(Now, for the respondents--here are the prompts you can choose to comment on after you visit the blog and read some entries, etc.)
1. Analyze the interface of the featured blog. Focusing on visual elements on the home page, make an argument in your comment on the class blog about what the interface implicitly suggests about the blog's central theme(s), values, or identity (see Writing Analytically on how to make the implicit explicit). Make an inference that could be a topic for class discussion and debate.
2. Look for an argument or disagreement occurring in the comments on a particular post on the featured blog. In your comment on the class blog, analyze the key issues and points of contention in the comments. Based on your observations, develop a theory about what blog’s readers value as a community. Use the following questions to get you started:
• What issues or ideas do people seem to agree upon despite the larger disagreement?
• Do people on the blog think some comments are rude or inappropriate, and if so why do you think this is?
• What rhetorical strategies do commenters use to construct their arguments?
• How do commenters reference other comments, and what does that suggest about the nature of interaction within the community?
3. Look for an argument or disagreement occurring in the comments on a particular post on the featured blog. Respond to that argument with a comment of your own on the featured blog. Explain your comment on our class blog and ask our class how they might respond. If you receive a response to your comment on the blog we're analyzing, post an update about how readers responded to your presence or ideas.
4. Look through several posts for any claims about a writer's or several writers' ethos on the featured blog. In your comment, develop an analytical theory about how ethos is working on the blog. Here are some questions to get you started:
• How do writer(s) invoke their education, status, experiences, beliefs, or identity? Do these methods ever backfire (do readers ever respond negatively to a writer's identity, education, etc.?)
• If there are multiple writers contributing to the blog, do you see any similarities or differences in appeals to ethos across posts? What assumptions can you make about the community based on what appeals to ethos bloggers seem to rely upon most? (For example, is education seen as particularly important? Political beliefs? Gender? Anything else?)
5. Look through several posts for any direct references or appeals to the audience on the featured blog (you might look for the use of the pronoun "you"/"we" or for more subtle techniques, such as posing a question to the audience or inviting the audience to respond). Write a comment on our class blog that states your theory about what those appeals to the audience suggest about who the writer believes the audience is, what they believe the audience values, or what the relationship between the writer/audience seems to be (for example, does the writer ask for the audience's opinion or position herself as an authority, or something else entirely?).
6. Look for one instance or several instances in which an author of a post makes a claim or introduces a new idea on the featured blog. In your comment on the class blog, write an interesting analysis of the rhetorical techniques the author uses to make this argument. You might consider the following questions:
• Are any of the ideas particularly controversial, and if so, how does the author attempt to persuade the audience or account for the controversy in advance?
• Look for whether readers generally agree or disagree. Formulate a theory about what the trends you notice suggest about the nature of the community, their values, the purpose of the blog, etc.
• Does the author cite any evidence or an authority on the subject, and if so, who or what is considered persuasive? Do the readers agree? What kind of knowledge does the community seem to value or disagree upon?
• Does the author introduce a new idea by referencing or attempting to improve upon someone else's idea? What might we learn as writer's about how arguments can be built off of or proceed from other arguments? (What's effective and what's not effective?)
7. Read through several posts and comments and formulate a claim about whether or not you think the featured blog actually does anything. In other words, does the blog seem to have any effect on people's knowledge, values, ideas, etc? Provide evidence for your claim in your comment on the class blog.
Reposted from Ryan: I am responding to prompt 6. The author of "Nanosilver in your underwear? We hope not" introduces several claims in their writing. Its starts right off pointing out that even though the EPA itself has found potential risks with the nanosilver coating, it is still willing to give it the go ahead. The author persuades the audience by showing EPA evidence that the nanosilver particles can penetrate cell membranes and can even enter the brain membrane. A new idea is also introduced at the end. That the EPA should just hold off their approval until they have a more evidence of what the nanosilver's effect can do. I think this is the best idea because there is no rush to get this product on the market and it has several downsides if it is pushed through too quickly.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 7. I read several articles on Enviroblog and I think that the blog actually does have effect on the people who read it. The article "Eden Foods: A BPA-Free Pioneer" stood out to me and talks about how BPA is used to make the lining of cans for food products. BPA is a chemical that is known to cause several serious health issues. Eden Foods opted to pay more for the cans they purchase to package their food in so that they could use BPA-free cans when possible. Several of the people that commented on this article said that they were going to switch the brands of food they buy so they don't consume the BPA chemical and some said they were going to request for the Eden Food brand to be carried in their grocery store. The blogs do seem to have an effect on people when they talk about something that could damage their health or well-being.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to Promt 7.
