Group Projects; Good or Bad?

            I am not going to lie. At first, being assigned a group project (especially at the end of the semester) I was not happy. I’ve never had a good experience with group projects. Typically, I end up doing all of the work, stress myself out, and become resentful allowing my other group members to take credit for work they hardly did. 

            But this time was different. My group worked together perfectly, and complemented each other’s strength’s and weaknesses.  Some had more experience with digital design, and others with writing and editing. This made the collaborative process easier. Those who had more experience in one field, helped the other, and so on. We worked timely and effective, and completed the assignment days before it was due.

            We broke down the process. We all brainstormed on ideas for our TV story board and radio PSA’s. After a long list of ideas we all decided on our theme; stop drunk driving. We then had to decide on how to make this theme not only creative, but to reach our target audience in a different way than the typical drunk driving ads you see all the time.

            After we decided on how to portray our ideas, every member of our group chipped in. We divided our newsletter ideas to individually write, but then gave them to each other to peer edit. With each member being on time and helpful, this process was made easy. Like our peer review’s in class, this was extremely helpful. By having three other group members, it allowed more than one revision, which in turn made our final papers stronger. For our TV storyboard, we all worked together on the pictures we wanted to use as well as sounds, time allowed, format, etc.

            My group reminded me that group projects aren’t that bad, in fact, they can be easy and fun.

Persuasive Print Ad

          

The Candies Foundation is a non-profit organization that was founded in 2001 to prevent teen pregnancies. This print ad was featured in teen magazines such as Teen Vogue, J14, Seventeen, and Cosmopolitan. It also appeared on online ads and network television.

            This ad’s audience is obviously targeted at teenage girls. They do a great job by catching the audience’s attention quickly by always using celebrities that most teenagers know and idolize. In this case, hip-hop singer Ciara, is on the ad. Symmetric to the picture of Ciara is the print, “NOT REALLY THE WAY YOU PICTURED YOUR FIRST CRIB, HUH?” in bold and all in caps. They use color to their advantage here. They have “not really the way you pictured” in pink, while changing “your first crib, huh?” to white. The color change puts more emphasis on what they are they are trying to persuade.

            They also use fear to persuade teens to stay abstinent. Having a celebrity on the ad makes the teens think that if someone as popular as a celebrity is staying abstinent they should as well. Also the use of the quote.  This daring quote is listed above to “not really the way you pictured your first crib, huh?” is a picture of a baby’s crib. Sometimes “crib” is used as a slang term meaning a house. In small print below the quote is another fear tactic; “Get pregnant and you won’t be moving out of your parents house anytime soon”. Again, they use an almost harsh tone throughout this print ad, trying to scare and persuade their audience.

            I think this print ad does a good job with key visual elements. The symmetric picture versus text is effective. Also their use of different colors and clear font makes it easy to read and interpret. I think having a put together ad is more effective, thus will do a better job persuading the audience.

            Critiquing this ad using “AIDA”, attention, interest, desire, and action; I think the ad grabs the attention of the audience by placing a well-known celebrity in the picture. I think it’s interest is targeted directly at a certain audience-teenage girls. Desire, I believe it is appealing being simple, yet bold. Finally, I think the fear tactic will take action on some of the targeted audience. I know seeing the picture of the crib kind of freaked me out and grabbed my attention!

From Saving Lions to Drinking Beer

OP-EDs

“Saving Lions by Killing them”

by Alexander N. Songorwa

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/18/opinion/saving-lions-by-killing-them.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

