Final Blog Musings

Writing in a blog every week has definitely changed my perspective on writing both academically and recreationally. This class has helped me to broaden my audience. It has helped me to see that it is possible to communicate with people outside of my family and my friends. I think that that is the most useful part of this class: the ability to recognize the ideas of others and to be willing to share your own. I think that this will definitely be applicable to life beyond writing courses in college. Especially with politics and current events, I think that I will be more open to discussion. This is a very important tool to have if you want to be involved with what is going on in the world. I also find this course very interesting because it added a new concept to what I know about writing. In school we always learned about making sure you don’t plagiarize and ethics behind it, but we were never given a way to rewrite something. I think that this is a very important skill to have, especially in school. Reading Harris’s book gave me a new perspective on writing using the works of other writers.  I think that I am better able to contribute to ideas and put my own spin on them because I now have the tools to make my “rewriting” interesting and effective. This class was very interesting overall and I think that it has given me new ways of thinking that will benefit my writing in the future.

Essay Numero Dos

Following the BP Oil Spill

April 20, 2010 is a very important date for our country. Now most people may not immediately remember what happened on that day, but mention BP Oil and a light goes on. On that day the Deepwater Horizon oil rig for BP Oil had an explosion which would soon cause the worst oil spill that has ever occurred in U.S. waters. Countless lives, both human and otherwise, were affected by the oil spill causing huge media attention from the press and the public. Reflecting back on this event you can see how the different forms of press were able to move the story and focus national attention on different aspects of the event. Throughout this process you can see how the many lives of a story can help change and shape the subject of the story.

The first news of the oil spill was reported the morning after the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Most coverage of the oil rig explosion focused on the workers both those that had been rescued and those that could not be found. The notion that the oil rig could sink and that some of the oil was going to leak into the ocean was mentioned in some articles, but very few elaborated on this. The New York Times for instance had a report on the oil rig the next day, April 21, 2010, discussing the missing workers and the actions that were being taken to control the fire caused by the explosion. The author mentions the threat of water pollution, “The rig was taking on water…but company officials said they did not expect it to collapse” (Cambell). Many other news reports were broaching the possibility of an oil spill, but most kept an optimistic outlook on it. The cause of the explosion is explored in the article in the New York Times as well, mentioning how the phase in the drilling that they were in can be temperamental. However, the article cites an oil analyst who says that it is highly unusual for this to happen. Since the explosion had just happened and it seemed as if it was being taken care of there was very little media attention.

For the next two days news sources covered the efforts of firefighters to stop the fire from the explosion and the search of the missing workers. Then on April 22, 2010, it was confirmed that the oil rig had sunk into the ocean with oil now being leaked into the ocean through the open wellhead. Now the media attention turned to the very real potential of one of the biggest oil spills in history. Blogs, newspapers, radio broadcasts, and more all over the country were all covering how the oil spill was going to affect countless ecosystems, companies and communities. One of the biggest concerns was how the oil was going to affect the wildlife of the Gulf area. Many environmental organizations and bloggers were discussing the catastrophe that would be caused by the water pollution. News reports focused on the different ways that the Coast Guard was trying to contain and clean up the oil. Reports were given by the Coast Guard and BP Oil of the estimated amount of oil that was leaking into the ocean (Brenner).

On July 15, 2010 the wellhead of the oil rig was capped, stopping any more oil from leaking into the ocean. Still the damage had been done with more than 62,000 barrels of oil being released from the oil rig a day since it sunk in April. Now the focus was turned to how much oil had been released and how much was still in the ocean. Reports were widely scattered with the government issuing a statement that almost 80 percent of the oil had dissipated, with private companies claiming that the dissipation of the oil did not necessarily mean that it was no longer affecting the ocean. BP Oil trying to control the information given to the public issued a statement assuring the public that the government had overestimated the amount of oil released from the oil rig (Cappiello).

With the oil spreading out across the Gulf of Mexico and approaching the shore, the blogging community exploded with information for the public. Soon blogs that were devoted to documenting the reach of the spill formed, showing live Webcam footage of the spill and posting updates on what both the government and the different oil companies involved were doing. Every person had a different view on the oil spill: what caused it, what should be done to clean up the oil, how it would affect the wildlife, and how this kind of disaster could be prevented in the future. The blogs were written by average people that were trying to get whatever knowledge or experience they had to the public. They wanted to contribute to the building amount of information that was circulating throughout the country. During this time there were many conflicting reports between the government, BP Oil, and private scientists and universities. There was also conflict over the information given to the public by BP Oil. Wildlife and environmental organizations called for more government support to get information that BP was hiding. Journalists were also prevented by BP Oil and the government from getting access to public areas to cover the spill. This caused a lot of mistrust from the public, who focused on information provided by the press and by the blogosphere. Because these sources had no affiliated with the oil companies or the government, the public was more inclined to trust this information. While this did help the public get first-hand accounts from people who were being affected by the oil spill it also caused problems with misinformation.

