Quote Inspiration

  I became very inspired by a few quotes I have read over the course of researching for my rational argument.

  The first quote can be found in Elizabeth Thoman's "What Parents Can Do About Media Violence" while the second I actually simplified. In reality, Dr. Dale Kunkel argues "Most violence on television follows a highly formulaic pattern that is both sanitized and glamorized," in his hearing to Congress, "The Effects of Television Violence on Children."

Rational Argument Reflection

I was hesitant and weary when I first started brainstorming, not yet ready to put ideas to paper. I found my sources and slowly became more confident as I sub searched them; their quotes and themes were very interesting regarding children and violent television programs. Then I was lost again. Where to start?

I had so many concepts I wanted to include in my paper it was too overbearing especially since I have other responsibilities to turn my time to; I couldn't possibly write another paper! So I reached out to Dr. Kyburz and asked for help. I am so happy I went in that first day because we mapped out my entire paper, the weight of stress and burden was halfway lifted off my shoulders. I sigh with relief.

But now I actually have to write the paper...

Beginning with a free write of every single paragraph, I went on a rant about my feelings and all other thoughts. It was a total whirlwind of words and sentences that would not make sense to anyone else other than myself. But it was worth it. I brought my gibberish of thoughts and feelings to Dr. Kyburz and it was enough to give me that push to start the paper.

Just to show what my free write consisted of, my first paragraph began like this...

"My brother Jake loves, i mean LOVES violent video games. He’s obsessed. He talks of violence and guns., wanting to shoot innocent geese at our lake place without showing any empathy for their well being. While my younger sister who is seldom exposed to violence, has such a huge heart for any living beings well being she actually didn’t talk to my dad for three days after he grabbed a seagull’s leg at the beach and temporarily paralyzed it. Before he got into the games he cared so much about animals; he cried at Red Lobster when he was six after he found out the lobster he was about to eat was boiled alive. Thinking about my brother I now think more broadly about violence in media “Media is today's storytellers” (elaborate more) many of us get these stories from TV, and evidence of the effects of violence on TV is evident. It is such a power impact in media culture, almost like instructions get to kunkel"

And I ended up (for my first draft) like this...

My brother Jake is obsessed with violent video games. He talks about violence and guns regularly, wanting to shoot the geese at my lake house with his BB gun. Before he became involved with these monstrous games he had such a big heart for animals; when he was six, he cried at Red Lobster after my parents told him the lobster he was eating was boiled alive. 

 
"Thinking about Jake, I wonder more broadly about the effects of violent media. Elizabeth Thoman, founder of Media&Values Magazine and The Center for Media Literacy explains in “What Parents Can Do About Media Violence” that “media is today’s storytellers” (Thoman). Many of these stories come from television which is easily accessed and widely used; frequently on at home, found in minivans, store owners feel the need to incorporate TVs into their stores; they are pervasive.  A child at the dentist may be watching the news from a TV--a frequent companion to waiting rooms--about all of the shootings or fights that have occurred as he waits to get called for a checkup. Its impact is so powerful, it seems television is viewed as a mentor, giving instructions on how to live.

I know there are still some tweaks that need to be done in order for the first to paragraphs to really hit home, but because I had the free write, drafting was (almost) a breeze. Finding the correct word choice and flow is still difficult for me."

I feel more confident that I did starting the project, which I feel is a great improvement. I still have a long way to go and continue to dread beginning to draft more paragraphs, however, I know that once I get rolling, I don't stop for awhile.

MultiModal Project

What is the Present Revealing About the Past?

  Writing the Summary and Analysis has been a challenge that was time consuming. However, I feel I have learned more now than I did when I wrote my first analysis the prior semester. And as I continued to persevere with this piece, the project created new realizations about my past. 

