Diamond In the Severe Rough (Essay Two, Draft One)

In my second draft, I'm going to be seeking more research to back my points up, and I'll be incorporating some of Harris' techniques, along with pointing them out within the shifts themselves. My word count is also short, but that will correct itself with further back-up and support. I will also shift to MLA format with time, and completion of research.

Alan Cohan (Cohan) once noted, “It takes a lot of courage to release the familiar and seemingly secure, to embrace the new. [sic] But there is no real security in what is no longer meaningful. There is more security in the adventurous and exciting, for in movement there is life, and in change there is power.” His quote embraces the idea of change, of morphing, and of modification. The raw power behind the living nature of news stories is absolutely astounding. Morphing minute by minute, and day to day, as long as there is someone, somewhere, with something to say, they will continue to grow. We all realize the impact the news can have on us, whether it is a direct impact or not. What we often fail to realize, however, is the impact we can have on the news. I'm not necessarily talking about personal impact, but more of a collective impact. We shape and change stories as they break, giving them the multiple lives that will, eventually, come together to form on story.

A very potent, and dark, example of a living story is that of the Virginia Tech shootings. This story was reshaped minute by minute and piece by piece as each detail and viewpoint was sought out. Breaking on April 16th, 2007, the initial report stated that two individuals had been found shot to death in a dormitory. It was, at this time, believed that the incident was isolated and was a result of a domestic dispute. That's not any less tragic, of course, but this story was about to evolve into a far more gruesome and in-depth tragedy than any could ever imagine.

The spree began at 0715. It was, at that time, not known as a "spree", simple a dispute. According to National Public Radio Online, as of 0730, "police believe the double homicide stemmed from a domestic dispute and was an isolated incident." It was also not believed that the gunman was a student. As a matter of fact, Chief Flinchum, the chief of University police, strongly believed that the gunman had left the campus, and possibly even the state! Little did they know. . . .

A little more than two hours later, this story took a turn for the worse. Another shooting was reported. The shootings had been going on for awhile, but the officials involved were busy behind the scenes. Trying to decide how to respond and alert students, faculty, and staff to the first shooting, they neglected to consider the possibility of a second tragedy. Arriving at Norris Hall, a science and engineering building, the police were forced to break in because the doors were chained shut. Upon entering the building, the gunshots ceased. Screams rang throughout the building as police walked into the worst shooting massacre in American history.

As of 12 o'clock noon, Virginia Tech police believed believed 22 dead. However, this story continued to morph. At 1630, the final report came through. The final count ended up being 33. 32 of those dead were victims, and one was the shooter himself. Unable to be identified on the spot due to severe damage to facial structure, the shooter was later identified as Seung-Hui Cho.

Once the "breaking news" was complete, this story began to take on a life of its own as news spread across the nation. The Virginia Tech campus community was in shock and in shambles. Support immediately began to pour in from every state, and from all levels. From elementary schools to major corporations, the United States of America sought to bear the weight of the tragedy, and to assure Virginia Tech students and families that they were not alone.

This was a national catastrophe that affected everyone on some level. Anyone who knew someone in college, or who had a family member away was wracked with fear. Universities went into a panic mode in order to figure out what they would have done differently. Everyone scrutinized Virginia Tech, and their reaction, amidst their pain and anguish. There was a reoccurring thought: How do we prevent this in the future? Perspectives began to pour in, from the students, the families, the survivors, and from the post-mortem words of the killer. This puzzle was beginning to come together slowly and painfully. There was quite a bit of backlash, for where there is fear, there is always anger. When people feel out of control, they seek someone to blame. According to Daily Om, an online resource for natural healing, "Intense emotions demand intense modes of expression. " Families sought a scape goat, someone to blame, someone to lash out at.

