T.A.

I really have no idea what I'm going to write about for my media paper, so I'm just brainstorming right now. But I found this study about the tabloidization of the news that I thought was interesting.

1. The argument is that newspapers and television news stations don't just report the news anymore because they are losing readers and viewers. News is now a hybrid made up of some actual news, opinion, history, and pop.

2. The audience is people who at least care about the news a little bit.

3. There is a lot of logos in this argument, because it is full of numbers and different statistics about readership levels and circulation, etc. The author lays everything out in a very straightforward manner. He says that because those numbers were going down, newspapers and TV news stations had to do something to get money so they completely changed the format of what they do. I would say there is a lot of ethos in this argument, because a lot of credible and prominent people were interviewed for their opinions on the matter. Having credible sources helps to make you credible. Pathos is at a minimum. The argument is very straightforward, kind of like the author is saying, "Here are the facts. They tell you all you need to know. I'm not going to even try to convince you." It's an interesting strategy, but in a way I think it makes his argument a little less than sufficient. It's strong, but his indifferent attitude does make it a little weaker. In that regard, his argument is somewhat atypical. Most people try to incite some sort of emotion is their audience. He doesn't. The argument is definitely accurate and relevant, though. He is talking about a real problem and he has real facts to back up his side.

4. I think his argument could be effective for some of his audience, but not all of them. People who like just straight-up facts would enjoy it, but a lot of people might feel like he doesn't really care about them as audience.

F.W.

Wow, I don't think I've ever been more tired than I am at this particular moment. I honestly cannot recall a time in the recent past where I've gotten more than four hours of sleep. There is just way too much to do and way too little time to do it all in! I think you know that if you're hitting REM sleep within seconds of taking a nap that you need more sleep, but there's no easy solution. I feel like it has no choice but to catch up with me and I'll crash for a couple days, but at the same time, I can't afford to crash for a couple days. Also, apparently lacking sleep makes you much more suspectible to diseases, so am I go going to get sick from my lack of sleep? Getting an awful illness during finals because I'm stressed out is one of my worst fears. It would be awful. Basically, I just can't wait to go home and take a break from school. I'll be busy, yes, but in a different way, and usually if I want to sleep, I can actually sleep. Those will be the days. Plus the weather will be infinitely warmer, so I'll definitely take that in a heartbeat.

Reading back on that paragraph makes me think of being a little kid and my mom telling me not to wish my life away. I'm really not; I do love my life, but this semester has just been insane. I think my brain is completely fried from my OChem test today and so all I can think of is not school. 3 more weeks and my Chemistry career will finally be over. Oh I can't wait! I guess technically I have biochem still, but I kind of consider that a separate genre since it's not strictly Chemistry. We'll see how I enjoy that. Which reminds me that I need to register for classes next week...everything I have to take sounds scary, so I definitely have my work cut out for me. Wish me luck!

T.A.

Let’s first try to understand what causes violence in schools or even violence in general. People committing violent acts are angry at someone or something. So what do the children in public schools have to be angry about? As much as students complain about their mean or unfair teachers, school violence usually involves students hurting other students. Why would a child be angry at a fellow classmate? According to the National Education Association (NEA), a lot of anger is the result of bullying. Until recently, people often assumed that bullies were the ones committing violent acts in school. The opposite is actually true. Gerald Newberry, the director of NEA’s Health Information Network explained, “The kids who pulled the trigger weren’t who we thought they were. They were not the bullies-they were the kids who had been bullied.” This idea is further supported by a Bureau of Justice Statistics survey, which found that 86% of high school students said students resort to violence in school because of being picked on, made fun of, or bullied by their peers (Greenya).
A major way many kids try to fit in with their peers is through their clothes. Certain things are cool to wear and certain things are not. Topping my thirteen year-old sister’s Christmas list this year were specific articles of clothing she felt she needed to have. But the specificity of her requests did not lie in the color or really even the style of the clothes. The only requirement was that they came from specific stores. She really believed that by wearing these clothes she would have the coolest, the best, and most importantly, the most friends. According to a study by the National Mental Health Association, there are many students besides my little sister who place a lot of importance on clothes. The survey found that 76% of students say kids who dress differently are picked on at school (Greenya).

F.W.

