Analyzing My Text's Cultural Setting

This post will be analyzing the cultural settings of the text I have chosen, and will answer the following questions as found on page 79 of Writing Public Lives.

York, Chelsea. "Screenshot from my computer". October 2, 2015.

"What in the World Are They Spraying" was originally published on October 22, 2010 by Truth Media Productions. Writer Michael J. Murphy from Los Angeles, California and writer G. Edward Griffin from Detroit, Michigan wrote this documentary in response to an annual convention held by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS). At this particular convention, many engineers and scientists focused on the effects of geoengineering and engaged in many debates.

What values, ideas, norms, beliefs, even laws of the culture play an important role in the text?

The two sort of cultural ideas that were present throughout the text were about human health and the impact of the government. It is a common belief that the government should care about the future of its people, and that they should focus on bettering the earth. At the same time it seems that human health trumps over the health of the earth and is the primary concern.

Does the text address these cultural values, beliefs, etc., directly or indirectly?

The documentary addresses these values both directly and indirectly. In most instances pertaining to the government, Murphy addresses these values directly. However, the impact on human health is about half directly addressed and half indirectly addressed. There are times where Murphy explains the adverse health effects caused by geoengineering, and other times where he eludes to the fact that they are a problem.

What is the relationship of the text to the values, beliefs, etc.? Is it critical of these aspects of the culture? Is it supportive? Does it seek to modify these aspects of the culture in a certain way?

The relationship between the documentary and the culture is direct. It would seem that, throughout our nation's existence, there has always been a large debate over how the government goes about addressing certain (aka most) issues. What the public wants most is for their concerns to be addressed and for legislation to not have a substantial effect on the financial aspects of life. The text seeks to reinforce these notions by emphasizing the impact it will have on the health of society, as well as the financial aspects of aerosol spraying.

Cultural Analysis of "What in the World Are They Spraying?"

Below I will be doing a cultural analysis of the text I have chosen, including identifying keywords and how they help to support the author's argument.

For this project I have chosen to focus on the opinionated documentary "What in the World Are They Spraying". The keywords I picked up on while watching were "government", "profit", and "human health". Michael J. Murphy's main argument throughout the text appears to be that the government is involved in a conspiracy theory relating to Chem trails, and that they don't care about the health impacts it would have on the people.

palmdalechemtrails. "Chemtrail spraying in Palmdale, CA. September 21, 2012". September 21, 2012 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

How do these keywords help support the argument the author is making? 

There seems to be a common link between government involvement and the potential to make a profit. Throughout, Murphy continually emphasizes that the government has only taken an interest to make money and that they don't care about the people. By using these keywords, Murphy is more likely to connect to his audience, who cares about matters such as these, and appeal to their emotions.

Why might an audience be more likely to support this argument if it is connected to these values?

By continuing to point out the fact that the government doesn't care about the people and stating the negative health impacts, the audience becomes more invested. In general, the public wishes to preserve their health, and if it seems like the government is going against these wishes there is usually a large backlash. It is also well known that in America the public loathes the government when it seems that they are casting aside the nation's needs in order to focus on making a profit.

Evaluation of Rhetorical Situations

Now that Project 1 is over and done with it is time to move onto Project 2. Below I have found three examples of opinionated public speech related to the environment and have analyzed the author/audience/context for each.

1. What in the World Are They Spraying? (Full Length)

• Author/Speaker: In this hour and a half documentary, Michael J. Murphy focuses on the Chemtrail Conspiracy Theory. Murphy runs his own blog and is a heavily invested Chemtrail activist. From the information on his Facebook page, it would appear that he currently resides in Los Angeles, California. Most of his posts are related to either chemtrails or geoengineering and he appears to be fairly biased. Considering the fact that he believes in a conspiracy theory, it is hard to judge whether or not he is truly credible.

York, Chelsea. Screenshot from my computer. 9/26/2015 via Facebook.