ReplyDeleteI have read many of the updates on Enviroblog. I am positive this blog has an effect on people. I think it gives everyone a lot of knowledge on various subjucts. For example, the "Back to School Shopping Tips" post. Glue contains various toxic solvent and we should steer clear of these items.
But where is the line between too much and sufficient information? I wonder how people used to survive in the "old days"... New technology is great, yes. But this blog seems to be emphasizing every little flaw and side effect. By doing this, everyday readers think they become experts. They then scare themselves away from an object, such as the glue, that would have never shown the slightest effect during their lifetime. Life isn't as dangerous as we may think...
I am responding to Prompt 7.
ReplyDeleteOf all the posts on Enviroblog I was most interested in the "Anything Gross in YOUR Beauty Products?". After watching the ABC News segment and reading the single comment I believe that not only does Enviroblog have an extreme effect on people who read it but I also think it could cause many problems, people who read the blog religiously may mistake themselves for experts and not buy certain products that they mistake for improperly made and end up costing the cosmetics industry. But, I thought it was interesting that they gave you the proper place and information to see what is in your cosmetics products.
I chose to write about the the Enviro blog: Ask EWG: what is "fragrance"? I am responding to prompt seven. The blog overall is about what is really in fragrances and the hidden things that companies do not tell you about. The author of the blog uses words like cancer, asthma, and unpleasant side effects to scare the readers into believing what she is saying. She also uses words that may be uncommon to someone who doesn't have a scientific background like Phthalates. In the responses that people had they all sounded angry and scared about it, in result of the things that the author had listed. All of the respondents agreed with what the author had said. Many of them became more upset and talked about suing their fellow employees for wearing fragrances. I think the blog had an effect on the reader's views and opinions. Many of them became more upset about the issue and felt as though reading this article validated their feelings towards fragrances.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 1. For the enviroblog homepage it seems like a very welcoming blog. I would imagine since there are so many colors it is usually positive topics. If this were a negative blog, the colors wouldnt be so important. It also seems very user friendly. There are numerous advertisements to make the blog public, such as Twitter and Facebook. Also, there is a picture of a young child, so the blog wants it to reach out to a wide audience from young to old ages.
ReplyDeleteThe look of the enviroblog page definitely says "green." It uses a lot of green, along with primarily other warm, earthy tones. This definitely gives a feeling of nature, and is very friendly looking. It also incorporates binary numbers into the background of the header, implying that they support environmental friendliness through technology. It is thoroughly modern, complete with the ability to tweet about it and share on Facebook, two of the most popular sites on the web. Overall, this is a very appealing interface, which is a great way to get the attention of potential readers.
ReplyDeleteI was responding to prompt 1 above^^^
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 4. I feel that this is an easy prompt to respond to, because the writers include so many of what seems to be their beliefs that the posts almost seemed biased. It is clear in their writing that the writers are very environmental, and criticize those such as corporations who "contaminate" it. This is evident in Dr. Naidenko's sarcastic words (such as Surprise!) when talking about the phone companies filing a lawsuit against a new law requiring cell phones' radiation levels to be displayed. They do seem to have a good amount of knowledge on the subject, but it is used in a way that clearly favors one side over the other.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, while this is clearly an environmental blog, the writers consistently uses their beliefs and own biases in their writing. In order to attract a bigger audience, I think that focusing on both sides instead of just chastising one of them would help. Until that happens, they'll continue to get only about 1 or 2 comments per post. So yes, I think that the methods used have backfired, because some people aren't interested in one sided arguments.
i am responding to 5. in the article "Yes we can - and should - make our food safer", the title itself is like the tone of answering a question from the audience which would immediately attract the reader's concentration.The most distinguish part of this particular article is using of numbers. Those numbers like "76 million Americans get sick, 325000 people are hospitalized and 5000 die". They really make us generate a strong fear of unsafety food.
