If you're wondering about this week's current-events quiz...

You probably want to keep an eye on these stories:

photo by flickr user biatch0r

NY Times: Cables Obtained by WikiLeaks Shine Light Into Secret Diplomatic Channels

The Guardian (UK):  US embassy cables leak sparks global diplomatic crisis

We'll discuss this in class on Friday as well.  Please read the following essay too, from The Guardian, to prepare:

US embassy cables: The job of the media is not to protect the powerful from embarrassment

... and do keep up with the story, which will likely continue to develop throughout the week.

Probably also a good idea to keep up with news on Korea and Iran.  I'm just saying.

... and on the final exam, you can probably expect an essay about WikiLeaks, media ethics, and law.  

Reviewing this New Yorker profile of WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange will be a good idea

... and this NYTimes story too. 

Rubric for Paper 2 rewrite

Email just went out on this, but just to reinforce:  The paper only needs to analyze one argument, not two.

If you've committed yourself to tackling two arguments, then (a) make sure you're doing a really good job on at least one of them, and (b) know that you'll get some extra credit, but not double credit.

OK, here's the rubric.  Please read carefully.  Note that there are actually MORE points for doing a thorough job of using the worksheet to document your analysis than for the writeup.

Thanks!  You all are rock stars.  

Worksheet:  60%
Does not need to be in complete sentences, but needs to be clear
Identify a piece of evidence	6	3 points for naming it, 3 for a citation that lets me find it
Determine the claim that it's intending to support	12	8 points for identifying it, 4 for noting whether its explicit or implicit (and, if explicit, giving a citation)
Identify (and, where necessary, reconstruct) the warrant	24	20 points for reconstructing the chain of reasoning; 4 for noting whether each step in the chain is explicitly stated in the text or implied, and for citing those that are explicitly stated.
Identify the strongest counter-warrant you can	18	14 points for identifying/constructing the strongest coutner-warrant you can think of; 4 points for noting whether it's explicit or implicit, and providing citations from the text where appropriate
Extra credit:  Present example of a weak (or fanciful) counter-warrant	4
Paper/Report:  40%
Walk me through the steps, make clear any connections that may not be obvious from looking at the worksheet.  Note where you made choices, what alternatives you considered, and why you made the choices you did. The style need not be especially formal, but it must be clear, and the rules of grammar, spelling and punctuation still apply.  Papers with multiple serious grammar/punctuation/spelling errors may lose as much as 5 points.
How/why did you choose this piece of evidence as your starting point?	1
How did you determine what conclusion this evidence was supposed to support?	3
How did you reconstruct the chain of reasoning?	12
What's the most compelling part of that chain?  Does it have a weak link?	4
Extra credit: If you looked at a weak/fanciful counter-warrant, note it, and explain what made it weak.	4
How did you identify/construct the strong counter-warrant?	8
What's the most compelling part of the counter-warrant? Does the chain have a weak link?	4
What's the most fundamental difference in the assumptions behind the warrant and the counter-warrant?	4
How do you personally respond to that difference?	4

Paper 2 Rewrite: A how-to

Thanks to all of you for sharing your thoughts in our conferences.  I enjoyed talking with you, and as the day went on, I figured out two things, with your help:

1. I’m going to have to adjust the rubric significantly—it no longer describes what I think is most important. 
• In the new rubric, a large amount of the credit for the assignment is going to be awarded for your work on the “worksheet,” so that’s gotta be factored in. 
• And the old rubric constructs the paper itself as a kind of classic “persuasive essay,” with prompts for you to present arguments in the introduction and conclusion.  But really, what I want is more like a lab report.  So that’s all got to be rewritten.
2. In a way, the rewrite is a different assignment, and there’s a specific method I think you’ll need to follow.  (This means, for the most part, setting aside your first writeup completely and starting from scratch.  Don't worry:  This is actually going to make your life simpler.)

 I’m not going to be able to re-tool the rubric tonight, but I do want to share my thoughts on the assignment and the method you need to follow. Some of you will find this familiar because it came up in our conversations, but I want to be sure it's clear to everybody. 

The key is:  This time, start with a piece of evidence, not with a claim.

Most of the papers got kind of tangled up (either in detail or in vagueness) because you started with some of the biggest, most sweeping claims that Hewitt and Lemann made. 

And that set you up for an almost impossible task:  These arguments are too big, and too complicated to successfully address in an assignment of this scope. 

Instead, I’m telling you to start by identifying a piece of evidence that you find interesting:  Maybe you actually find it confusing.  (That might be the best.) 

… and then trace your way to the claim it’s supposed to support, and then through the warrant that’s supposed to connect them. 

So, these are your tasks, in order:

Process:  The worksheet

1. Start with a piece of evidence—a fact presented in the text—that you’re going to use.  Ideally, it’s one that actually prompts you to wonder, “What IS this fact doing here?  What’s the point?  What’s it supposed to prove, and how?”  (This was true of the Chuck Hagel example.) 