• Audience: The primary audience seems to be those interested in potential conspiracy theories or the effects of geoengineering. Throughout the documentary the people involved continually mention things like "They're doing this to us" or "They don't care about us". The they they are referring to is the government, and the members believe that the government is lying to us. This documentary is definitely aimed more towards those with a disdain for the government and for those who believe in conspiracy theories.

• Context: The documentary was published to YouTube channel Justin Wallis on December 20, 2010. YouTube is a media outlet where anyone is free to upload just about anything they want. The video came about after some scientists noticed that chemtrails weren't fading away, even though they should have. This observation led Murphy and other individuals to believe that the government was the cause of these problems. Murphy has focused on Chemtrails for many years now, and seems well-versed in the subject.

2. Pope Francis: “Every Person Living on This Planet” Should Act on Climate

York, Chelsea. Screenshot from my computer. 9/26/15 via slate.com

• Author/Speaker: Eric Holthaus is a meteorologist who writes about weather and climate for Slate. The fact that he is a meteorologist and knows a lot about climate makes him a credible writer for topics about climate change. Most of the tweets from @EricHolthaus relate to climate issues or the environment. Holthaus currently resides in Fort Collins, Colorado and he seems to be heavily involved on current climate issues.

• Audience: Anyone who is invested in the Pope's opinions on societal issues or about the potential future of the world would be interested in this article. It seems that the article is emphasizing the importance of having a major political figure comment on what the world should do about climate change. Holthaus believes the Pope's actions were an important first step in the direction for a better future, and tries to portray that to the audience. 

• Context: This article was posted on Slate on June 18,2015. Over the past few months there has been a significant increase in the number of articles related to climate change. A lot of this has likely stemmed from the fact that Pope Francis himself mentioned it in the 180 page letter released every year. It was the first time in history that the papal letter focused on something that wasn't so religious, and it was reverberated around the globe.

3. A Cheap and Easy Plan to Stop Global Warming

York, Chelsea. Screenshot from my computer. 9/26/15 via MIT Technology Review.

• Author/Speaker: David Rotman is the editor of MIT Technology Review and spends a lot of his time thinking about what stories would be most valuable for his readers. In this current day and age, Rotman is especially interested in chemistry, economics, and materials science. He lives in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a place that publishes many scientific discoveries. 

• Audience: The primary audience would appear to be those interested in learning more about an easy way to stop global warming. The fact that the article says stop and not combat is a giveaway that it is aimed more at those who are more interested in an immediate solution. By including global warming in the title, it makes the article open anyone. Majority of the world has realized by now that global warming does exist, and they are taking an interest in methods that could stop it.

• Context: This article was posted to MIT Technology Review on February 8, 2013. Although it is a couple of years old by this point, it is still relevant. After the creation of the film, "What in the World Are They Spraying" in 2010, geoengineering methods have exploded in popularity. The article goes into significant depth about what geoengineering is, whether or not it will be helpful, and what society should do about it.

Reflection:

After reading through the blogs of Casey and Mira, I feel like we all had one example of a rhetorical situation that was lacking in interest. Reading their posts made me realize that I could've put more effort into establishing credibility of the authors. Mira's post in particular brought this to my attention. Not only did she establish credibility on what the authors did for a living, but she even looked into the beliefs and effects the authors have had in society. While I do feel like my three texts would do well in a rhetorical analysis, I now realize that there is a clear winner. One of these texts is very opinionated, very in depth, and how the author is getting their point across is clear.

Developing a Research Question

Below I have given more thought to some of the current debates and controversies in my field and have developed some potential research questions.

With significant figures like Pope Francis addressing what the future of the world holds, individuals are becoming more interested in climate change. Red flags are being raised as some believe that the government is only interested in climate change because they can make a profit off of it. 

There is also a large debate over whether or not some of the proposed methods for climate change will actually be beneficial. This is the debate that I am primarily interested in, but after the activity we did in class this past Thursday I am also kind of curious as to what the issues are behind the first debate.

