THE FINAL BLOG POST

I had been wondering when this day would come...

This course has been most interesting in the aspect towards my own writing. I have found that I can embed my own sarcastic self into practically any piece of writing. I must admit, that was a pretty big moment for me. Finding a way to be sarcastic even in writing!? Awesome!

I never really have been a proficient writer. My mind goes a million miles an hour and my fingers cant keep up. Finding a way to slow down and create a funny line, or put in a pun, or just give my own opinion on something really helped me out as a writer in general.

Extended Essay #2

Everyone is familiar with the Titanic. Hell, there was even a movie based upon that catastrophe. Almost everyone is familiar with the line, “I’ll never let go, Jack. I promise.” Now, I think that there will be a movie called Costa Concordia. Not necessarily showing a catastrophe on the same scale as the Titanic. Instead, it would be a tale showing the atrocities of the captain, who abandoned ship before many of his passengers seeing as he is also responsible for about thirty deaths. 

Of all of the news stories to write about, I chose to write about one that involved a sense of stupidity. On January 13^th, 2012, the Italian Cruise ship, the Costa Concordia, struck some rocks of the western coast of Italy. The ship took a five-mile detour to pass by the “picturesque Tuscan island of Giglio.” The ship came up to 300 meters away from the shore. Three hundred meters. That is a little bit more than the length of three football fields. After the collision, the ship lost power and began to take on water. The news started reporting on the initial catastrophe, then the bashing of the captain and his actions along with the hunt for survivors. 

The first thing that the news stories covered was the initial story of the cruise ship and the search for survivors. When the cruise ship ran aground, it slid on the rock. This made the ship tilt and take on even more water. This caused the ship to tilt more and more until it rested completely on the rock. Now that the ship is so tilted, the lifeboats cannot come off of the other side of the boat. Causing passengers to become stranded on the boat. News stories reported how the rescue attempts were going. For example, BBC news reported different stories on how the cruise shop actually did collide with the rocks, and what happened after. There are stories that say that she came too close to shore initially, and then ended up on the rocks by the shore. Then there are stories that say she ran aground at the point where she turned over and laid by the shore.

Regardless of the stories reported on the initial impact, what followed were the stories on the Captain of the Costa Concordia. Francesco Schettino quite possibly is one of the most incompetent people on the world today. First, he traveled five miles off course, just so the passengers could see a “picturesque” island. Then, before all of his passengers were off of the Concordia, he abandoned ship. He even had the tenacity to say that, and I quote, "I didn't even have a life jacket because I had given it to one of the passengers. I was trying to get people to get into the boats in an orderly fashion. Suddenly, since the ship was at a 60-70° angle, I tripped and I ended up in one of the boats. That's how I found myself in the lifeboat.” There are a few things about this quote that you can tell that he is lying. One, the probability of him tripping and landing in a lifeboat is extremely slim. Second, if he were so committed to saving the passengers, he would have tried to get back on deck to save as many passengers as he could. Even when the Italian Coast Guard told Schettino to, “Get on board, dammit!” the Captain did not comply. By reporting this, the media got a heavy reaction from the public. There were t-shirts made, saying, “Vada a bordo, cazzo!” Which translates into the quote from the Coast Guard, “Get on board, dammit!”

While the Captain was gaining infamy, there were constant reports on how the search for survivors was going. The news even got a hold of a few rescue divers to solidify their profit from the story. The numbers of those found dead is around 20 and those still missing is around 15. An article from the Sun starts out with a sentimental story including a little boy and his teddy bear. The diver had been tasked with finding that teddy bear as the child had not been able to sleep for many days following the wreck.

The news industry is a highly successful industry. They keep in mid that they need people to read their stories in order to make money. This makes writers think not only about their audience, but also about their audience’s reaction from the story. They want a reaction that will bring a further interest in the news story. For example, reporting the initial story will bring a basic interest. Then showing the atrocities of the captain with the sentimental stories about the survivors, dead, and those missing would surely bring any of the readers back.

What has not been reported, however, was what the Captain did well. He led the already sinking ship into shallower water, so the evacuation and rescue mission could have time to carry out. If he had not done so, the ship would have sank into deep water, causing more death. This was not mentioned in the news because it would detract readers from their current topics, which was of the bad things that the Captain did. In turn, this would be a risky story to share, because it could cause the readers to not care as much in regard to all of the negative media the Captain was facing and will be facing in the future. In my own personal opinion, the Captain was incredibly stupid to go five miles off course. Instead of keeping with course, he had to do a ‘salute’ or a float by with the cruise ship to a friend. If he hadn’t of done this, the entire crisis would have been stopped. He did incredibly well to make the ship run aground and say on the rock. But, as for the actual rescue and staying on the ship until every last passenger was off, he is a coward.

Kington, Tom. "Costa Concordia Captain Claims He Tripped and Fell into a Lifeboat."The Guardian. Guardian News and Media, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/jan/18/costa-concordia-captain-tripped-lifeboat>.

"Captain Coward: 'I Only Left Because I FELL into Lifeboat When Ship Listed Suddenly as I Was Trying to Help'" Mail Online. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2087704/Costa-Concordia-Captain-Francesco-Schettino-I-left-I-FELL-lifeboat.html>.

"'Most Drowned Bodies Are in Swimsuits. This One Was in an Elegant Dress'" 301 Moved Permanently. Web. 27 Feb. 2012. <http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/features/4124879/Brave-rescue-divers-of-Costa-Concordia.html>.