During this time the public blew up with talk of conspiracy theories. Stories ranged from simple mechanical failures in the engineering of the oil rig to political cover-ups organized by the White House. These theories were not just voiced by your average conspiracy theorist sitting in the basement writing about the existence of Area 51 and how Elvis is currently alive and living in Kansas. Rush Limbaugh discussed on his radio broadcast that “environmental whackos” caused the explosion on the rig to make a statement about drilling for oil. A news website in Raleigh had an article discussing how the explosion was caused by North Korean submarines firing torpedoes at the oil rig. Many more people claimed that this was an act of terrorism. WorldNetDaily, an independent news company which is known for being socially conservative, described the explosion as an act of God caused by poor relations between President Obama and Israel. Each theory that was released had its own purpose, usually to further the political standing or attention of whomever wrote it. In Rush Limbaugh’s case he was using the event to support his own views on environmentalists reaching the more conservative crowd. Also serving the more conservative crowd, WorldNetDaily was using this event to support their religious claims. The conspiracy theories not only discussed what caused the oil spill, but also theorized many different and rather unlikely events that would soon happen because of the oil spill. These ranged from methane gas explosions underwater to the disturbance of a UFO buried under the ocean (Phillips). With all of this information out on the Internet, who was the public supposed to trust? The public began to push for more government action and more transparency with what was going on in the Gulf.

As attempts were made to clean the oil out of the ocean, media attention turned to the cause of the initial explosion. The public was outraged by how their lives were being affected by the oil spill and they wanted straight answers calling on the government to make sure that justice was brought to whoever was responsible. The government promised an investigation into the explosion at the oil rig, forming committees and requesting investigations from private engineering organizations. While there were many reports as to where the blame lied over the following months, the government’s final report indicated that BP Oil was responsible for the explosion due to cost and time cutting measures that were taken that went against the safety precautions for the oil rig.

Once the final reports were issued to the public giving BP Oil and its affiliated companies responsibility for the spill, the news turned its attention to making sure that those who were affected by the spill were compensated. Public pressure, led by the press, to aid those who were being affected by the spill forced oil companies to contribute financial aid. Besides funding all of the measures that had to be taken to clean up the oil, oil companies also donated funds to organizations such as the National Fish and Wildlife Association. The publicity surrounding this catastrophe which was brought on by the power of the press and forms of news brought real change and real help to those affected by the spill.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst oil spill in U.S. open-water to date. Because of this it acquired an enormous amount of media attention. Every writer had their own take on what was going on and who was at fault. This brought a lot of conflicting ideas to the American public. While most writers focused on how BP Oil was to blame, some wrote it from a different point of view. Matthew Lynn, a columnist for the financial corporation Bloomberg, wrote about how the public should be blamed for the oil spill. He discusses how the high consumption of gas forces the oil companies to cut corners with cost and drill in more dangerous places. Other writers drew parallels between the attention on this oil spill and the lack of attention on much more severe oil spills. Jon Snow, writer for British news corporation Channel 4 News blog, brought the story to an international level, focusing on how little attention was brought to the Union Carbide explosion in India. He notes how much more damage was wrought by the Union Carbide explosion, but because it happened in a poor area of India there was very little done in retaliation against the executives of the company responsible for the explosion (Snow). Snow wrote this article to bring more attention to disasters that occur in poorer parts of the world. This extensive coverage shows how far a story can travel and how it can affect change.

The oil spill had such a great impact on our country that it is still being talked about today, almost two years after the event. Many people are still looking for the government to help prevent such a disaster form ever happening again. Others are still trying to recover from the damage that was done. One thing that can be said about this catastrophic event was that it showed the power of the press and of the media. National attention focuses on whatever the news brings to light. When the news reports focused on the missing workers that is what the public focused on. When the news reports focused on the cause of the explosion that was what the public focused on. The ability of the press to change the subject or bring a subject into a new light is something that can change how disasters are handled now and in the future.