            This OP-ED pulled me in with its title, “Saving Lions by Killing Them”….huh? I wanted to read more. The Lion King being one of my favorite movies and an all-time classic played a role in that too. Songorwa in this article is trying to convince the reader to not list the African Lion as an endangered species. If the African Lion is indeed listed as endangered, protecting wildlife in Tanzania will be more difficult. The millions of dollars that hunters spend in Tanzania to go on a safari to hunt African Lions, helps finance the game reserves, wildlife management areas, and conservation efforts. Without this revenue, the efforts to protect wildlife in Tanzia will diminish. So basically, hunting a few lions, saves a whole lot more. The writer used a subtle but persuasive tone throughout the article. For example, “While that is true, the lion population in Tanzania is not endangered. We have an estimated 16,800 lions, perhaps 40 percent of all lions on the continent, the biggest population in the world. Their numbers are stable here, and while our hunting system is not perfect, we have taken aggressive efforts to protect our lions.” And “Tanzania has regulated hunting for decades; female and younger lions are completely protected, and the hunting of males is limited by quotas set for each hunting area in the country. We recently made it illegal to hunt male lions younger than 6 years old to ensure that reproductively active animals remained with their prides. And proposed amendments to our wildlife law would further crack down on the export of lions taken illegally, penalize hunting companies that violated our rules and reward those that complied.” I felt that both of those paragraphs were the most persuasive. It hints the reader subtly that Tanzia does everything possible to protect the lions, and that they make efforts to continue to do so. I thought this OP-Ed did a good job following the guidelines we made in class. It attracted my attention with the title, the writer clearly stated his claim in the first paragraph, he provided evidence with statistics and numbers of how many lions are hunted and how much money it brings in, and restates his position at the end, asking the public to please side with him. One thing I noticed is how subtly he acknowledged the opposition. “If lions are listed by the United States as an endangered species, American hunters may choose to hunt other prized species outside of Africa or simply not hunt at all. This would add further strain to our already limited budgets, undo the progress we’ve made, and undermine our ability to conserve not only our lions but all of our wildlife.”

“How Beer Gave Us Civilization”

by Jeffery P. Kahn

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/03/17/opinion/sunday/how-beer-gave-us-civilization.html?adxnnl=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&adxnnlx=1363799026-iSR4by8ys5uJARx0N85+qw

An OP-ED about beer and how it "gave us civilization", I had to hear this. Kahn uses humor throughout this article to convince the reader that beer played a huge role in the development of civilization. He persuades the reader with evidence of certain places that supposedly beer played a role in civilization, “Natufian culture in the Eastern Mediterranean, the team concludes that “brewing of beer was an important aspect of feasting and society in the Late Epipaleolithic” era.” And “Anthropological studies in Mexico suggest a similar conclusion: there, the ancestral grass of modern maize, teosinte, was well suited for making beer — but was much less so for making corn flour for bread or tortillas.” and “beer was thought to be so important in many bygone civilizations that the Code of Urukagina, often cited as the first legal code, even prescribed it as a central unit of payment and penance.” He jokes that the effects of “early brews” must have been discovered because it quickly spread, and helped people break out of their inner shell and be more social. He does acknowledge the opposition though, stating how some drink so much due to “social anxiety” or “panic anxiety” and he states “But getting drunk, unfortunately, only compounds the problem: it can lead to decivilizing behaviors and encounters, and harm the body over time.”. But,  he quickly refutes it by ending it and restating his claim. That “But beer’s place in the development of civilization deserves at least a raising of the glass.” Again, this OP-ED does a good job following the “Do’s” list in class. One thing I think he lacks is significant evidence. Sure, he lists some fun facts about theories of certain countries or eras, but he never really fully gained my trust. 

PEOPLE vs INSTYLE

People.com VS Instyle.com

·       Sponsor- Both People Magazine and InStyle domain’s keep true to their company name. They do not add any other words to their original company’s name, which are both very well known. For example People’s website is “People.com” and InStyle magazine is “instyle.com”. This is effective because it makes the website easily searchable and easy to remember.

·       Verifiable Information- Both sites provide documentation about the source of their information. In both websites links to articles are provided that directly bring you to the article. At the bottom or top of each, the author of the article is listed and so is their position in the website. I found that People did  a better job listing the author’s credentials. I found it harder to locate the author or editor’s name and credentials on InStyle’s website. InStyle would head an article with something like, “Find out what shoes our editors think will be trendy this Spring!”, instead of actually listing their names.  Both websites listed the date and even time in which the article was published.

·       Authoritative information- I think both websites made it clear whether or not the information reflects the official organizational information or the opinion of one person. For example going back to when InStyle published an article, “find out what shoes OUR editors think will  be trendy this Spring!”, this clearly lets the reader know they are providing what they think. Another example, on People’s website, they published an article on a specific nutritionist’s opinion on how to get in shape before the spring.  They made it clear that it was not how People thinks you should get in shape, rather this nutritionist.

·       Up-to-date information- Both People and Instyle strive off of their up-to-date and current news for their readers. Both websites did an outstanding job with up to date information. Both websites were kept current. Each article I read was published that exact day, and listed the date. People even had a section that flashed saying “BREAKING NEWS!”. I was impressed with both sites on their up-to-date information.