I too am out of reminiscences so I figured I would just write just what came to me. You guys really don't have to read it, since it'll just be my ramblings and will probably bore you to tears. But at least it will be fulfilling its purpose, which is to be 300-400 words before tomorrow at midnight. I can't believe I've written 30 of these things already...I honestly didn't think I had that much to say! This semester has seriously gone by so fast. I feel like Valentine's Day happened yesterday. But it definitely did not. Tomorrow is Easter. 4 more weeks and school will be over. I'll officially be 3/4 of the way through my college years. That is, if I actually finish in 4 years, which is really doubtful. But still. 3 years of college down. That's so crazy. That makes me feel so old. I wonder what it will actually be like to graduate. I won't know what to do with myself. I can't imagine what it will feel like to be on my own. Mostly I am just so excited to go home for the summer. It is going to be a blast. Hanging out with Lindsey 24.7, spending lots of time with my brother before he goes on his mission, seeing my sister and brother-in-law and my niece, going to Puerto Rico...and those are just the highlights! I mostly need to spend a lot of time working and making all kinds of money and working in a hospital getting all kinds of volunteer hours. So I will basically be really really busy. But I'd much rather be really busy than really bored. It makes life so much more productive and keeps you out of trouble! I really am so much happier when I have a TON to do, as much as I may complain about it. It's the only way I feel like I have a fulfilling life.

T.A.

Virginia Tech. The University of Texas. Columbine High School. Red Lake High School. Far beyond a random listing of schools, these top a list compiled by US News and World Report last April. Unfortunately, unlike many lists, earning a position at the top of this one is not a prize any school desires to attain. Of the ten deadliest U.S. school shootings included in this list, six occurred during the last ten years and, frighteningly, five took place in elementary, middle, and high schools (Jack). Violence in American public schools is an epidemic, with fights, gangs, and weapons at school becoming much more commonplace. (somehow I need to take this sentence out, but connect the ideas together still). School administrators are left with the responsibility of keeping students safe, but no foolproof way to curb school violence has been found. This does not mean, however, that numerous solutions have not been suggested, including the idea of requiring uniforms in public schools. What are the consequences of requiring students to wear uniforms on levels of school violence?
Let’s first try to understand what causes violence in schools or even violence in general. People committing violent acts are angry at someone or something. So what do the children in public schools have to be angry about? As much as students complain about their mean or unfair teachers, school violence usually involves students hurting other students. Here is where i will add my stats about bullied kids and clothes. Why would a child be angry at a fellow classmate? A lot of it seems to stem from jealousy. Never is the desperate desire to fit in with peers as evident as it is with young students, especially during their middle and high school years. For many kids, being accepted and having lots of friends is as important, if not more important, than actually learning things in school. It makes sense that feeling alienated may make a student angry. And who do they direct that anger towards? Inevitably it is often the students whom they hold responsible for leaving them out.

R.A.

Yay, I found a good study to help support my paper A LOT. It's basically a paper about violence in schools. But the reason that they pinpointed was that people who are bullied do it to for revenge. A lot of school shootings have been the result of people who are bullied. And one of the main criteria for getting bullied was dressing differently. This is perfect for my paper, because it helps me prove that clothes do contribute to school violence. And thus school uniforms are a potential answer.

1. The argument is that bullied students are more likely than others to committ violent crimes in their schools.

2. The audience is probably the general public, because it was written kind of informaly. Not informal like they don't know what they're talking about, but just like they're trying to relate to the common man kind of.

3. Logos is the most important part of this study for me, because I need more facts in my paper. All of their statistics about school violence are very logical and will be helpful for me to use. Ethos is used because they do have a lot of credible experts who commentate in their paper. You can tell that these people actually know what they are talking about, because they have studied a lot of these cases. Ethos is used because they tell specific stories about kids who commit violent crimes. A lot of them were good kids, honor students, who were bullied and apparently couldn't take it anymore. Brining emotion into the argument is very effective. They definitely have a lot of information, so I would consider their argument to be sufficient. It is typical, because all of their research methods have been used before. The information they present is quite accurate, and is backed up by a lot of prominent people. And it is definitely relevant, because a lot of the school violence does come from people feeling bullied.

4. I think their argument is very good and I am so excited that I have more information to use!

F.W.