Works Cited

Brenner, Noah et al. “Coast Guard confirms Horizon sinks.” Upstreamonline.com. 22 April 2010. http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article212769.ece

Cappiello, Dina. “BP contest size of gulf oil spill.” The Charlotte Observer. Associated Press. 13 June 2010. http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/12/04/1885694/bp-contests-size-of-gulf-oil-spill.html

Phillips, David. “Conspiracy Theories Behind BP Oil Spill in Gulf – From Dick Cheney to UFOs.” CBS News 01 July 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43240454/conspiracy-theories-behind-bp-oil-spill-in-gulf----from-dick-cheney-to-ufos/

Robertson, Cambell. “Search Continues After Oil Rig Blast.” New York Times. 21 April 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22rig.html?ref=gulfofmexico2010

Snow, Jon. “For America is BP India’s Union Carbide.” Channel 4 News. 08 June 2010. http://www.channel4.com/news/about-channel-4-news

Extended Essay 2

Following the BP Oil Spill

April 20, 2010 is a very important date for our country. Now most people may not immediately remember what happened on that day, but mention BP Oil and a light goes on. On April 20, 2010 the Deepwater Horizon oil rig for BP Oil had an explosion which would soon cause the worst oil spill that has ever occurred in U.S. waters. Countless lives, both human and otherwise, were affected by the oil spill causing huge media attention from the press and the public.

The first news of the oil spill was reported the morning after the explosion at the Deepwater Horizon oil rig. Most coverage of the oil rig explosion focused on the workers both those that had been rescued and those that could not be found. The notion that the oil rig could sink and that some of the oil was going to leak into the ocean was mentioned in some articles, but very few elaborated on this. The New York Times for instance had a report on the oil rig the next day, April 21, 2010, discussing the missing workers and the actions that were being taken to control the fire caused by the explosion. The author mentions the threat of water pollution, “The rig was taking on water…but company officials said they did not expect it to collapse” (Cambell). Many other news reports were broaching the possibility of an oil spill, but most kept an optimistic outlook on it. The cause of the explosion is explored in the article in the New York Times as well, mentioning how the phase in the drilling that they were in can be temperamental. However, the article cites an oil analyst who says that it is highly unusual for this to happen. Since the explosion had just happened and it seemed as if it was being taken care of there was very little media attention.

For the next two days news sources covered the efforts of firefighters to stop the fire from the explosion and the search of the missing workers. Then on April 22, 2010, it was confirmed that the oil rig had sunk into the ocean with oil now being leaked into the ocean through the open wellhead. Now the media attention turned to the very real potential of one of the biggest oil spills in history. Blogs, newspapers, radio broadcasts, and more all over the country were all covering how the oil spill was going to affect countless ecosystems, companies and communities. One of the biggest concerns was how the oil was going to affect the wildlife of the Gulf area. Many environmental organizations and bloggers were posing the catastrophe that would be caused by the water pollution. News reports focused on the different ways that the Coast Guard was trying to contain and clean up the oil. Reports were given by the Coast Guard and BP Oil of the estimated amount of oil that was leaking into the ocean. Soon more reports were given to the public by outside scientists that were not affiliated with BP estimating much higher amounts of water pollution (Brenner).

On July 15, 2010 the wellhead of the oil rig was capped, stopping any more oil from leaking into the ocean. Still the damage had been done with more than 62,000 barrels of oil being released from the oil rig a day since it sunk in April. Now the focus was turned to how much oil had been released and how much was still in the ocean. Reports were widely scattered with the government issuing a statement that almost 80 percent of the oil had dissipated, with private companies claiming that the dissipation of the oil did not necessarily mean that it was no longer affecting the ocean. Scientists also went against the government’s claim that the oil was mostly gone, arguing that it could not take into account any oil under the surface.

With the oil spreading out across the Gulf of Mexico and approaching the shore, the blogging community exploded with information for the public. Soon blogs that were devoted to documenting the reach of the spill formed, showing live Webcam footage of the spill and posting updates on what both the government and the different oil companies involved were doing. Every person had a different view on the oil spill: what caused it, what should be done to clean up the oil, how it would affect the wildlife, and how this kind of disaster could be prevented in the future. During this time there were many conflicting reports between the government, BP Oil, and private scientists and universities. There was also conflict over the information given to the public by BP Oil. Wildlife and environmental organizations called for more government support to get information that BP was hiding. Journalists were also prevented by BP Oil and the government from getting access to public areas to cover the spill. This caused a lot of mistrust from the public, who focused on information provided by the press and by the blogosphere. While this did help the public get first-hand accounts from people who were being affected by the oil spill it also caused problems with misinformation, especially from conspiracy theorists.

