Dear Professor,
This is in reference to the grade I got on the last exam. I wanted to know if it was possible for you to reconsider some of the questions that you asked or give the class a curve. The class as a whole did have a low average, according to what you said in class on Wednesday. I think that I deserve a better grade on the exam because I did the best that I could do. I always work hard in your class as well. Thank you so much for taking the time out to ponder on this situation.
Sincerely,
Tekeya McDonald
Thursday, April 1, 2010
Voice Activity 1: Full Emotion
Dear Professor,
When I received a C- on the last exam we had in class I became a little confused and very disappointed in myself. I do believe in the saying that refers to grades, “You get the grade you earned”, but this is a case where I feel I earned a better grade. I feel like the way that you worded the questions that you were asking were quite hard to decode, I came up to you quite a few times to get you to explain what the question was asking. I really tried my hardest and gave the best answer for every question. I studied for the exam two weeks in advance and I always pay attention to your lectures. I am one of the few students in your section 9 lecture that has a perfect attendance record for the class. When you gave back the exam grades, you yourself said that the scores were pretty low. So I’m not trying to just benefit myself with this letter but the class as a whole, maybe you can consider giving the class a curve on that exam. Thank you so much for taking the time out to ponder on this situation.
Sincerely,
Tekeya McDonald
When I received a C- on the last exam we had in class I became a little confused and very disappointed in myself. I do believe in the saying that refers to grades, “You get the grade you earned”, but this is a case where I feel I earned a better grade. I feel like the way that you worded the questions that you were asking were quite hard to decode, I came up to you quite a few times to get you to explain what the question was asking. I really tried my hardest and gave the best answer for every question. I studied for the exam two weeks in advance and I always pay attention to your lectures. I am one of the few students in your section 9 lecture that has a perfect attendance record for the class. When you gave back the exam grades, you yourself said that the scores were pretty low. So I’m not trying to just benefit myself with this letter but the class as a whole, maybe you can consider giving the class a curve on that exam. Thank you so much for taking the time out to ponder on this situation.
Sincerely,
Tekeya McDonald
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Reflection 2.2
For my second draft I’m aware that I didn’t make a whole lot of changes. I realized in my first draft that though I thought I had included research from scholarly journals, I did not. My main goal for my second draft was correctly formatting my paper. The confusion that I received from my classmates encouraged me to clear up my papers format so it would be easier to identify where a paragraph starts and where it finishes. I also went ahead and added my works citied section to my essay this go round. I attempted to find scholarly journals that are relevant to my topic, but I haven’t had much luck. I noticed that maybe I have careful research broader ideas that revolve around my topic and not just my topic alone. I can search journals that encompass the ideas of things like freedom of the press, just freedom in general, the justice system, and also find out what type of court cases are not allowed to be televised for the viewing of the public. Once I find two scholarly journals to include into my essay I will cite those in my works cited section as well. I also want to work more on the language of my essay to make sure it gives of a rogerian attitude. I feel like I can organize my paper a little better as well to give it a smoother flow for my audience to read, so I will work on make sure that I address certain ideas continuously throughout the essay.
Sunday, March 21, 2010
(Essay 2.2) Court TV
Whenever someone sits in front of a television; man, woman, boy, girl, the young, the old they are viewing the broadcast mainly for entertainment. It is possible that the entertainment can be interpreted differently, depending on the knowledge of that person. With that thought, I can understand that cameras in the courtrooms can have a positive effect on Americans, but I simply do not agree. An editorial in the March 13, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled “Your Reality TV” states, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works” (“Your Reality TV” par 3). It’s possible that knowledge can be gained from viewing court cases on TV, but I kind of see it differently.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (Lee par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room, what purpose does it serve. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a New York Times article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Works Citied
“ Cameras in the Courts.” New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 14 March 2010.
First Amendment Research Information. Illinois First Amendment Center, 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Lee, Douglas. Oklahoma Court Makes Dubious Assumptions about Cameras in Court. Freedom Forum, 29 June 2000. Web. 14 March 2010.
Schwartz, John. “Ninth Circuit to Test Use of Cameras in Civil Cases.” New York Times. 19 December 2009. Web. 14 March 2010.
“Your Reality TV.” New York Times. 13 March 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (Lee par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room, what purpose does it serve. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a New York Times article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Works Citied
“ Cameras in the Courts.” New York Times. 15 May 2007. Web. 14 March 2010.
First Amendment Research Information. Illinois First Amendment Center, 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Lee, Douglas. Oklahoma Court Makes Dubious Assumptions about Cameras in Court. Freedom Forum, 29 June 2000. Web. 14 March 2010.
Schwartz, John. “Ninth Circuit to Test Use of Cameras in Civil Cases.” New York Times. 19 December 2009. Web. 14 March 2010.
“Your Reality TV.” New York Times. 13 March 2010. Web. 14 March 2010.
