Focus

The most important questions for me to answer/learn more about in my act of public speech are the following:

Neutrality, (2005) "Question Mark" via Wikimedia
Public Domain

1. How has this controversy effected Rolling Stone?

2. How has Rolling Stone responded to this controversy?

3. Where, specifically, did Rolling Stone go wrong?

4. Learn more about the specific people involved and their impact on the controversy.

I think that these questions are the most important and interesting questions to answer as I move further along with Project 3 because the controversy only began when Rolling Stone decided to publish the story of Jackie's alleged gang rape at UVA in 2012. Being a journalist major, I want to focus on/learn more about the process, failures, and gray areas, that Rolling Stone faced when writing, publishing, and then retracting Savannah Erdley's story that was meant to be a piece of journalism. 

Questions About Controversy

For project 3, I have decided to participate in the public debate on Rolling Stone's UVA rape story that was published and then retracted in late last November and early December.

Neutrality, (2005) "Question Mark" via Wikimedia
Public Domain

Series of focusing questions to reframe the controversy as you prepare to enter the public conversation:

Who is involved in the controversy?
1. What more should we know about the author, Sabrina Erdley?
2. What can we learn about Jackie's friends whom she contacted after the alleged attack?
3. How does the article portray these friends?
4. Who from Rolling Stone played a major role in the controversy?
5. Who was the accused attacker who instigated the alleged gang rape?
6. Who on the UVA campus is prevalent in this controversy?

What is up for debate in this controversy?
1. What was true in Jackie's story?
2. What was false in Jackie's story?
3. Where, specifically, did Rolling Stone go wrong?
4. How is Rolling Stone in some ways a victim?
5. What more can we learn about the role ethics has played in this controversy?

When has this controversy unfolded?
1. What is significant about the fact that Jackie reported her rape more than a year after she says it occurred?
2. When were other articles that were written about this controversy published? Why? Is this significant?
3. Recently after the retraction of the UVA rape article, were other reported rape and sexual assaults reported on or not? 
4. How long after the article was published was it retracted?
5. When was the last article written about this controversy? Are they still being written?

Where has this controversy unfolded?
1. What more can we learn about how this controversy has changed life on UVA's campus?
2. What more can we learn about how this controversy has changed life on other college campuses?
3. What more can we learn about how this has effected the lives of other rape and sexual assault victims in the US?
4. How has this affected the fraternity of Phi Kappa Psi in the US?
5. How has this controversy effected Rolling Stone?

How has this controversy has unfolded?
1. How did Erdley reach out to Jackie? 
2. How did Erdley even know to contact Jackie in the first place?
3. How has UVA's community reacted to this alleged attack?
4. How did Phi Kappa Psi respond to this alleged attack?
5. How has the public responded to this alleged attack?
6. How has Rolling Stone responded to this controversy?