Taking an Approach

Much like the previous two chapters that we read, "Take an Approach" was pretty difficult to understand. I gathered that it has three categories, acknowledging influence, turning the approach on itself, and noting and reflecting on the choices you've made. (79) I like to think of "taking an approach" as a music artist making a remix. They keep some of the original music in the song, but they change a few minor things. 

The New York Times does, in fact, use take an approach. Many of the news articles are in response to other articles. They don't necessarily agree with the articles, but they take their main ideas and talking points from the original article. Two of the effects of this strategy are bias overload or too much opinion. Typically, you want the story to stay close to the same while adding a few different key thoughts. If any bias or opinion gets into the news story, the article could take a turn for the worse.

It’s the same thing with the Bleacher Report. It constantly shapes stories and analyses from the "writers" of the story or the soccer players. The players give the story, then, the sports writers take that story and “take an approach” based on that player's or that team's performance. Finally, they back up their approach with details of why they chose that specific approach. The effects of “taking an approach” are verisimilar to the effects of the NYT. Bias cannot go into the Bleacher Report. However, opinion can. This is only if it is backed up with facts.

Revising the New York Times

I'm choosing to 'revise' my post about the NYT as a news source. I found that I didn't really answer the questions. And to those questions that I did answer, I could have given more information. I am using forwarding because I could have inserted more information to this post. (much like a yes..., and....)


Ah. The New York Times. The epitome of a sophisticated newspaper/website/smartphone app/whatever else. Yeah, they have a slight liberal bias, but that's not the point of this post. The point is that after reading one of those articles and not having difficulty with any big words and understanding all of the content, I feel smart. I have grown as a reader and a writer because of reading the NY Times.

I try to stay away from the boring stories, but it is hard to tell which ones are good and which ones ae bad by reading the title and first few lines of the story. However, the stories I read are based of large, important events. This is because the arger more important news stories have a greater interest to me. For example, few stories that I kept up with were: the idiotic Italian Captain of the cruise ship that ran his ship into a rock. Or the Superbowl. Or the nation's current political events. 


To be honest the NYT has not had that profound of an impact on myself and my reading habits. I haven't been reading that source of news long enough to have a noticeable change on rhetorical habits, like work or thoughts. However, The Times have impacted my verbatim and reading style. No longer am I a stereotypical Arkansan, with a minimal vocabulary who doen not understand content due to a minimal vocabulary. I am a student at the University of Denver. I can speak good and stuff. Well, y'all know what I mean.

Countering

Countering, developing a different way of thinking to "nullify"or to add constructive criticism writing, is not very prevalent in The Bleacher Report. This is because countering is not as useful as forwarding for this specific type of blog. There is no need for constructive criticism in sports blog posts. Thus, there is no real need for countering.

This doesn't stop the readers of The Bleacher Report from a quasi-countering. They comment on the post and make sure that their opinion is heard. This isn't necessarily countering because they provide no insight on their opinion; they just state it. However, they share their thoughts and opinions in a semi-organized way that ev their own thoughts via a public website. In this form of kind-of-countering, the only things that are gained are the other readers' opinions. I learn the what the opinions are, not why they have those opinions or how they came upon them. If they shared why and how they came upon their own opinions, they would provide a level of outside understanding of that opinion, which would evoke more opinions from the blog. In turn, coming closer to an actual Harris definition of countering.

Forwarding

Forwarding is commonly associated with e-mail. When someone wants to view an e-mail that you have, you can just forward them the e-mail. Harris' idea of forwarding is similar. Harris' idea includes the recirculation of ideas in writing. He talks about using learned information from various other sources or voices and incorporating it in your writing. It is a way of taking in information that other people put out there and incorporating that information into writing.

The Bleacher Report has a small example of forwarding. Little is lost in this sites forwarding, but much is gained. The site provides so much information on the topic of soccer. There are trade rumors, game break-downs, and many other SportsCenter-esque topics. The only things that are lost in the Bleacher Report are the original sources. The posts do not have a link to the original site or do they cite where the information is from.

There are a few things that are altered in The Bleacher Report. First of all, bias. There could be little to no bias in a story when it gets to the Bleacher Report blogger. They could warp the it into a completely biased, one-sided story. Also, they could leave out quite a few details in their post. Most of the posts are less than 100 words. This could potentially leave out a few major details. 

One thing the The Bleacher Report does well in the view of forwarding is the ability to leave comments. Although those comments are usually left by sports readers who, to put it simply, are quite dumb and insulting. They are not very creative in their insults to other teams and they think that their opinion is always right. Despite the ability to leave comments, many of the comments are "collapsed." This means that they were flagged for content or that they were taken down from the website due to profanity. But profanity and sports will always go hand in hand.

Prime Rib or Chili Burger. Take your pick.

First of all, let me say this: The Bleacher Report, a collection of blogs about sports (the specific blog I follow is all about soccer), is nothing like the New York Times. The NYT is the prime rib of news, and the Bleacher Report is a chili burger. It's still really good, but the the prime rib is just on a completely different level. The audience for each news source can be compared as well. The stereotypical NYT reader is a big word using writing-fanatic typically with a Mac. The stereotypical Bleacher Report is a past soccer player who has either: gotten old/out of shape or a soccer fan.

As far as function, the NYT and the Bleacher Report are a part of a press sphere. They both use their sources to present a story. The difference is in the writing and the presentation. The NYT is a higher level of writing and is more difficult to read than the Bleacher Report. The Bleacher Report has a lot of pictures and is very simple to read and comprehend. I mean, it's a sports blog. It has to be easy to read.