·       Comprehensive information-Both websites aim for their target audience. They both provide a range of information about topics that are relevant to their potential users. People is more of a human-interest and celebrity news. They provide links at the top of their page to make it easier for their users to navigate throughout the site, depending on what they are searching for. For example, at the top of People’s website they provide links for; Home, News, Style, Red Carpet, Royals, TV Watch, Babies, Pets, Your turn, Celebs, Video, Magazine. InStyle does the same. It provides links for their readers to navigate through their website based on what they are looking for; Celebrity, Fashion, Shopping, Hair, Makeup, Hollywood makeover, Subscribe. As you can see both websites have different target audiences. Users visit People magazine for different reasons then they would visit InStyle. Both websites are aware of their audiences, so adjust their links accordingly.

·       Audio-Visual elements- Both websites STRIVE and RELY on their pictures and video clips. I was actually shocked on how much both websites used audio and visual elements.  Although I usually believe audio-visual elements to be extremely effective in websites, I found them to be quite confusing and distracting in People’s website. I thought it was too clustered and crowded with pictures and videos. In fact, on their homepage I counted 57 pictures.

·       Quick loading features- based on school computers, both websites had very quick loading features. Nothing had a problem loading. All images, videos, links, and downloads appeared quickly.

·       User Friendly- Both were a little much, especially People. Although they were clustered with a lot of information, I found it easy to navigate throughout their site. Instyle was slightly easier to navigate through, especially on their homepage. I think if People took a few things off their homepage it would be more welcoming, and in turn help the user navigate through the site.

·       Accessibility- I found the websites to be accessible. But, I did not see any translations for other languages or links for those who are hearing impaired or handicapped. In the text it states that some websites conform to guidelines of the Americans with Disabilities Act, but I do not believe either of these websites are.

·       Cultural consideration- I did not think this was relevant to either website. It does not deal with any cultural issues.

In conclusion, I preferred Instyle’s magazine to People. Both served certain purposes. I believe both websites have more of a dominant purpose to provide information rather than advocacy. But, both do have some promotional aspects to it. I found that in many cases both websites talked about “trendiness” or “what’s popular”, although this is information, it also promotes certain products or clothing items and where to buy them. Instyle is more promotional in that case than People. People provides human interest stories and news, while Instyle leans more towards fashion, products, and clothes. As a visitor to the site I found both websites to be very effective. Being an active reader of both magazines, the websites basically parallel the magazines and do a good job portraying it-even adding more information than the magazines. After going through the websites I found myself enjoying the website more than the magazines. I thought both websites are prime examples of how to effectively navigate your visitor through your website, and textbook examples of having your website aim at a specific audience. 

President Barack Obama Speaks on Behalf of the Tragedy at Sandy Hook.

            One of the most powerful and moving speeches I have ever witnessed was President Barack Obama’s speech following the tragedy of Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Connecticut. Being from the town that borders Newtown, the massacre at Sandy Hook really hit home for me. The nation needed to come together in this time of need. I believe President Barack Obama’s speech and how it was constructed was one of the main reasons why it did just that.

            Obama’s speech was not only watched by the entire nation, but spoken in front of an auditorium full of heartbroken families and a broken community. This speech had a broad audience. He needed to affectively communicate with the mourning victim’s families, the grieving Newtown community, and the stunned people across the nation that were tuning in.

            Obama gained the audience’s attention and trust with an emotion appeal. He first directly thanks the governor and community for having him there, and offers the victim's families and community his condolences. He opens with a passage from scripture, and calls the victims “beautiful children” and “good and decent people that could be any town in America”. He offers his prayers and knows his “mere words can not compare to their sorrow”. He acknowledges that nothing he can say will make this situation better. But he tells the community that “they are not alone, and the land has wept with you”. Obama showed his “softer” or more “fatherly” side by tearing up during the speech. Yet, he was direct and firm that actions needed to be taken for tragedies like this to be prevented.  He ends with another passage from scripture “let the children come to me God says”. Then directly and slowly acknowledges each and every victim by their first name.

            The following two paragraphs are from Obama’s speech. I believe here Obama was direct, yet appealing to his targeted audience, that change is necessary.

            "These tragedies must end, and to end them, we must change. We will be told that the causes of such violence are complex, and it is true. No single law, no set of laws can eliminate evil from the world or prevent every senseless act of violence in our society. But that can't be an excuse for inaction. Surely we can do better than this."

"In the coming weeks, I'll use whatever power this office holds to engage my fellow citizens, from law enforcement to mental health professionals to parents and educators in an effort to prevent more tragedies like this, because what choice do we have?"

Although it stemmed from such a horrific event, I feel privileged to have been able to witness a speech that will most definitely be marked down in history for being one of the greats.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEELb4afbVA