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Reflection 2.1
In writing my rogerian argument, I had to use different techniques than in my rebuttal argument. I drastically changed my vocabulary. I wanted to sound more like I had a gentle understanding attitude towards the author’s argument. In my rebuttal argument I was able to argue my point without showing the author sympathy. Well it’s a little more challenging writing the rogerian argument because I have to think about where the author is coming from, find common ground, and make some compromises. I think I took on a pretty good point of view for this argument.
For this process I researched past court cases that were televised and the reactions that people shared about televised court cases. I found great articles through the library website and other historical cases. I would like to add some pathos to my argument, so I plan on maybe adding some personal stories from people that actually experienced having the court case televised if possible. I will also look for other types of evidence such as statistical and personal attributions to include in my next draft. I might also try to change up the format and structure of my paper in my second draft. My goals for my next draft included working on my works cited section, and adding more points to my argument. I want my audience to say that my argument is clear and it provides a lot of reasons. When I receive comments on my argument I will deeply take them into consideration, because I’m sure there are some other changes that I can make.
For this process I researched past court cases that were televised and the reactions that people shared about televised court cases. I found great articles through the library website and other historical cases. I would like to add some pathos to my argument, so I plan on maybe adding some personal stories from people that actually experienced having the court case televised if possible. I will also look for other types of evidence such as statistical and personal attributions to include in my next draft. I might also try to change up the format and structure of my paper in my second draft. My goals for my next draft included working on my works cited section, and adding more points to my argument. I want my audience to say that my argument is clear and it provides a lot of reasons. When I receive comments on my argument I will deeply take them into consideration, because I’m sure there are some other changes that I can make.
Sunday, March 14, 2010
Essay 2.1(Court TV)
Whenever someone sits in front of a television; man, woman, boy, girl, the young, the old they are viewing the broadcast mainly for entertainment. It is possible that the entertainment can be interpreted differently, depending on the knowledge of that person. With that thought, I can understand that cameras in the courtrooms can have a positive effect on Americans. An editorial in the March 13, 2010 edition of the New York Times titled “Your Reality TV” states, “Cameras in the court would allow Americans to see for themselves how an extremely powerful part of their government works” (“Your Reality TV” par 3). It’s possible that knowledge can be gained from viewing court cases on TV, but I kind of see it differently.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (… par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a scholarly article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
The publicity placed on a court case seems more like fake politics to me, I would just take it in as pure entertainment. The court case would lack the sense of fairness. An article that talks about Oklahoma laws says, “Television coverage, the court said, threatens ‘the atmosphere essential to the preservation of a fair 'public' trial – the most fundamental of all freedoms" (… par 2). We are all humans, and when we are put on the spotlight or are in front of a camera we have a tendency to pretend and be deceiving. We automatically set a fake atmosphere because we feel that our image is very important, and we can’t mess it up in front of an audience of people, it’s just our nature. So, I feel that is not a good idea to televise these cases because I can predict society uproars and chaos due to them.
What will the citizens of other countries think of Americans? Do we have to televise everything? In 1965 the case Estes v. Texas stated that media is allowed in the court room; but items like typewriters, presses, or other tools of transmitting the story are not allowed to be brought in by reporters. I feel that it should be the opposite thing, the media shouldn’t be allowed in the court room. Now that we know what is and isn’t allowed in the court room, I feel that we should know why the media is actually allowed in the court room. I rather get justice in the courts; we don’t need the entertainment factor in this situation. A scholarly article states that, “One of the main arguments against cameras in the courtroom is that they would sensationalize trials” (“Cameras in the Courts” par 4) Do we feel it will be necessary to televise court cases so we can keep an eye on our government system?
Shows like Judge Judy, People’s Court and Judge Joe Brown are definite examples that court cases on TV are not taken seriously, and just used for entertainment. Are those cases real or are they staged? These cases seem like a huge ongoing advertisement of reality TV. If we as a society view these court cases at first, they will set the stage for how we view other, even actual court cases that are televised. Are those cases able to help Americans gain knowledge of their government? In a scholarly article, Judge Kozinski says that allowing cameras in the court rooms is “an ‘experiment’ that is designed to help us find the right balance between the public's right to access to the courts and the parties' right to a fair and dignified proceeding''( Schwartz par 2). So we see that even a judge is a little rocky on the decision of having cameras in a court room.
I can see that televising court cases can be educational for youth, used as examples in history or government classes’ to be a visual aid for students. I myself am a visual learner, and many other students are as well. I find it important to use all the different skills and ways of learning in the classroom. It will be okay that the reason for recording important court cases is for proper educational usage. I also feel that if government court cases are televised that the media will go hay wire and blow stories out of proportion. Things will only be based on what is seen in the court room, and not what heard or said.
Televising these court cases is pretty understandable, but there is no necessity in the situation. I have not found a legit reason to televise any court cases. The only thing I can find is the excuse that it is part of our freedom of speech. We can watch actual reality TV to get our entertainment.
Friday, March 5, 2010
Prewriting Essay 2
Topics that involve entertainment and lesiure time are great topics for a rogerian argument. Its easier to find common ground in less controversial. I want to find a topic with these aspects so that I make sure that I'm able to have understanding towards the other side of the argument. I have to try to be prepared to switch gears from the last argument.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
