In this blog post, I will be answering a few questions about the context of my public debate.
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.
 |
| Gilbert, Sarah (2007) "grand central bakery" via Flickr Attribution Non-Commercial Share-Alike 2.0 License |
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.
Hey Addie! This is definitely an awesome current controversy in your field for you to get involved with. It's also extremely relevant because you are a current college student. I think you've got the right idea and will be able to make a convincing argument. Maybe be a bit more in-depth about the perspectives, but otherwise this was perfect! Good luck!
ReplyDeleteThis post explains what your controversy will be about pretty well. I understand what perspectives are involved in this controversy and I agree with how you will be able to use those perspectives to your benefit. I may not know as much as you on the topic but I would agree that the audiences are supposed to recognize the failures of the Rolling Stone.
ReplyDelete