Debnath, Jayanta. "~Serenity~". December 13, 2009 via flickr.
 Attribution 2.0 Generic License

Here are some potential research questions for debates on climate change:

What effects have social media had on the goal to combat climate change?

• After learning more about the effect media can have on social issues I am very interested to find out more about the statistics. Just having Pope Francis briefly mention climate change in his speech has sparked a large response on numerous media outlets. It has made me wonder what the potential effect could be of a wide scale focus on climate change in the media for a long period of time.

Where does the government play into climate change? Is it just for profit or for bettering the Earth?

• Originally I had no significant interest in the government's role. However, after seeing some of the articles my classmates found in our activity, I do wonder how involved the government is in climate change. The articles found are suggesting that they're only involved for a profit, but is that the truth?

What does the future hold for us if we implement geoengineering methods in their current states?

• From the research completed for my first project, it would appear that implementing them now could be dangerous. However, there is another issue to be addressed. If these methods aren't tested now and we wait until a global disaster happens to implement them, what would happen? Looking at it from this perspective, it would seem like it would be better to test them out before we reach dire straights.

Should scientists have the freedom to test out whatever methods they want on the environment without more research?

• This question could also encompass other areas that don't just pertain to climate change. It is pretty similar to the previous question, but there could be other methods being tested out. I would like to know more about them, if there are any, and what people think about scientists being able to experiment freely.

Reflection on Project 1

Now that my Quick Reference Guide has been published, I can reflect on the project as a whole. Below I have answered some questions pertaining to the process, including some of my successes and some of my struggles.

York, Chelsea. "Screenshot from my computer". September 25,2015.

What challenges did you face during the Quick Reference Guide project and how did you deal with them?

• When originally choosing my topic I soon realized that it was a bit too new. Since geoengineering is still being extensively researched by scientists, there is no significant presence of it in social media. After digging a lot deeper and spending a lot of time searching I was finally able to find at least a couple of examples of social media presence.

What successes did you experience on the project and how did they happen?

• The plethora of websites provided to us made it fairly easy to find credible sources. As previously stated, since geoengineering is still in its prime, it has been extensively researched by scientists. Most of the sources I found were from individuals with some sort of background in the field of science.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find the most effective for your project? Why?

• The use of headings and subheadings were especially helpful for formulating the QRG. Knowing beforehand what subtopics I wanted to address made it easier to avoid writing large walls of text. The process of peer review was also helpful because it gave me an outside perspective of what could use more work. I tend to keep my writings to myself and revise everything on my own, but I found the comments very helpful.

What kinds of arguments, rhetorical strategies, design choices and writing practices did you find were not effective for your project? Why?

• Personal arguments and personal pronouns were not effective for this project. The goal was to present information while still remaining unbiased, so the use of opinions couldn't really be implemented. Another issue I dealt with was having paragraphs that were too wordy. Learning to cut back on length while still keeping the meaning intact was a bit of a struggle. However, after reading through the clarity section and revising my sentences I found it to be doable.

How was the writing process for this project similar to other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

• The only other time I've really had another project similar to this was when I was doing my Senior Exit Project for high school. We were told to focus on a specific controversy based on the career we had chosen to shadow, so I had prior experience in narrowing down controversies. For this project we were also taught how to look for scholarly sources, so using sites like Academic Search Complete wasn't completely mind boggling.

How was the writing process for this project different from other school writing experiences you’ve had in the past?

• The tone of a QRG was a lot less formal than I was used to dealing with. Majority of my writing assignments in the past had to be very formal and not deviate from the third person. Another thing that was different with this particular assignment was that I had a lot of creative freedom. Even when I was able to choose my own topic I still had to follow a certain format. This project gave me the liberty to choose how I would display my subtopics, and what images I would choose to put in. 

Would any of the skills you practiced for this project be useful in your other coursework? Why or why not?