  My last analysis copied the structure of another previous student's piece; I took the format and plugged in my own words in a way that would make my professor happy enough to give me a good grade. Sure, I did what she wanted, but was the grade well deserved? The analysis of the documentary Blackfish was unoriginal and probably the same as almost everyone else's. I hate that. I feel so ashamed now I did not try harder to produce a more "Kayla-esc" paper that I can sincerely be proud of. But this Summary and Analysis I truly am proud of as I followed the requirements of my new professor and I did my own thing. I did not know what I was doing, but the paper is me and my own voice and structure. 

  Although my work ethic was different than now, I realize I still have that same apprehensive feeling before starting a paper. That consuming uncertainty of what to say and how to say it. So many ideas flood my mind I cannot keep track, making me feel almost dumb because I am unable to put my thoughts on paper. Especially when I have the inability to write them down in an eloquent, smart, and unique way. The pressure to be perfect but stand out I feel actually suppresses me. I wish I could just write my voice and it would be appropriate, but I understand there must be a level of professionalism and intelligence. I feel like many writers struggle with this problem as well, but I feel all I can do to improve is to continue writing. And I really try but I have always hated writing because of this problem of trying to be so outstandingly different.

  I will always try to hard to the point where it constricts my mental flow, but I have to keep going, keep writing and practicing. I know how important writing is, how powerful the tool is for my future and I need to get over myself and just... write. 

Summary and Analysis Thoughts So Far

  This week for college writing, I began a new summary for a new article for the third time now. It's been fun these past few weeks...

  As I begin again, I already feel behind compared to what I could have been at if I found the right article the first time. It really sucks in all honesty, I'm used to being ahead or right on time so this is something I'm definitely trying to get used to and work little by little each day on it so I don't explode. 

  Anyways, I finally found an "article" (it's a speech but I found that transcripts and have only read them, I never watched the speech) and Sherry Turkle uses rhetoric for her argument. An argument. I had no idea that we had to find something with rhetoric and argumentative language, but that's okay, I finally found something that works.

  So I started the summary again, but this time I'm trying to incorporate quotes I feel can be heavily analyzed right away instead of simply completing all of the summary, then going back and trying to figure out where I want to put my quote sandwiches. It's still tricky though. I don't know what it is about summarizing for a short while then analyzing something in the same paragraph then going back to summarizing, but it is for me. It sounds so easy to do, right? I'm having such a tough time on it though. 

  Maybe the difficulty lies in the actual analyzation, finding the right words to explain how Turkle was effective or ineffective in proving her point for the argument. Maybe it's difficult finding the right quotes for my ideas, because Turkle does do an AMAZING job with relating to the audience, catching their attention, and bringing home her argument to the point where one will say she's so right. That was my perspective while reading her speech at least. The way she humbles herself instead of insisting she's this all mighty, intellectual psychologist above everyone else because she's not like them, really makes her more attractive (not appearance wise, but intellectually) and likable. I think that is a huge factor in trying to persuade your audience something they do daily is a bad in many ways. Or maybe the difficulty lies in blending everything together, not saying too much or too little, but just right. 

  I'm going to continue drafting, hope what I'm doing is what my teacher wants, and get more help once I have a solid paper to go off of. Until then, I'll keep pulling my hair out and try to make sense of everything I want to say.

  In case you wanted to watch the actual TED talk speech, here ya go!

Unsupportive Claims

https://www.reference.com/technology/mobile-phones-good-bad-1b1c6fa5bfaf9707

  On my previous blog I wrote a summary of an article I read about how cell phone use could potentially lead to brain cancer. The article had credible sources and included actual studies used to analyze the cell phone's influence on the brain. The article I have in this blog however, may not be of the same topic concerning cell phones, but talks about the influence of phones nonetheless. However, the difference between the earlier article and this article is the use of credible sources to back up their claims.

  Sure, you can see this Reference article includes "Studies show", "Scientists believe", and also "The Federal Communications Commission", but it is only for two points the writer makes. And "studies show" is not a reliable or credible source to back up anxiety and depression from phones. There are about ten unsupportive claims in this article. These claims may be common knowledge, or we have read, heard, and seen many sources regarding cell phones and we "just know it", however, when trying to answer a question, especially in written form (and online) evidence is needed for support. 