An overwhelming sense of guilt, pain, and horror rang out from the witnesses and survivors. As the students and faculty began to come forward one by one, their personal stories and takes began to pour forth. This is forwarding in and of itself, as the baseline facts of the story were taken, and shifted upward a notch in intensity with a bit of personal touch. The guilt and total randomness of the wanton violence left many survivors with an unwillingness to accept life, and left others with an ability to embrace life. In an article written by Greg Esposito, survivor Kristina Anderson brings to light this simple of joy of life.

The other half of her message is an appreciation for life and of each day's value. This includes obvious things people take for granted, such as a loving family, she says, as well as more mundane moments.

"I'll be in traffic and I'm, like, so happy," she said. "I'll sit there and think about how grateful I am to be able to do this."

The process of healing brings about yet another twist. Approached from the perspective of psychologists and behavior analysts, the Virginia Tech shootings left a swath of pain few could imagine. Talking seemed to be the highest recommended way to begin the process. Reach out, desire to live again, and process the horrific events of that grim day.

Across the country, the Virginia Tech shootings began to modify security and preparedness. Schools developed a safety plan, and a means of notifying students. Schools across the country sought to learn from Virginia Tech's ghastly mistakes. Security systems and back-ups were implemented, and careful identification of students ensued. Notification and alert systems began to be wide-spread, and on-campus help for student suffering adjustment issues were offered.

I remember the Virginia Tech shootings extremely vividly. I was at another college campus called Sweet Briar, a mere 100 miles away from Blacksburg. I was sitting in a German class when we were told to evacuate the edge rooms, and to sequester in internal rooms of the building. No one was to make any sudden movements, and professors were to begin taking immediate attendance. All students were separated from their bags and belongings. Those were to be left in the external rooms as we all moved inward. At this point in time, very few of us were aware of anything going on. News began to trickle through the campus grapevine as parents frantically began texting and calling, trying to ascertain if their child was alright. Officials began to release information, saying they feared a state-wide situation. Huddled in that dark room with 100 other students, I wondered what I was doing 700 miles from where I needed to be. As the tale began to unfold, and I headed back towards my home campus in South Carolina, the horror and fear struck deeply. Upon arrival at my home campus, we began to offer prayer and support for the students and families, and began creation of a banner to send to the survivors. Over the next several months, on-campus security began to shift. Doors now were locked remotely. ID cards must be carried at all times. Text and email notification systems were implemented. A general wariness settled over campus as everyone re-evaluated who they did, and did not, know.

Watching this story untwist and unfold held special meaning in my own life, as I experienced a taste of the fear, and possibility, first hand. Over the next two years, the support blossomed, and the plans were enacted, in order to ensure a tragedy of this magnitude never happened again. The multiple lives of this new story wove, and interwove, into stories of greater, and differing, magnitude.

Essay Prompt 2

Here we go again. :-) I'm sick of looking this up repeatedly, and want it easily accessible.

The Multiple Lives of News Stories

Unit 2 Extended Essay


At least 1,500 words


Draft due Nov. 23

Revised draft due Dec. 7


Essay Rationale

In order to critically read and engage public discourse, we need to understand how that discourse circulates. The rhetorical moves in such circulation broadly reflect the rhetorical moves we make as writers working with any texts. This essay offers an occasion to investigate and, in your own way, take part in reading and writing the multiple lives of a news story that has attracted your interest.


Essay Prompt

Follow the multiple lives of a news story through the press and blogosphere. To do this, you may choose a story that you previously blogged about or you may choose an entirely new story. You are welcome and even encouraged to support your reading with academic research. Note how the story changes and is rewritten as it passes from site to site or source to source, and note the uses and limitations of each iteration. You will likely want to refer to the rhetorical moves discussed by Harris. Finally, end with your own addition to the life of the story, your own take on it based upon your experience, your interpretation, how you see the story in your personal life, or why you think the story matters. As in other essays for this course, feel free to draw upon any of the texts you have read or written throughout the semester.

Taking a Stance

Well, my friends, we've had an awesome semester! This class has been full of learning, laughs, and some hardship, but we're better for all of it! While we've always written, we've not always known what we've done. Now, we do. We have a name to the processes that we've chosen to follow, and a bit more of a technique, not to mention practice at pointing out flaws and strong points in others' writing.