2. Do any research you need to do, to feel confident that you understand how the fact relates to the bigger picture.  (I had to Google Sen. Hagel to figure out why Hewitt thought Milbank voting for him was news.)

3. Trace the line of reasoning—fill in the blanks. 

1. First up, the claim:  Your answer here is an answer to the question “What’s the point?  What’s it supposed to prove (or help prove)?”
2. Next—and probably a longer job—the warrant.    You’re trying to answer the question “HOW does fact X supposedly prove claim Y?”  What propositions do you have to buy—and what facts do you have to be familiar with already—for this connection to actually make sense? 

Dealing with the warrant is really the meat of the assignment:  Your job is to reconstruct the chain of reasoning that’s supposed to connect the evidence to the claim.  There will probably be more than one step here— there were four in the Chuck Hagel example, and they included both assumptions (propositions you would have to accept) and facts. 

And once you’ve reconstructed it, your job is to consider other interpretations (counter-warrants):  What if you didn’t accept one of the propositions?  What proposition would you substitute for it?  Poke around until you find the counter-warrant that seems the strongest to you. 

Process:  The paper

This is going to be less an essay and more a report:  You’re just walking me through the process you went through in filling out the worksheet.  The questions you had, how you figured out the answers, and what you might have learned or felt along the way.

Your first paragraph will simply introduce the pieces of evidence that you’re starting with. 

Then, you’re just going to walk me through the steps you took in dissecting each argument: 

• how you chose the piece of evidence that started the whole thing off (why this one?),
• what information you (might have) had to research in order to understand what was going on,
• how you pieced together the chain of reasoning, and
• how you found your way to the counter-warrant (i.e., why this one seemed the strongest, or why the others were weak).

 After you sum up your investigations into both arguments, you’ll offer a reflection.  I wouldn’t call it a “conclusion” because I don’t expect you to necessarily come to a conclusion, or to try to argue a point. 

I just want you to record your own responses to the arguments as you analyzed them.  Were you confused or troubled because there were strong arguments on both sides?  Were you impressed by the way one or both of the arguments were put together?  Did you find your gut pulling in one direction and your head in another?  Or did the process help you clarify your own beliefs?  Did you end up mad at somebody?  Sad?  Bored?  You tell me. And tell me why. 

That’s it!   Hit me with any questions you've got.  Best of luck on all of the work you'll be doing in the next couple weeks, and have a great holiday.

Wiki details, part 1

The top tier is the stuff that is most important.   And here's a new twist: until everything on Tier 1 has reached, say, 17 points, there's no credit available for work on Tier 2 entries.  This way, we make sure that the top priorities are getting our attention first.  

1. What does this mean in a journalism context? 1 pt. 

I still owe you My priority list-- it'll have at least two tiers of entries. (And here's a new twist: until everything on Tier 1 has reached, say, 17 points, there's no credit available for work on Tier 2 entries.  This way, we make sure that the top priorities are getting our attention first.)

Meanwhile I have got for you one of the other things I promised last week: a formal process and a rubric.

Process:  Every time you visit, or create, an article, leave a comment with your estimate of (a) what the article is worth on our 20-point scale at the time you logged in, what it still lacks in order to be a full 20-point article and (b) what it's worth after you're done editing.  And specify what changes you're making and why they're worth what you say they are. I'll be checking to see if I agree with your estimates and awarding credit appropriately. 

1. What does this mean in a journalism context? 1 pt.

 2.  Why does it matter? 2 pts.

3. What are some specific examples or applications? 3 pts

4. Link to resources for citations; all factual claims supported by citation
4 pts

5.  Extend the article beyond the textbooks and our class discussion: being up facts not mentioned, explain why they're important and how they change or complicate the ideas already covered.
5 pts

6.  Grammar, spelling, punctuation
3 pts
7.  Images
2 pts

Paper #3-- You're going to like this one

Here's your last writing assignment:

Interview a journalist.  Then report back to us.

In other words, you're going out and doing first-hand research on the field you're preparing to enter.  

You want to talk to someone who can help answer the questions you most want to know the answers to. 

So... who do I interview?

This totally depends on what your goals are.  I'd say, pick somebody who has a job you'd really like to have someday.  Want to be a music writer?  Why not interview Jim DeRogatis?  Or a writer for Pitchfork?  Or an editor at Spin? 

Want to write about fashion?  Maybe you should find someone who writes for Vogue.  (I'm not kidding.  Give it a shot.  But have a plan B.)

Want to be a sports reporter?  There's a few in this town.  

Political reporter?   We've got those too.  

You get the idea.  

Be sure to establish a couple of things-- especially how much of their time you're asking for.  You can probably get what you need, bare-bones, in fifteen minutes if the person's a total stress case.  But if you can sit down with them for 30 minutes, you'll have a lot more possibilities.  

Be sure to take notes!   