  With everything on the Internet right now, people are able to say whatever they want to, whether it is false or not. Nowadays, at least for me, I hear a lot of people saying "You can't trust what's on the Internet" or a sarcastic "Oh, since it's on the web it HAS to be true". People can post any claim they want, do not use sources, yet claim everything they say is true, this goes for much of the Internet population that likes to post unsupportive claims. Without sources of statistics, studies, credible authors and thinkers, how are the rest of us to know what they say is actually true? If everyone just starts to believe it and then start saying it all the time? No. We need evidence and proof. Give me facts with evidence to prove the point, not facts "you think you know because you heard it from somewhere else".

Summery "Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Factors"

  "Cell Phones and Cancer Risk Factors", composed by the senior leaders of the National Cancer Institute website was last updated May 27, 2016. The article transitions from the concerns of cell phone use to radio frequency, and finally how phone use can contribute to the formation of cancer.

  The article first reviews the three top concerns: the emission of radio waves, the increase of overall cell phone users, as well as the increase of the amount of time using wireless phones. Then, diving right into radio frequency, the article explains radio waves are a form of electromagnetic radiation and its energy can be measured on the frequency of the radiation. High frequency radiation (high energy), such as x-rays can cause cancer, however there are inconsistent studies of low frequency radiation (low energy), such as microwaves and cell phones, causing cancer on the human body. The article goes on to explain the studies done on effects of radio frequency energy might affect glucose metabolism, but scientists concluded there are no established or consistent results.

  Providing three epidemiology experiments, the article explains how the studies analyze the possible correlation of radio frequency energy and malignant brain tumors. Interphone is the first case-control study analyzed questionaries from study participants and concluded there was no substantial increase in brain or central nervous system cancers in people who devoted most of their time to their phones. The Danish Study, a cohort study, connected billing information to the phone subscribers with brain tumors; the end result was a lack of association between the two. Finally, The Million Women Study used questionaries from study participants as well and determined there was also no association of increased cancer from exposure of cell phone radiation energy. Ten other studies were briefly exposed, all of which said there was either no association, no increase of brain tumors, results were inconsistent, and brain cancer may be due to cell phone use at an early age.

  According to the article, the results of the studies previously explained are inconsistent due to five possible reasons. When a participant provides information after their diagnosis of a disease, they may remember their cell phones differently than someone who has never had brain cancer, meaning their information lacks verifiable data and leads to recall bias. Inaccurate reporting is the result of a participant's inability to provide accurate data of themselves because they do not remember how much they really have been on their phone. There is also morbidity and morality among the participants with brain cancer; the participants who have survived may be impaired and not able to recall information correctly, otherwise those who have died will have family members may not provide the accurate amount of use of the participant that is deceased. Also participation bias, those with brain cancer may enroll in studies more regularly than those with no cancer, may lead to inconsistent data. Finally, there are changes in technology and methods of use, such as digital technology and texting; with texting, there is no reason to bring the phone up to the head and expose the brain to the radio frequency energy.

  Through the findings and information from other credible sources, the article explains what experts conclude on all the experiments conducted. The experts said the information was inconsistent, there are possible malignant effects on the brain, more research needs to be conducted, and the scientific evidence is lacking. However, according to the article, there are studies underway, a cohort study named COSMOS began in 2010, enrolled almost 300,000 participants 18 and up to answer questionaries. The study will analyze their health conditions over the next decades.

  The article proceeds to the question of if children are at higher risk due to their developing nervous system and smaller heads (the radio frequency energy can reach more are inside the brain). Studies were performed on children between the ages of 7 and 19 diagnosised with brain cancer, but there was no association between phone use and cancer. To be on the safe side though, the article provides ways to reduce radio frequency exposure, such as limiting phone calls on wireless phones or wearing wireless headsets to prevent bringing the phone to the head.

  Lastly, the article concludes with providing another source of information if one wants to further their knowledge on cell phone radio frequency energy. The article also explains brain cancer is not that common, the rates have stayed consistent over the years but the risk does increase with age.