When we came to earth God gave us all many talents and good personality traits. I was lucky enough to be blessed with brains, some musical ability, and a little athletic prowess. I'm a good cook, an entertaining storyteller, and I always give the best advice. But in order to keep me humble I was also blessed with a few flaws. I can't walk in a straight line, I have a bad habit of talking too loud at inappropriate times, and my brain is devoid common sense. Worst of all, though, I tend to always want what I can't have. When I was a kid and we were told to keep out of the cookie jar my brothers and sisters were sad, but they got over it. I, however, did not. Instead, all I could think about was cookies. I wanted them more than I had ever wanted anything else. It didn't even matter if I liked that particular kind of cookie. Oatmeal raisin actually makes me sick, but when I wasn't allowed to have them I craved them. Something about the unattainable was indescribably appealing. I had numerous experiences like this one as I grew up, but this character flaw truly presented itself as I got older and began dating. I would go through a cycle every single time I liked a boy. He didn't give me the time of day so I instantly developed a crush on him. I couldn't have him so of course I desperately wanted him. Then we would start talking and he would begin to really like me too. But as soon as I found that out I would find things wrong with him and move on. If he liked me it meant that I could actually have him, so I didn't want him anymore. It was a vicious circle that hasn't completely disappeared. I guess the root of the problem is that more than anything else I love a challenge. Perhaps I should take up some ridiculously hard sport and channel those energies into something productive!

R.A.

I don't really have a source to analyze right now, which is the problem. My first paper was about school uniforms and why they stop school violence. The weakest part of the paper was definitely in dealing with my counter-argument, which is the cost of school uniforms. It is a big problem, because a lot of people can't afford them and the whole point is obviously for everyone to have one. All of the rearch I can find about paying for school uniforms is from other countries, though! Mostly England. They have all kind of grants and ways for the government to pay for the uniform, which is great, but I need a United States example, since I am not writing to British people. And they do have good ideas, but they would require law changing and I don't really have time to get into that in my 1000 word paper. So I'm kind of in a bind. I guess if I knew of any real-life examples of schools that got money somehow to pay for uniforms that would work, but I have no idea how to find something like that. I didn't actually have uniforms in any of the schools I went to, so I don't have any firsthand experience with the realities of paying for school uniforms. If any of you know of something like that and could tell me how I could find information on it that would be great, because information is what I need to add to my counterargument. Not just my own ideas, but ideas that have worked for school districts already. Hopefully by adding that it will strengthen my paper a lot. In general I think I just need to add more research to everything, though. The more sources I have the more credible my ideas are and the more likely I will be to convince anyone of anything.

T.A.

Practice working through problems is a huge benefit of dating for a longer period of time. The researchers from the previously mentioned study noted that “feelings of frustration with marriage or with ordinary daily conflicts may not be interpreted as negatively by individuals who gave their relationship enough time during dating to reveal such problems before marriage.” Couples who are good at working out little difficulties will be better equipped to handle the bigger problems that life will inevitably spring upon them. This may not be the case with couples who date for only a few short months and subsequently do not get a lot of experience dealing with problems. The researchers hypothesized that “short periods of dating may mean that individuals do not get much chance to experience troublesome differences, and thus when differences inevitably arise afterwards, they cause greater problems to the marriage.”
(Do I need a transition sentence here?)
Cheryl Dakis is a pre-marriage and education coordinator in Melbourne, Australia who meets with a lot of couples preparing to get married. She suggests they wait until the first infatuation phase (usually about 6 months) is over before they even think about getting married. “Physiologically in that early flush of romance there are a lot of feel-good hormones floating around the body that change the way a couple sees things. The old saying ‘blinded by love’ is so true. We only see what we want to see. (Couples) need to get through that phase and really get to know each other.”
This may be a touchy subject for many Mormons. It is not uncommon in our culture for people to get married after knowing each other for only a few months. We understand how important it is to get married; the prophets have told us numerous times. The Doctrine and Covenants even tells us that we have to get married in order to obtain the highest degree of celestial glory. People often argue that if marriage is so imperative and you know you have found “the one” why wait? But this is not something that has been encouraged by church leaders. Elder Hugh B. Brown said, “Infatuation may be romantic, glamorous, thrilling, and even urgent, but genuine love should not be in a hurry…Time should be given for serious thought, and opportunity given for (each partner to gain) physical, mental, and spiritual maturity. Longer acquaintances will enable both to evaluate themselves and their proposed companions, to know each other’s likes and dislikes, habits and dispositions, attitudes and aspirations.”

T.A.

