The papers chosen to be showcased in this magazine were selected for their quality, and cohesion with the other works available. Specifically, we were looking for some kind of common ground to work from in the papers, and we feel that we have found it in events represented in the media; whether it be with how political pundits in the media can lead to increased polarization, or how 9/11 Truthers use counter-media to spread their conspiracy theories. Cam chose Portraying Division (Position Argument) because he felt like it was one of his stronger essays, and that with some more work and revision it could serve as a solid foundation for his issue and also become a nice portfolio piece to showcase. Revisions were made to utilize sources more effectively to draw more focused conclusions and thus build a more pointed and coherent argument. The review, Evidence of the Division, was chosen to dig a bit deeper into the research behind his issue of political polarization and the media, and to provide a detailed examination of one expert's assessment of the state of the politics and division in our nation. Originally, the review was in more of an outline format, so revisions were necessarily made to move it away from a basic chronological breakdown of the article, and more of a concise analysis of the rhetoric of the piece. Cam chose to translate his profile piece into the infographic, Most Well Informed Listeners, because it felt like the audience may have not understood the tone intended. He originally used a satirical video to try and make his point, but he felt as if only himself and his friends, who share the same oddball sense of humor, really understood what he was going for. Basically, he changed tactics and relied primarily on statistics to create an info graphic illustrating his point. That major point being, "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not to their own facts".
After some hesitation, Shawn finally decided to include his memoir, Eleven, written about his experience on September 11, 2001 in the magazine. He felt it was a unique story that many people could relate to, which deserved to be told and shared, like so many other memories and accounts of that great and terrible day. It also fit the broader issue more appropriately than any alternative, and it provided a different genre that would have otherwise gone unrepresented. Originally, the memoir was without many descriptive words, causing to read in a very flat and bland manner, it lacked a strong and engaging introduction, and required more insight into the mind of the narrator. Of course, changes were made to remedy these shortcomings, but as always, the piece remains subject to change. As for Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - Review, obviously it was directly related to the issue of the memoir, but it was also far more directly related to the issue of media representation, as it is a perfect example of how two opposing sides in a debate can be looking at the exact same record of evidence, yet interpret and draw conclusions in such radically different ways. It too required some revision, as earlier versions lacked citations from the documentary and sources used, which sapped credibility and readability to some extent. It also required a more neutral tone in some places, a beginning that actually summarized the material being reviewed, and some major shifting in the basic structure of the review to give it more of a natural flow. The position argument and flash memoir were excluded from this magazine largely because the issues dealt with in both had much less to do with the overall subject matter, but also they were objectively the weaker pieces of the bunch.
As a group, it seems that we both learned the importance of remaining focused on your issue throughout the entire writing process of an essay of any genre. Without focusing like a laser beam on your main topic, whatever it may be, it becomes all too easy to get bogged down in dealing with the more extraneous issues, and thus the work will suffer. Especially when doing your research, it is important to avoid getting distracted and drawn into researching irrelevant subject. When revising as a group, it seemed so much easier to revise the work of others, and it actually ended up being very helpful for those whose work was being reviewed, as it helped them to better see their writing in an objective light, and to make better, more appropriate revisions of their own work in the future. In writing in such a range of genres, it was interesting, and a bit confusing, for everyone to see the wide variety of rules and standards that changed with any major shift to a different genre. But it was also interesting to see some of the mash-ups and remixes, and how the same story can be told in such a broad range of ways. Our primary advice to anyone working on this or similar projects would be to ensure that you delegate responsibility to the right people. If someone is tasked with a responsibility that is utterly beyond their means or willingness to fulfill, it is best to voice those concerns immediately, so that they can be dealt with quickly to prevent the work from suffering. Although, this can require a great deal of perception on the part of others and self-knowledge to understand one's limits. Lucky for us, we were able to quickly ascertain exactly what major responsibilities each of us would fulfill, which made cooperation that much easier.