ReplyDeleteThe second one which shocked me a lot is the one about beauty products. The writer posts a question to the audience at the beginning "how aware are we of the just plain gross ingredients in our personal care products?"which will absoutely direct us to the video below. i have to say that i have never realized that there are so many yuck things like worm and dead microbes in the beauty products. Also, the using of numbers "found it in every single product; more than 300 kinds of lipsticks" contributes a lot to warning people. although at the end of the video, it has those make-ups are not harmful, i still feel uncomfortable whenever i use them.
I am responding to prompt 6. "FCC Softpedals Cell Phone Radiation."
ReplyDeleteIn the title by using the word Softpedal the author is trying to persuade the readers opinion. The author or also claims the FCC is playing by "the industry's playbook," which is far from objective language.
The author does site that CTIA filed a lawsuit against the city of San Francisco to get the law repealed. He does not cite any experts or any official information save the lawsuit.
He doesn't introduce any new ideas but he does say that the money spent on the lawsuit would be better spent on improving cell phone radiation levels.
I am making a post regarding prompt #1. First I would like to agree with Dwight K Schrute in also noting the colors of the page, which seem to scream “green.” The background of the side notes are green along with the title font color; clearly the blog is trying to portray a certain theme, which is being environmentally conscious and safe. Some other students mentioned how the colors are generally warm in the header that says “ENVIRONBLOG,” but I actually had a different take on it. To me, I get a more “be cautious” feel when I look at the page rather than a welcoming feel. The blurry header with the dots and color scheme remind me of some kind of disease, making me feel almost paranoid in a sense. This goes along with the articles on the blog, all warning readers of ways they could be harmed. I also noticed the two photos they added on the side of the blog of awards for being “top blog.” This shows the audience that they are legitimate and will then make their readers more fully believe in what they discuss.
ReplyDeleteReposted from Abrar:
ReplyDeleteI read http://www.enviroblog.org/2010/07/support-the-2010-safe-cosmetics-act-its-urgent.html
And used prompt 5 to respond to it.
The blog’s title is a command, a direct appeal to the audience right from the start. “Support the 2010 Safe Cosmetics Act. It's Urgent.” The catch words here are “safe”, implying that cosmetics in general, are not safe. “Urgent”, to imply that cosmetics are not only unsafe but dangerous too, and it’s urgent because they could harm (and possibly kill us?) quickly. We are immediately invited to support this. I believe the writer of this blog is targeting women of all ages because generally it is women who rely heavily on cosmetics, and it is generally women who worry about whether a product is safe to use. The writer believes his/her audience is a somewhat superficial one that values health and beauty. The writer most certainly poses him/herself as the authority on this matter because he/she goes on to explain the issues, and provides additional information for the reader. This doesn’t come off as pompous or threatening, though. There is a sense of equality, camaraderie, because he/she goes on to say “We need the Safe Cosmetics Act of 2010 to ensure that we are able to protect ourselves and our families from potentially harmful ingredients”. It feels like he/she is saying that we’re all in the same boat, and that everyone needs to act so that we can all keep ourselves and our families safe and healthy, and that I’m just as prone as you are. This is effective because it made me worry enough to click on the link to check that the products I’m using are safe. No more Neutrogena for me, thank you very much. I left the blog feeling thankful that someone let me know about this, yes, it felt like the writer was telling me, personally. It worked, obviously.
Responding to prompt 3, in the article: "Yes we can - and should - make our food safer," I noticed that the author immediately strikes down the idea that all food in the U.S. is processed perfectly and that we have some work to do. Of course, like all health ads these days, the author starts off by advertising the number of fatalities due to food poisoning. Stemming from this fear tactic, the author talks about The Food Safety Modernization Act that should help this problem, which overrall increases inspections of processed food. An argument I found were the "rumors" that the author immediately shuts down. These rumors included the limitation of pesticides and other hinderances, but if the FDA (the people who will manage these affairs if the bill passes) sees a pesticide that contaminates the food, of course they will prohibit the toxin. So, if this is the case, then just like any other bill I doubt that everything about this legislation is black and white. Granted, I'm not saying that we should let them use the pesticide that kills people, but just don't get all happy about something that will indeed at least in the beginning, slow down the market for processed foods. Surly there will be resistance, but the author continues to say that the resistance is morally objectable.
ReplyDeleteHowever, the author brings up important details on the plus side, the bill does let the farmers gain aid of the FDA, and their experience and resources, who will give lessons to the farmers on how to properly process foods. Also, with the increased inspections, the injury rate due to food poisoning is sure to go down. So even though the author thinks the arguments to this bill are psychotic, she does admit that they exist and therefore, points out both sides to an argument.