Taking an approach. . . . Aptly named, this concept appears to be a re-working of someone else's ideas. It has nothing to do with your own thoughts and ideas, although those do enter in. Everyone has their own worldview, and their own stance on life. Our writing often reflects that. (For instance, I'm a quasi-liberal, straight, American female with some serious quirkiness. My writing reflects that.) That's how I approach my life. I run another blog, and everything I write is from MY point of view. However, another blogger may take my post, and approach the ideas it contains from a male, British, conservative stance. They're my ideas; they remain my ideas, but he is taking a different stance with them. He is adding to my thoughts, but in a different means. He is taking a viewpoint different than my own in order to continue the possibilities of my thoughts.

It also seems that this is an adaptation of style. "I really like so and so's style of writing; I'm going to use it in my own, or, at least, attempt to do so." You have taken their entire work, or overarching theme, and have adapted it for your use. Here's where it can be a bit touchy. . . . Plagiarism is taking someone's words or ideas. It is imperative that credit be given where credit is due. If someone's entire philosophy is the groundwork for YOUR work, then make sure you say so! Taking an approach is a give and take between author and writer. The original idea influenced the writer's take on it, but the writer ALSO has something to add and an expansion process to go through. The idea is not original, but the approach the writer takes is.

I have not been able to find a blog that uses this concept. All of my blogs are very firmly planted in their viewpoint; they have no need to consider anyone elses'.

Concise Countering

I've thought about this post for quite some time, and have definitely struggled with it. There is such a volume of material to draw from, and I wasn't sure exactly which part of myself I wanted to argue with. However, I finally chosen one line that I have decided to counter.

We can drive our lives forward with a concision like no other generation, and we have the internet to thank for it.

I wrote that quite some time ago, and I've since come to realize how limiting it is. The internet is a large part of our skill-set that wasn't present even a generation ago that has shaped our way, and mode, of thinking. However, there is so much more that is a driving force, as well. Think about how much you text. How many of you have a character limit of 160 characters while sending a text? Point proven. You have learned to cut down on anything unnecessary, and get your point across quickly and concisely. Everything nowadays, online and otherwise, is focused towards a rushed, get-to-the-point pace. Efficiency is valued above all else. We have 1 minute microwave dinners, fast-food restaurants, 30 second news bites, and a "see all" function with statuses and updates. We want all pertinent information, and we want it NOW. . . . but that's not only driven by the internet, it's driven by all of life.

Countering Countdown

This was a bit of a difficult concept for me to get a handle on. I understand EXACTLY what he's saying. . . . Countering is NOT ripping another writer to shreds, nor their work. It's not SLANDER. Countering must be purposeful, and one must not be looking to start a fight. However, to me, countering appears to be another kind of forwarding. It's taking someone else's work, and adding to it in some form or fashion, even if you don't agree with the original text.

That seems to be the cornerstone of countering. . . . . Disagreement, or a differing opinion, on some level. You can't just say, "I'm right; You're wrong." You actually have to understand the other position, and have a valid REASON that you disagree. You must be able to state and maintain your position without it deteriorating into a petty squabbling fit. (Many of us did this with Hedge's. We didn't actually say WHY we disagreed with him; We simply tore him, and his ideas, to shreds.) That was NOT countering; that was a loathing of the very air Hedges breathes.

I still can't get past the idea of countering being some kind of forwarding. It is, at it's basest level, taking someone else's work, and adding to it. Harris seems to be restating his theory for forwarding, but in a different manner. He's added another criteria, which is that of needing to further it through disagreeing, somehow. So, perhaps it is a SUBSET of forwarding. . . . . I don't really know. Perhaps I'm countering Harris slightly by making that observation. ;-)

Countering is rampant in blogging, if one looks for the "Well, I agree with this piece, and this one, but not this one, and this is why. Consider this, instead."

And thus, my friends, ends my countering on countering.

