Maintain an objective, analytical and reasonable/academic perspective. Do not use the “you” point of view and use “I” sparingly, if at all. See the Essay Standards document.

1250 words min. Before beginning, read the Essay Standards. May be submitted one day late. See our Syllabus for the late work policy. Use MLA style for page formatting, including a correct header and heading, in-text citations and the Works Cited page. In your essay, you should have introduced, smoothly integrated quotes and page references. For MLA review:

English 7 teachers assume MLA was taught in English 1A or a comparable Composition/Reading course. A link to MLA rules is also located under modules. Objective: Analyze why most critical thinkers either accept or reject, consider reasonable or unreasonable, news that they receive from various sources. Thesis: Let the questions below (some/not all) guide you to your thesis. Some questions to consider: What should they require from journalist in the U.S., those who are responsible for providing facts and influencing our judgments in ways other than through just emotional appeal? To what degree are the readers/listeners responsible for the news they consider as accurate? Audience: Your audience is your peers and your professor; choose appropriate diction and references. As you learn from our Essay Standards, never address the reader as ″you″ in college essays unless your instructor specifically allows you to use that personal, familiar pronoun Point of View: Maintain an objective, analytical and reasonable/academic perspective. Do not use the “you” point of view and use “I” sparingly, if at all. See the Essay Standards document. Additionally, note the methods of support, facts/stats/evidence, testimonials included. Take notes with quotes, page numbers and, while note taking, include your analysis of the quoted section. Try to prepare a preface to the quote, in your own words, to set it up, provide some specific context. See signal phrases in Appendix Three of Making Sense. This type of essay relies on your close reading and your reasoning. So, make sure you take time and focus – don’t let yourself get distracted – while reading and analyzing. Implement our reading analysis lessons. Our RAW center- and the Net Tutor, a link for which is provided on the course menu, can help you as you draft your essay. Sources: 4 Sources: One authority on ethics and the responsibility of journalists in the U.S. plus Three texts in Chapter 7 of Making Sense: Andrei Popov’s “Fragmented,” (117-119). Maggie Jackson’s “Distracted: The New News World and the Fate of Attention” (119-22) Frank Bruni’s “Despicable Us: Scott Walker, the Media and the 2016 Presidential Campaign (122-125) SEE page iii in the beginning of Making Sense for how to cite the above sources on your Works Cited page. Here are steps to take while preparing the essay: Step One: Read and take notes. Closely analyze how the authors of the three texts we have read in Making Sense, Chapter Seven, differ in their perspectives as to what causes misunderstanding, distraction and lack of comprehension of facts. Compose a brief summary of each (see Appendix III of Making Sense for what to include in a Summary (131-32). • Consider the audience that Frank Bruni is addressing. You will have discussed this before. Now, consider: What does Bruni see as impeding the provision of accurate information and reliable facts? What kinds of barriers are considered in his article? What should these journalists do today in order to help us trust them? • Consider the audience Maggie Jackson is addressing. We know that she is focused on inattention. Does she make a cogent point insofar as the duty we as listeners/viewers/readers have to discerning reliable facts? • Maggie Jackson on the erosion of attention (Links to an external site.) • Consider who Andrei Popov’s is most likely addressing. Note his thesis and premises. Note them and consider if they would be/should be acceptable for most reasonable readers. Step Two: After reading these three articles, and reviewing your notes (I know you had previously taken notes), choose another article that we can consider as valuable insofar as it explains the responsibilities of ethical journalists. Note this author’s thesis and premises. Write a summary of this person’s qualifications as an authority on ethical journalism. Do not use websites such as wikpedia for this. Instead, consult organizations that specialize in journalism

This summary should be part of your introduction to set up the essay. Discuss how to do this with others in the class on 9/27 and 9/28. One author might be someone like Natasha Bertrand:

Be sure to choose an authoritative article/source. Look over this article. You can see, given your study so far in our course, that it is hardly objective, is an opinion piece, an editorial:

Instead, visit a website like this one and choose an article by an author (don’t just attribute to a website; find an author)

As you search for an authority on the responsibilities and ethics of journalists, read carefully. Note the way the authors appeal to their audience. Recall these three appeals that I mentioned in Making Sense Chapter One: Ethos appeal: appeal to goodness, responsibility to others, what is beneficial to society. The ethos appeal of an author includes consideration of the reputation this person has among his peers, other experts or a whole society. A politician who keeps his promises will build ethos appeal. Logos appeal: appeal to logic. Consider overall the writer’s causal reasoning and critical thinking. Pathos appeal: appeal to emotions such as guilt, fear or pity. Look for emotional, subjective, and slanted language. Labeling is almost sure to be present. If you perceive more pathos than logos or ethos, you should skip it. Apply your language analysis skills. You should draw from your previous analysis to form your conclusion.

No Comment.