I am responding to Prompt 7. I think the Enviroblog website is very influential and without a doubt has an effect on people. It provides people with important information that they may need to know about certain discoveries in medicine or the environment. For example I read the "Nanosilver in your underwear? I hope not." The information was a little bulky and much, but the blog did give a good description of problems with the nanosilver. Someone who was uneducated probably could not read the blog, but that is acceptable because it is directed towards adults. Besides the thick and bulky facts the blog does a great job that will surely influence people in their everyday decisions.
ReplyDeleteI am choosing Prompt 7 to talk about. After reading the Enviroblog site, I do think it has an effect on people. Many people would actually learn something new if they spent some time on this site. Now the effect, of course, only depends on how much time and thought each reader puts into it. For me the blog called, "Yes we can- and should- make our food safer" really said a lot. How crazy it is with all the diseases out there today that 76 million Americans get sick just doing something they have to do, eating. I know after reading this it really makes me think about just how clean and safe my food really is. 150 billion dollars worth of food sickness should be a thing of the past with all the lastest and greatest healthcare and prevention. Overall, this really gets my attention and it's blogs like this that can lead to a better quality of life.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to the blog with prompt 7.
ReplyDeleteA person by the name of "Shazar Robinson" posted a comment in response to the article written about the possible addition of an anti-bacterial coating being used in the treatment of athletic garments. She makes a very valid point in stating that it is not always better to completely sterilize ourselves against all forms of bacteria. Bacteria is very important to the immune system because it helps us strengthen ourselves against harmful bacteria. The blog seems to have fulfilled its purpose in providing the information needed in order to form an opinion such as this. As stated in the blog entry, "...these particles can be toxic to cells that develop into eggs or sperm in mammals".
Judging by the way the comment was written, it does seem to have a large effect on the way that the author of the comment has formulated this opinion. This would make the blog successful in what it is attempting to do.
I am responding to prompt 5, specifically about the most recent article on the blog, “FCC Softpedals Cell Phone Radiation. The author directly addresses the audience a few times but it can clearly see who the audience is from language early in the article. The first words are “battle lines are being drawn. Alliances formed.” Right away we have a war which means a good side and a bad side. Industry and government are made to be the bad side and citizens and common folk are made to be the good side. The author makes the citizens the audience mostly by villainizing the cell phone industry and the FCC. Halfway through the article the author asks a question that only cell phone consumers, and not cell phone companies, would care about. Towards the end of the article, the author finally makes it explicitly clear who the audience is by referring to U.S. taxpayers and saying “that’s you” in parenthesis. The article concludes by mentioning that EWG filed a Freedom of Information Act request titled “SAR for Cell Phones: What it means for You”, once again speaking directly to the consumers instead of industry.
ReplyDeleteI am reponding to prompt 7. Of course the blog does have lots effect on people's life, knowledge, thinking,etc. This blog told us how to avoid those danger things. people will notice that when they read these blog .such as the one names "FCC Softpedals Cell Phone Radiation". in this blog, which can set people's mind have a rest, because FCC always remember we are paying its money.then they will protect people's right to know that products on store shelves. At least, we can trust the detail of product in store is real, to know which one is good for us. it is a good way to help choose the product we need by these information. i believe that we will find more and more blogs those will effect our life being better.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 7.
ReplyDeleteI trully hope that there will be a growing number of people pay attention to this website. As we all know, consumers have right to know the truth about products they bought, no matter
how tiny the hazard is, the merchats have a duty to mark out those harmful substances as well as warn customers, instead of hiding them. Unfortunately, because of pursuing the profit, in addition the legal loopholes, companies intentionally avoid those senseful words, for instance, "carcinogenic". Consumers are eclipsed by those attractive ads, ignoring the potential dangers.
However, this website is doing its utmost to remind people being careful of those snares. For example, in the article about "what is fragrance?", it helps people concern about
this vague word, analysing the possible threats in this fragrance, furthermore, coming up with a good idea to solve this anxious. From those comments, I can easliy find that the readers are all confused about this special word, since it never has an accurate identity, but from this writing, those people realized that they could not ingore this ingredient, what is more, having right to know what actually it is.