During this time the public blew up with talk of conspiracy theories. Stories ranged from simple mechanical failures in the engineering of the oil rig to political cover-ups organized by the White House. These theories were not just voiced by your average conspiracy theorist sitting in the basement writing about the existence of Area 51 and how Elvis is currently alive and living in Kansas. Rush Limbaugh discussed on his radio broadcast that “environmental whackos” caused the explosion on the rig to make a statement about drilling for oil.  A news website in Raleigh had an article discussing how the explosion was caused by North Korean submarines firing torpedoes at the oil rig. Many more people claimed that this was an act of terrorism. WorldNetDaily, an independent news company which is known for being socially conservative, described the explosion as an act of God caused by poor relations between President Obama and Israel. The conspiracy theories not only discussed what caused the oil spill, but also theorized many different and rather unlikely events that would soon happen because of the oil spill. These ranged from methane gas explosions underwater to the disturbance of a UFO buried under the ocean (Phillips). With all of this information out on the Internet, who was the public supposed to trust? The public began to push for more government action and more transparency with what was going on in the Gulf.

As attempts were made to clean the oil out of the ocean, media attention turned to the cause of the initial explosion. The public was outraged by how their lives were being affected by the oil spill and they wanted straight answers calling on the government to make sure that justice was brought to whoever was responsible. The government promised an investigation into the explosion at the oil rig, forming committees and requesting investigations from private engineering organizations. While there were many reports as to where the blame lied over the following months, the government’s final report indicated that BP Oil was responsible for the explosion due to cost and time cutting measures that were taken that went against the safety precautions for the oil rig.

Once the final reports were issued to the public giving BP Oil and its affiliated companies responsibility for the spill, the news turned its attention to making sure that those who were affected by the spill were compensated. Besides funding all of the measures that had to be taken to clean up the oil, oil companies donated funds to organizations such as the National Fish and Wildlife Association. Despite going to great lengths to make sure that justice was brought, public opinion of both BP Oil and the U.S. government was very low.

The Deepwater Horizon oil spill was the worst oil spill in U.S. open-water to date. Because of this it acquired an enormous amount of media attention. Every writer had their own take on what was going on and who was at fault. This brought a lot of conflicting ideas to the American public. While most writers focused on how BP Oil was to blame, some wrote it from a different point of view. Matthew Lynn, a columnist for the financial corporation Bloomberg, wrote about how the public should be blamed for the oil spill. He discusses how the high consumption of gas forces the oil companies to cut corners with cost and drill in more dangerous places. Other writers drew parallels between the attention on this oil spill and the lack of attention on much more severe oil spills.

The oil spill had such a great impact on our country that it is still being talked about today, almost two years after the event. Many people are still looking for the government to help prevent such a disaster form ever happening again. Others are still trying to recover from the damage that was done. One thing that can be said about this catastrophic event was that it showed the power of the press and of the media. National attention focuses on whatever the news brings to light. When the news reports focused on the missing workers that is what the public focused on. When the news reports focused on the cause of the explosion that was what the public focused on. The ability of the press to change the subject or bring a subject into a new light is something that can change how disasters are handled now and in the future.

Works Cited

Brenner, Noah et al. “Coast Guard confirms Horizon sinks.” Upstreamonline.com. 22 April 2010. http://www.upstreamonline.com/live/article212769.ece

Phillips, David. “Conspiracy Theories Behind BP Oil Spill in Gulf – From Dick Cheney to UFOs.” CBS News 01 July 2010. http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-43240454/conspiracy-theories-behind-bp-oil-spill-in-gulf----from-dick-cheney-to-ufos/

Robertson, Cambell. “Search Continues After Oil Rig Blast.” New York Times. 21 April 2010. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/22/us/22rig.html?ref=gulfofmexico2010

Taking Harris' Approach

In “Rewriting” Harris describes “taking an approach” comparing it mostly to the concept of cover songs. It’s taking the idea, frame, form of writing, and many other different writing techniques and styles from an author and using it to build your own. One way that you can write by taking an approach is by acknowledging your influences, noting authors ideas and concepts that have an influence on your work. Another way that you can write by taking an approach is turning an approach on itself by asking the author the questions that they originally posed to their readers. The final way to write by taking an approach is by using reflexivity or reflecting on the key choices that you have made in your writing such as the method and the way that you write. It is important to note that when you take an approach you do not simply rewrite or paraphrase passages or lines. When taking an approach you borrow a writer’s style and way of writing. I think that in taking an approach, it can help you form your opinion and help you give a clear format for you to show your opinion to others. However, it is important that when taking an approach you do not just steal everything that the writer has done. It is important that you put your own spin on what you’re writing. It is silly to write something that has already been without adding something to the “conversation”.