Then It Hit Me

"I didn't know why that Frisbee was getting bigger. Then, it hit me!" This is a quote that is quite commonly, and humorously, found on T-shirts or bumper stickers. What, you may ask, does that have ANYTHING to do with Post 7? *grins* Well, I shall tell you.

Joseph Harris explains in his book "Rewriting" a concept he calls "forwarding." It derives its name from the "foward" function of email, and it could not be more aptly labeled. Forming the basis of nearly all academic writing, forwarding embraces the concept of continual discussion. I propose that an original text is much like a Frisbee, laying on the ground. A text is usually written to be read, and not to lay stagnant. A reader comes along, picks the Frisbee up, and slings it in another direction. He has taken the text, digested it, and given it a new spin. There are many ways to do so. Harris outlines four main ideas, but, basically, one may add to the original ideas, embrace the original ideas, think about the original idea to develop your own point, or use the idea as back-up for your own. Every single time we make a blog post, in some form or fashion, we forward another thought. We must read something, and provide our own thoughts. We may or may not directly incorporate the ideas (via quoting or what-not), but we did form the basis of our opinion through something else. We have picked the Frisbee up, and tossed it to the class at large.

I found a rather interesting piece of Frisbee slinging over at Hot Air. John Cook wrote an interesting article about a scandal involving the governor of New York, John Spencer. Cook has assumed that there would be a squabble-fest between the PR individuals and the press, and in order to prove it, he and a buddy accessed a massive stack of emails between the two crowds. (PR and press). He was astounded at what he found. Far from a cut throat battle, the PR and press were attempting to help each other out and prevent a blood bath! In order to prove this, Cook directly incorporated the emails into his articles. Note, not quoted, but directly incorporated scanned copies of them. After showing the actual emails, he briefly explained each point the email made, and how it proved his point. He has kinda stopped his Frisbee from flying. He caught the journalist's Frisbee, and now, he's plunked it down on a picnic table, and is daring anyone to move it. *grins* I guess, in retrospect, I have now jerked his Frisbee away from him and have slung it to you.

Two Ships

"They were like two ships passing in the night." This is a common phrase used to say, "They were going in two totally opposite directions, and they really didn't even SEE the point the other was making!"

The New York Times is a force to be reckoned with. Functioning as both a printed paper and an online medium, it delivers the news in a powerful, moment to moment, intriguing way. The journalists know how to best capture and maintain attention, something many papers could care less about. It's extremely easily accessible, and it seems to set the baseline for delivery. Covering both massive, over-arching topics that impact the world and the smaller, gossipy news that everyone WANTS to read, it is one of the biggest powers in the press sphere today.

However, blogs are almost equally powerful, but in a different capacity. The New York Times delivers the news with a slightly liberal, factual bent, but the blogs interpret it for us. I'm reading CurrentNews and HotAir. HotAir has a HUGE following. It's got a conservative bent, and it almost always touches the subjects that the Times does. It is, however, very satirical, yet informative. It is appealing to audience of a different kind, yet it delivers the same news. CurrentNews is a bit of a different subject. . . . I didn't really like it when I began to read it, and I don't like it now. It covers petty subjects that I don't really care about. . . . . but it occasionally touches the topics the Times cares about. In this instance, the blogs and the Times are NOT like two ships passing in the night. . . . more of a ship communicating with another one.

The Times provides the baseline for topics in the sphere, more or less. If it matters, the Times is going to at least mention it. The blogs take the information, process it, and spit it back at us, and we, the readers, get a chance to digest it, and respond via comments. Blogging provides us with a way to interact with the news, which follows Jarvis' model of the press. So, the Times and blogging function side by side in the press sphere in somewhat of a cycle. The Times delivers the news, or the big news happens, which the Times will comment on, and the blogs re-deliver it. The blogs really can't act until the actual news is released, which puts them slightly lower in the sphere than the actual givers of news . . . . whoever that may be. *slight grin* News can start in any place, and progress to anything. . . . . so who really knows where the waters begin or end?