You probably also want to make an audio recording.  (I don't recommend video unless you've already done a lot and are super-comfortable on camera.  Otherwise, it can add a whole layer of self-consciousness for everybody.)

But if you get to meet them in person (highly recommended), then do bring a camera.  Even if you're not much of a photographer, there's no time like now to start learning!

And... what do I ask them?

Again, this will depend on your goals, but keep it focused, and practical:  

Questions like, how did you get started in this field-- and how did you get where you are now?  That's not a bad place to start.   

Best and worst moments?  Maybe.  

Best and worst parts of the job week-in, week-out?  Now there's something I'd be curious about. 

What do you read?  Sure.

What do I do first?

Be sure to go to this Wiki page and write down the name of the person you want to talk to... and check to make sure nobody else has already claimed them!  (First come, first served...)

Then create a Wiki page for your interview subject, and use it as a first-stop place to make notes about them (because you're going to do research on them before you talk to them), and notes about why you're interested in talking with them, what you want to ask them, etc.

You may want to move the project to another venue-- a blog, or a Google Document are good possibilities.  You should have a place, ultimately, to "publish" your interview.  We'll talk more about the logistics of publishing next time, but for now, just keep in mind that you're going to be making this public.

Do I have to talk to them in person?

If it is AT ALL PRACTICAL, then yes.  You get a lot more out of a face-to-face meeting.  

But if you've gotta do the phone-- like say they work in New York-- hey, whatever it takes.  You might ask if you can Skype with them, so you can at least see each other.

But it's gotta be a real-time, voice-to-voice conversation (whether in person or on the phone):  Emails, texts, chat-- nope.  None of that. 

What's the final product?

1.  A published version of your story:  Make a place for it online where we can all see it.  (Again, we'll talk publishing logistics next time.)

2.  The published version should include at least one image.  Best-case:  You post a photo of your subject that you took yourself.  Use your best visual-journalism skills and instincts!  

3.  The text should be at least 400 words.  Max is 1,000 words.  It can take almost any form:  Q&A is OK, or a feature-reporting style.  Or mix it up.  

4.  You'll also be making a short presentation in class on Dec. 10.  Five minutes.  

The presentation will be for the benefit of the whole class:  Together, you'll be pooling a lot of knowledge.  

Ready?  Set?  GO!

Arguments, part 2 (a new day!)

(photo by Robinn)

Most everybody is being asked for a rewrite on paper #2.   I've sent individual notes, and we'll talk about this in class and in individual conferences, but here are a few notes:

The most common issue was that there wasn't a simple, explicit analysis of arguments presented in the Lemann and Hewitt articles.  Sometimes the parts of the argument weren't labeled, sometimes one or more was missing,

... and a lot of the time, papers were just trying to do too much:  stuff like reach big picture conclusions, be interesting, etc.

I'm really looking for something kind of didactic, painstaking-- maybe even a little boring.  It's a little unusual, and I'm not normally a big fan of dry, formal exercises, but this one has a special purpose:  I want you to consider the formal structure of argument.


So here's a revised version of the assignment:  


Before you start rewriting, map things out.  Make a simple, clear outline of the arguments.  (And remember that the "warrant" may have more than one component-- it could be a whole chain of reasoning, or set of claims/assumptions.) 


Start with a worksheet-- which you will turn in along with your paper. Here's a link to a spreadsheet you can use, or you can just use a Word document.  


Then, write up the paper based on the worksheet.  


In a way, the paper is just a report on what the worksheet says-- a description.  It shouldn't be a snazzy attempt to persuade, and it probably shouldn't be attempting to answer the big-picture conclusions-- does objectivity exist?  is mainstream journalism doomed?  Instead, your focus is on how the person making each argument uses evidence to make his point.  


And here's an example:

Claim implicit Mainstream journalists advance a liberal agenda, even as they claim objectivity Evidence explicit Dana Milbank voted for Chuck Hagel Warrant implicit Supporting critics of George W. Bush makes you a liberal Answers the question: What would solid evidence for this claim look like? ... and Republican Senator Chuck Hagel criticized George W. Bush, harshly implicit A write-in vote for Chuck Hagel is all about supporting a critic of George W. Bush; you might vote for Democrat John Kerry because you *like* him on some specific grounds and want him to win. But Chuck Hagel can't win. The only reason to vote for him is as an anti-Bush vote. So only a liberal would write in Chuck Hagel. explicit 3rd paragraph from end of "Right Hook" A journalist's political beliefs will be reflected in his or her work. (""The vanity that people can divorce themselves from their bias is just that, vanity," Hewitt tells Lemann.) Counter-warrant Chuck Hagel might be Dana Milbank's brother-in-law or something What's a different interpretation of this evidence, that doesn't support the claim? explicit 2nd paragraph from the end of "Right Hook." A journalist's political beliefs may not always be reflected in his or her work. ("One can be curious or not, fair-minded or not, intellectually honest in the use of evidence or not, empathetic or not, imprisoned by a perspective or not," Lemann writes.)