Reading the Huffington Post, I can see that every reader has a very distinct way of writing. It was difficult trying to find an example of a writer “taking an approach”. None of the articles that I have read have really cited their influences or reflected on why they wrote the way that they did. I think that almost everybody takes an approach in some way. Depending on what we’ve read in our life and what kind of language we were raised in, it influences the way that we write. It would be crazy to write out our influences every time that we write. However, I can see the importance if you take a particular writing format to make sure that you note why you are doing it.

Countering My Take on Hedges

In Chris Hedges’ article “America the Illiterate” he describes his take on literacy in America today. He focuses on how the illiterate people today can only function in society using images and only understanding the bare minimum of what is going on. In my analysis of what his take on literacy is in America I wrote about how the Chris Hedges is convinced that the media today is causing people to lose all independent thought and be unable to make well-informed decisions. In doing so I did not consider who Hedges meant by the illiterate. As I was reading his article it seemed as though he was writing about everyone in America. However, upon further reflection I see that he was writing more about those who are technically “illiterate”. He was not writing about people of high socio-economic status, or probably even people who graduated from high school. He was writing about those who have had a very limited education and therefore very limited reading abilities.

Because I did not take this into account in my paper, my writing does seem to be incomplete. I can see that there is some point to the fact that the people who are not well-educated may not be well-informed as to how our politics work or how important decisions being made in the government may affect them. I think that in this way Hedges does have a point. We do need to make sure that everyone is equally informed of their rights and anything else of importance. By taking more into account the subject of what the author is talking about, it can bring greater meaning to an analysis. By not analyzing the whole paper, it reflects poorly on my own writing. I hope that by doing this assignment, I will have a more critical eye of my own analyses in the future.

Countering in Writing

In “Rewriting”, Harris describes another form of rewriting, “countering”. In this form of rewriting you go on the limits of a piece of writing rather than the uses of it. He describes this not so much as arguing a another author’s point and winning, but rather as building off of what one author said and forming a different opinion. To do this you can argue the other side of a point, showing the different side of an idea that the writer focused on. You can also uncover values, expanding on a term or analysis that the writer did not focus on. Finally you can dissent, identifying a shared thought showing the limit of an argument. In countering, Harris stresses the importance of civility making sure that you do not tear an author to pieces because rather than show their weaknesses, you often show your own. To do this Harris suggests that you focus more on the position that the author has rather than how they phrase something, be careful with modifiers or words that hint at negative aspects of the writing, and always bring it back to what you are bringing to the discussion. By countering you gain a new perspective on an analysis or an idea. You show the limits of a piece of writing while building upon the idea. This can help to bring many new arguments to the table, extending the “conversation”. In countering you may lose the credibility of what is otherwise a very good analysis or idea by focusing on the weaker part of it.

Reading an article on the Huffington Post “Online Piracy: Youth Shaping Future of Online TV, Movies, Music” I saw not the author countering the analysis of the problem that is causing online piracy. Because most people focus on the people that are illegally downloading TV shows and music, the author countered this idea by arguing the other side of the point. Rather than writing about how to punish people who are illegally downloading entertainment the author writes how the entertainment industry could make things more available to the public. I thought that this was a very interesting article to read especially since it focused on studies done with college kids. Interestingly enough, the author also “forwarded” in this article using the research done by universities to help prove his point.

Forwarding in Writing

In “Rewriting” Harris describes one of the ways that we can rewrite, “forwarding”. Forwarding is taking another person’s written work and using that work to help you form your own statement. This can be done using four different techniques. First there is illustrating, where you describe a text as an example for your own work such as describing a car commercial. Next there is authorizing where you use the status of another writer for support. Then there is borrowing where you use the key words or ideas from another writer to support your writing. Finally there is extending where you add your own opinions to the writing of another. Each of these techniques can be used to add to your own writing by drawing on the writings of others. This gives writing a more conversational feel as opposed to a debate. This is because with rewriting nobody really “wins”. Rather than winning you just add your own opinion to a topic and then continue on. While this can be very beneficial to writing it can also cause the writing to lose something. With this writing you lose the beginning. With a continuous conversation you may lose the credit of whoever started it or the purpose behind it.

Reading Bill Moyers’ article “Freedom of and From Religion” in the Huffington Post was a good example of forwarding. In his article Moyers discusses the contraceptive law that is becoming quite controversial in Congress right now. He discusses his own view of what is going on especially how it is connected with the First Amendment. In doing this he draws on Barack Obama’s views, discussing what Obama is trying to do to amend the situation. I especially liked how he quoted a speech Obama gave in 2009. It really brought the point that the writer was trying to make to home. In his writing Moyers used the notions of authorizing and extending. Taking both the status of Obama and his opinions while putting his own spin on what is going on in Congress. In my opinion this was a very well-written post.