• Many of the skills practiced for this project will be useful in my other coursework. Before starting this project I never really took into account the credibility of the individual writing an article. The way I established credibility was by simply looking at the url, and if it wasn't from Wikipedia it was fairly credible. Now I know that establishing credibility of the author makes the text that much more effective. Writing the QRG and doing most of the process work through blogging taught me how to correctly cite my sources in my disciplines format. This will be very useful later on when I will have to write papers for my major.

Reflection:

Looking through Casey's blog post, I saw that we both initially struggled with understanding our topics. We both chose issues that are developing rapidly, and there was constantly new information being released. Unlike Casey, I was not as comfortable with breaking up my paragraphs, as I still have a tendency to be too wordy.

Victoria's blog post showed me that I wasn't the only one who had to rewrite their QRG. We both found it easier to write out everything we were thinking before adding any headings. Doing this project has taught me that if I find myself getting stuck I should just write everything out. It is much easier to revise something that is finished rather than sitting there and pondering on what I should do.

Publishing Project 1

Now that the end of project one is upon us, it is time to post our final products.

The final version of my QRG can be found at any of the following links. Feel free to choose whichever one you'd like.

Click me! Click me!
Click me?
CLICK ME!
Click me

Donato, Romain. "Insanity Lake".  August 1, 2010 via flickr.
Attribution Non-Commercial 2.0 Generic License

Clarity, Part 2

The Rules for Writers book has basically been my bible throughout this QRG writing. Below I have chosen four more topics from the clarity section and have explained what they taught me.

Needed Words

This section discussed adding needed words such as that, an, a, the, etc., for clarity purposes. These words are most commonly added when using compound structures or making comparisons in order to ensure that the phrases relate to one another in a way that makes sense. It taught me that it is important to check for clarity throughout sentences, and to add any necessary words in order to fix those problems.

Mixed Constructions

My curiosity about what mixed constructions led me to read this section of the book. Before reading, I thought mixed constructions were having two different subjects in the same sentence; I was close. This section discussed checking sentences to see if they make sense grammatically. Along with that, it mentioned that verbs and their modifiers should match the subject they are describing. When writing, you should be able to check for logical connections; what is the subject you are addressing? Does it make sense?

Variety

One of the most important things to do when writing is to provide variety. This can be accomplished by finding a balance between the different sentence structures and inverting sentences occasionally. By differing the sentence structures, one can avoid sounding monotonous and keep the text flowing smoothly. In the case of inverting sentences, it should only be used if the meaning behind the sentence won't be lost and is good for providing emphasis.

Wordy Sentences

The reason why I chose this section is because I know that I'm guilty of having wordy sentences. After reading, I have discovered some ways to help cut back on my word count. There are many different methods, including limiting the number of clauses used, narrowing the clauses down to phrases or single words, and eliminating redundancies and unnecessary repetitions. While they may seem to provide emphasis, they actually do the opposite, so it is important to be aware while writing.

Bellucci, Marco. "Question mark". August 4, 2005 via flickr.
Attribution 2.0 Generic License

After revising my paper and focusing solely on these four topics, I noticed that a lot of my sentences were either too wordy or had mixed constructions.

For example in this sentence: "To combat this dilemma, reddit user m0llusk, with no previous background on the subject, suggested reengineering the oceans . . .", there are too many topics being addressed at once. It would be much more effective if I restructured the sentence into smaller clauses so it wouldn't be such a run-on.

I also found while revising that I completely forgot to add a verb to one of my sentences.
"Another newer and riskier method proposed by 1995 Nobel Prize winner and atmospheric chemist Paul Crutzen."
In my first couple of scans I didn't pick up on this error, probably because my brain knew what I was trying to say and added it for me. Since the verb was nonexistent, the meaning was unclear, causing it to be a mixed construction. This sentence was also originally one long run-on, but I found that there were two separate ideas in it and broke them up that way.