SAT Summer 2016 Students
Dear PACE Students:
For the duration of the summer, you will be responsible for keeping up your own blog. The blog will serve as a space for you to work on the reading strategies as well as the analytical writing techniques that we will be discussing in class. Each week, you must...
a) choose a news article
b) read the article (do a descriptive outline for yourself)
c) create a post in which you analyze one aspect of the article's effectiveness with respect to persuasion.
Every post should include a link to the article you've read.
By way of example...
Does the public have a right to know a cop's history?
In Conor Friedersdorf's article, Friedersdorf, among other things, describes the challenges Californians face in obtaining the records of police officers. While I, too, find that fact disturbing, I am aware of my being manipulated via emotional appeals. The first four paragraphs of the article clearly cast aspersions on police officers by citing only the more unsavory actions done by officers (e.g., treating citizens rudely, giving citations without cause, patting one down in an invasive manner, engaging in racial profiling or sexual misconduct). Given the already volatile societal milieu with respect to police officers (a quick YouTube search on police misconduct will suffice), such vitriol readily affects American readers. Possibly the most powerful line is when Friedersdorf writes, "That's right: If a police officer kills you, there's no guarantee that your next of kin will be able to determine if that same cop has killed someone--or five someones--in the line of duty before." His initial line assumes a great deal of disbelief on the reader's part, a disbelief that is heightened by virtue of the fact that it is the reader himself/herself that is the victim in his hypothetical police shooting. Indeed, the feeling of righteous indignation swells in picturing oneself killed with family left in the dark as to the offending officer. Furthermore, I cannot help but note the included appositive of "or five someones." As if one victim were not enough to incite anger, let there be five more deaths under this hypothetical officer's belt. Friedersdorf truly does an excellent job of exciting the emotions, thereby making it difficult to consider the situation with a clear head. What possible reason is there for keeping confidential the records of police officers? Perhaps it is an issue of safety; or maybe the issue has to do with conflicts that may arise if or when the case goes to court. I admit to not knowing. That being said, I recognize being led by Friedersdorf to believe that there is no good reason for such confidentiality.
Please have your first post up no later than Friday, June 10th at 8:00am.
For the duration of the summer, you will be responsible for keeping up your own blog. The blog will serve as a space for you to work on the reading strategies as well as the analytical writing techniques that we will be discussing in class. Each week, you must...
a) choose a news article
b) read the article (do a descriptive outline for yourself)
c) create a post in which you analyze one aspect of the article's effectiveness with respect to persuasion.
Every post should include a link to the article you've read.
By way of example...
Does the public have a right to know a cop's history?
In Conor Friedersdorf's article, Friedersdorf, among other things, describes the challenges Californians face in obtaining the records of police officers. While I, too, find that fact disturbing, I am aware of my being manipulated via emotional appeals. The first four paragraphs of the article clearly cast aspersions on police officers by citing only the more unsavory actions done by officers (e.g., treating citizens rudely, giving citations without cause, patting one down in an invasive manner, engaging in racial profiling or sexual misconduct). Given the already volatile societal milieu with respect to police officers (a quick YouTube search on police misconduct will suffice), such vitriol readily affects American readers. Possibly the most powerful line is when Friedersdorf writes, "That's right: If a police officer kills you, there's no guarantee that your next of kin will be able to determine if that same cop has killed someone--or five someones--in the line of duty before." His initial line assumes a great deal of disbelief on the reader's part, a disbelief that is heightened by virtue of the fact that it is the reader himself/herself that is the victim in his hypothetical police shooting. Indeed, the feeling of righteous indignation swells in picturing oneself killed with family left in the dark as to the offending officer. Furthermore, I cannot help but note the included appositive of "or five someones." As if one victim were not enough to incite anger, let there be five more deaths under this hypothetical officer's belt. Friedersdorf truly does an excellent job of exciting the emotions, thereby making it difficult to consider the situation with a clear head. What possible reason is there for keeping confidential the records of police officers? Perhaps it is an issue of safety; or maybe the issue has to do with conflicts that may arise if or when the case goes to court. I admit to not knowing. That being said, I recognize being led by Friedersdorf to believe that there is no good reason for such confidentiality.
Please have your first post up no later than Friday, June 10th at 8:00am.
Comments
Post a Comment