In terms of the strength of this online magazine, we feel that with the time and tools we were given, we have made the most of what we had. The main objectives and goals of the magazine to educate, inform, and entertain on key topics within the broad subject of media representations, we feel, have been achieved. In many ways, it has been painstakingly researched and combed for inaccuracies, but if there are any that can be found, we encourage those who find them to let us know. It has been designed with a more minimalistic approach, but with a goal of being equal parts clean, and aesthetically pleasing. We wanted to also give readers a feel for who we are. Perhaps the weakest point of the magazine is some of the editing. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and creative projects do seem to lend themselves to revision and improvement; but overall we are very pleased with how this magazine has turned out, and we hope that you enjoy what we have put together.
After some hesitation, Shawn finally decided to include his memoir, Eleven, written about his experience on September 11, 2001 in the magazine. He felt it was a unique story that many people could relate to, which deserved to be told and shared, like so many other memories and accounts of that great and terrible day. It also fit the broader issue more appropriately than any alternative, and it provided a different genre that would have otherwise gone unrepresented. Originally, the memoir was without many descriptive words, causing to read in a very flat and bland manner, it lacked a strong and engaging introduction, and required more insight into the mind of the narrator. Of course, changes were made to remedy these shortcomings, but as always, the piece remains subject to change. As for Loose Change 9/11: An American Coup - Review, obviously it was directly related to the issue of the memoir, but it was also far more directly related to the issue of media representation, as it is a perfect example of how two opposing sides in a debate can be looking at the exact same record of evidence, yet interpret and draw conclusions in such radically different ways. It too required some revision, as earlier versions lacked citations from the documentary and sources used, which sapped credibility and readability to some extent. It also required a more neutral tone in some places, a beginning that actually summarized the material being reviewed, and some major shifting in the basic structure of the review to give it more of a natural flow. The position argument and flash memoir were excluded from this magazine largely because the issues dealt with in both had much less to do with the overall subject matter, but also they were objectively the weaker pieces of the bunch.
As a group, it seems that we both learned the importance of remaining focused on your issue throughout the entire writing process of an essay of any genre. Without focusing like a laser beam on your main topic, whatever it may be, it becomes all too easy to get bogged down in dealing with the more extraneous issues, and thus the work will suffer. Especially when doing your research, it is important to avoid getting distracted and drawn into researching irrelevant subject. When revising as a group, it seemed so much easier to revise the work of others, and it actually ended up being very helpful for those whose work was being reviewed, as it helped them to better see their writing in an objective light, and to make better, more appropriate revisions of their own work in the future. In writing in such a range of genres, it was interesting, and a bit confusing, for everyone to see the wide variety of rules and standards that changed with any major shift to a different genre. But it was also interesting to see some of the mash-ups and remixes, and how the same story can be told in such a broad range of ways. Our primary advice to anyone working on this or similar projects would be to ensure that you delegate responsibility to the right people. If someone is tasked with a responsibility that is utterly beyond their means or willingness to fulfill, it is best to voice those concerns immediately, so that they can be dealt with quickly to prevent the work from suffering. Although, this can require a great deal of perception on the part of others and self-knowledge to understand one's limits. Lucky for us, we were able to quickly ascertain exactly what major responsibilities each of us would fulfill, which made cooperation that much easier.
In terms of the strength of this online magazine, we feel that with the time and tools we were given, we have made the most of what we had. The main objectives and goals of the magazine to educate, inform, and entertain on key topics within the broad subject of media representations, we feel, have been achieved. In many ways, it has been painstakingly researched and combed for inaccuracies, but if there are any that can be found, we encourage those who find them to let us know. It has been designed with a more minimalistic approach, but with a goal of being equal parts clean, and aesthetically pleasing. We wanted to also give readers a feel for who we are. Perhaps the weakest point of the magazine is some of the editing. Of course, there is always room for improvement, and creative projects do seem to lend themselves to revision and improvement; but overall we are very pleased with how this magazine has turned out, and we hope that you enjoy what we have put together.