For time and all eternity. Till death do us part. For as long as you both shall live. These may be familiar phrases, but unfortunately the blissful things they promise do not always come true. By looking at the current divorce rates it is painfully evident that love is not a fairy tale. Almost half of U.S. marriages end in divorce, so obviously not everyone is living happily ever after. But why? People get married because they love each other, so why do so many marriages end in unhappiness? A multitude of reasons, really, so some may wonder how we can attempt to pinpoint any kind of solution. The truth is, there is no easy answer, but like any problem, going back to the beginning may be helpful. So how do all marriages start? Of course we know they are all preceded with dating. What are the consequences of time spent dating each other on the success of a couple’s marriage?
A study was done on this topic, where middle-aged wives were polled. They were asked how long they had spent dating their current spouse and then answered questions about their marital happiness. The results speak for themselves. There was a strong correlation between time spent dating and marriage satisfaction. The people who reported dating their husband for shorter periods of time (0-5 months) also reported being much unhappier in their marriages than those who had dated their husbands for longer periods of time. And it makes sense. People who date for a long time get to know each other really well. They figure out how to deal with problems while they are dating. “Feelings of frustration with marriage or with ordinary daily conflicts may not be interpreted as negatively by individuals who gave their relationship enough time during dating to reveal such problems before marriage.”
The researchers hypothesized that “short periods of dating may mean that individuals do not get much chance to experience troublesome differences, and thus when differences inevitably arise afterwards, they cause greater problems to the marriage.”

R.A.

Ok, back to statistics about my paper. One interesting thing they talked about was that people are divorcing earlier and earlier in their marriages. What used to be the seven-year itch is now the two year-itch. After 5 years of marriage approximately 10% of marriages end in divorce.

1. The argument is that marriages are ending sooner and sooner.

2. The audience is whoever would look up this study, so probably not the average person.

3. Obviously, since this is a statistical study, there is a lot of logos used. They have done research on a lot of people to find out divorce rates. Ethos is used, because this is from the U.S. Census Bureau Reports. Being that they are the official government census agency they are obviously very credible. Pathos is not really used, because these are straight facts, and there's no real arguing with the numbers. Their argument is sufficient, because they did poll a lot of people to get their information. Their argument is typical, because they didn't really do anything too out of the ordinary. Their argument is accurate, because what is more accurate than a census? Their argument is definitely relevant, because the stats don't lie.

4. I think they make a good argument, because everthing makes perfect sense. More than anything it's just surprising.

F.W.

New Years Resolutions. Everyone makes them, but no one keeps them, right? It's always the same thing: this year I'll exercise, this year I'll eat healthy, this year I'll save more money...

They're always admirable goals, but the problem is they are also very lofty. 10 pounds is a lot to lose by February and it's crazy to think all your bad habits could disappear in just a year.

Last year I realized that the resolutions I was making weren't really getting me anywhere. So I decided instead of making "serious" resolutions I would make fun ones!

My first major goal was to be learning how to wink. All my life I've had a problem with this elusive skill. Not being able to do it really frustrated me, because I thought it was such a useful thing to be able to do! Plus everyone else could do it. I've really never met anyone who can't.

So starting in January I practiced. Every day as I got ready I would look in the mirror and try to wink. For the first few months it was just blinking, but by the summer I could kind of do it and by August I was a pro. Mission accomplished.

This year I have a new goal. Whistling. (I know, I can't do anything). So far I can't do it, but I'm okay with that since it's not that serious of a resolution. I know if I don't ever learn I'll be ok and that makes New Year's Resolutions much less pressure-filled. When January rolls around I"m excited, and not wary, to make all kinds of goals. And I have such a good time crossing those things off my list as the year goes by. Of course, I think it's brilliant. But you guys can decide for yourselves.

T.A.

I thought I'd write quickly about my audience for my next paper. My WATCO is going to be:
WATCO getting married at a young age on survival of marriage?

Before I talk about my audience, though, I'm trying to decide if I should pick a specific age as my deadline. A "young age" seems very broad, but I'm having a hard time deciding what I would choose for a specific age. 22? 25? It'd be hard to find specific studies about a random age I just pick. Then I was thinking I could specify a young age as before graduating college, but I'm still kind of iffy about that too. My point is basically that there's no reason to rush into marriage when you're 19, but I'm not sure how to word that in my WATCO.

Anyway, about my audience. I want to write to young people wanting to get married. But should I narrow it down to engaged young people? Or even specifically to young Mormons? I think that would be really difficult, because in our culture, getting married really fast at a really young age is commonplace. And I definitely think it's good to get married when you find the right person. Maybe the point I'm trying to make is that dating for awhile before you get married can only help. I've heard way too many stories lately about people who got married young and didn't date for a long time who are now getting divorced. It's probably a combination of the two.

Right now I think I'm leaning toward writing toward engaged young people. I think I'll specify young as being under 25, because they seem the most likely to make a rash decision. I just want to emphasize the point that it's a very important decision and there's no need for it to be rushed. In that case, maybe I do want to narrow it down to Mormons, because then I can talk about how marriage is forever, so it's an even bigger deal.