Not only this post, but also a number of posts are warning people about some loopholes they may overlook. Such as "Anything gross in your beauty products?", telling us the dangers behind the beauty as well as the extent of harm it may has. Although we can still choose to purchase those items which only have slight
harms, this website protects our right about knowing the facts instead of deceiving us.
All in all, I am sure that this website is able to bring benefits to us, calling attention to those details that we should never neglect.
I am responding to prompt 7.
ReplyDeleteFrom reading many articles within this "Enviroblog" I personally find that many of these arguments are "exaggerating" the problems that many of these products actually have. However, I do believe that the advice they provide us with many of these risks such as "Cell phone radiation series - Part 2: 8 Ways to reduce your exposure" are very useful and can definitely help reduce the danger of the radiation. I find some of these articles to word the speeches in a way to frighten and induce fear to people about the harmful effects of the products instead of bringing out solid facts that prove that these products are indeed a danger to the users. Even if some of these items indeed cause harmful effects to its users, the damage may not be as significant as they actually say it is. Science has proven almost everything that we encounter today such as televisions, computers, even food or fruits tend to cause cancer to its users, yet people still uses them and very few of them actually suffer the detrimental effects. It gives me a feeling that they are seeking more attention to the blog itself than trying to help the viewers. They stated in the cellphone radiation article: "Research has not yet established whether cell phone radiation is harmful." If the posters in this blog actually include data and experimentation that can convince us of their argument, the blog itself will be more effective and attract more viewers overall.
In response to #5-
ReplyDeleteImmediately, when I look for the usage of addresses to the audience, I see that not only the reader is targeted, but their emotions in the form of their family and loved ones are targeted as well. They inform that reader that, in one example, supporting the Safe Cosmetics Act will allow you to "trust that what you're buying is safe for you and your family". In another article, this one concerning water fluoridation, the safety of one's children is mentioned. All of this talk of dangers and risks to one's family can be unnerving to some. I came across an article on the Enviroblog entitled "So what products CAN we use?" Within, it poses the direct question "what can I buy if I want safe bath products for my kids?". After reading the article, my eye caught a commenter post. Last year, Elizah Leigh posed the thought: "Isn't it so sad that in this day and age, we need to refer to lists of thumbs up/thumbs down items in order to prevent our families from getting slowly poisoned with chemicals." I completely agree. The Enviroblog presents us with deep questions to ask ourselves in hopes of changing something about our lives as to not impact the planet's environmental problems further. It poses questions to us in regards to 'dangers' that have been found in the world. I think that Elizah Leigh's comment to that particular blog sums up my opinion on the pity in the fear within the media. I, however, can understand by the language of 'you' and 'your family' in the text that would cause such fears to strike one's opinion on something, no matter how common. This is because the writer acts as a pseudo-authority on the subject. The writer poses as the grand messenger, who just happens to know both the topic subject, and how to address the public in a fashion that will make them understand the information with ease by giving fearful examples. The appear to believe that the audience is knowledgeable and persuadable. The 'Teacher-Student' style that the writer takes is perfect for his readers to connect with, and therein believe that they are learning something exceedingly important.
I am responding to prompt 1. After looking over the interface of the blog a little bit, it is fairly easy to come to the conclusion that the good people who published Enviroblog are implicitly trying to say a few things. Their links and videos often feature little kids and take shots at the government for not making us aware of different health concerns. True, it is a good thing they are concerned about public health, but their strategy is to strike fear in the reader. "Close isn't good enough" and "Another one for industry - not children's health" are just a couple section titles they use. The website's color scheme also screams environmental friendliness, however, the top part of the page looks like another scare tactic. In conclusion to my statements, Enviroblog is most certainly implicitly communicating pro environmental agenda, using fear.
ReplyDeleteI am responding to prompt 7. After reading a few of the stories from enviro-blog, I came across a story labeled "7 Enviromental Toxins that End Up in Your Food." This one seemed interesting because I do believe it has an affect on people. One of the toxins they found that is on your food is pesticide. Now I know most people already know that some pesticides can be on foods but even washing the food thoroughly may not get rid of them. Another toxin is sodium nitrate. The artice says if you consume a large quantity of this, that it could lead to cancer. It might make food look appealing but it does instill some fear in people. Sometimes you have to ask yourself, what is on your food?
ReplyDelete