I’m really interested in newspaper design changes: why they happen, what’s the end goal, what informs the design/rhetorical choices, etc. I knew this was going to be something I could look at from a variety of angles, and since I’m not sure exactly what my focus will be, I’m going to use this blog post to generate some ideas and (hopefully) organize my thoughts into something coherent and useful.
I like to check out www.poynter.org regularly, and something caught my eye this morning: three newspapers have just undergone redesigns (Chicago Tribune, The Oklahoman, and the Hartford Courant). The Hartford Courant’s new design is especially intriguing, considering their use of the masthead: it’s vertical! (Check out http://www.visualeditors.com/apple/2008/09/hartford-courant-redesign-launched-today/ for screenshots and a brief analysis.) Traditionally the masthead included a period at the end, and while it went away for awhile, it came back recently and the new design incorporates this in an unusual way: ‘Hartford Courant’ is vertical, and then the period draws the eye to the horizontally placed ‘com.’ The masthead now references the newspaper’s web site www.hartfordcourant.com which seems like an almost implicit (explicit?) nod towards the importance of the web site over the print edition. Or maybe it’s just PR.
I’m not sure what my research question will be, but I do think I’m going to choose a specific newspaper and do some form of diachronic analysis of its design changes using an old design, the present design, and the present web design. I’m interested in how the newspaper conveys meaning through these different designs and media, and how/if the designs and media influence the meaning. I don’t want this to simply be an explanation of what changes (because that’s obviously not productive), but I would like to see how the print/electronic media work (in)dependently in this situation.
It’s also quite informative to read what journalists and editors say in response to the redesigns. (These quotes can be found at: www.poynter.org/column.asp?id=47&aid=151319) Jonathon Berlin, Chicago Tribune design director, says, “A newspaper in 2008 needs to be able to change frequently.” In addition, Yvette Walker, director of presentation at the Oklahoman, discusses three major changes she is really excited about: “the size of the paper, the use of color and a new way to present information through tighter writing. You really can't ignore the size of the paper; it's getting narrower -- to a 44-inch web. I believe we're the first U.S. paper to go 44 inches. That's a really big part of it. So I can't leave that out.”
44 inches wide?! I remember when newspapers were printed on huge tabloid paper, and in the last ten years or so inches have been shaved off to cut costs. How does this inform/influence their design choices? It certainly seems like a big influence. Stories will obviously be shorter, but how will photos and other visual aspects work on the page? There must be serious thought about the rhetorical choices made when redesigning a paper, especially with a paper that will also get smaller.
Anyway, these are just some ideas and points of interest that I’ll start with. Any suggestions are welcome!
Monday, September 29, 2008
Internet Intoxication and Other Ways to Spend the Weekend
As far as our projects go, I remember hearing that they were supposed to be group projects—but the syllabus doesn’t seem to be on Vista in order for me to verify this. So, unsure if I will have to align my ideas to those of others, I’m going to solider on and do some more brainstorming.
On a side note, can you (Pam) put up that brainstorming document on Vista (we did this in our last class)? That would help out a lot with future planning.
Obviously, my idea is going to involve the Internet in some way. I think I have a little bit of an edge in this subject due to A.) the fact that most of my waking life is been spent online, and B.) I’m involved in some pretty large communities from which I can gather a lot of data. When it comes to the latter point, I have a lot of experience as a producer and consumer of online text, so I have a lot of information to draw upon. But what exactly am I looking for?
After looking at the ideas I generated last Monday, I think I may want to focus on the role Web 2.0 is playing in changing the way online texts are produced. Today, it’s very strange when an article/blog post does not allow comments; in fact, one of the blogs I read doesn’t have comments enabled, and it’s a constant source of annoyance—especially when I have something to say. I’m thinking about looking at how online reading has become more of a dialogic process as opposed to how monologic it used to be. Before, discussion and reactions to an Internet article were once relegated to message boards tucked away in the corners of a web site (if they existed at all). Now, your comments on an article from The Onion's AV Clubcan have just as much space and visibility the writer’s own text on that very page--despite your lack of expertise on the matter.
See? I used the words “monologic” and “dialogic.” If that’s not a setup for a good grad school paper, I don’t know what is.
As said in class, with the advent of Web 2.0, many articles/blog posts are now left open-ended, or are written with the intention to produce more text than the writer has produced in said article/blog post. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve done this many times at the different blogs I work/worked for; and there’s often a sense that the article is not “complete” until those comments are added. As with my most recent post here, I’m also seeking a reaction to the news I posted about—and it’s not just because I’m a lazy blogger. I could have asked people their reaction to this issue, and then added these quotes to my post, but that’s really not how things are done on the Internet now. If I had closed the subject, there would be no room for discussion or response; and my duties as a blogger include both generating and moderating conversation.
Generally, I’m wondering if I can write about the shift from monologic to dialogic writing online—if I’m using those terms correctly. I guess my research question would be “How is Web 2.0 changing the role of online writers?”
On a side note, can you (Pam) put up that brainstorming document on Vista (we did this in our last class)? That would help out a lot with future planning.
Obviously, my idea is going to involve the Internet in some way. I think I have a little bit of an edge in this subject due to A.) the fact that most of my waking life is been spent online, and B.) I’m involved in some pretty large communities from which I can gather a lot of data. When it comes to the latter point, I have a lot of experience as a producer and consumer of online text, so I have a lot of information to draw upon. But what exactly am I looking for?
After looking at the ideas I generated last Monday, I think I may want to focus on the role Web 2.0 is playing in changing the way online texts are produced. Today, it’s very strange when an article/blog post does not allow comments; in fact, one of the blogs I read doesn’t have comments enabled, and it’s a constant source of annoyance—especially when I have something to say. I’m thinking about looking at how online reading has become more of a dialogic process as opposed to how monologic it used to be. Before, discussion and reactions to an Internet article were once relegated to message boards tucked away in the corners of a web site (if they existed at all). Now, your comments on an article from The Onion's AV Clubcan have just as much space and visibility the writer’s own text on that very page--despite your lack of expertise on the matter.
See? I used the words “monologic” and “dialogic.” If that’s not a setup for a good grad school paper, I don’t know what is.
As said in class, with the advent of Web 2.0, many articles/blog posts are now left open-ended, or are written with the intention to produce more text than the writer has produced in said article/blog post. Speaking from personal experience, I’ve done this many times at the different blogs I work/worked for; and there’s often a sense that the article is not “complete” until those comments are added. As with my most recent post here, I’m also seeking a reaction to the news I posted about—and it’s not just because I’m a lazy blogger. I could have asked people their reaction to this issue, and then added these quotes to my post, but that’s really not how things are done on the Internet now. If I had closed the subject, there would be no room for discussion or response; and my duties as a blogger include both generating and moderating conversation.
Generally, I’m wondering if I can write about the shift from monologic to dialogic writing online—if I’m using those terms correctly. I guess my research question would be “How is Web 2.0 changing the role of online writers?”
Project? I project? What?
See also: http://www.zeitgeistmovie.com/dloads.htm (takes about 17 minutes to download at 500kbps and is roughly 80 minutes long)
So, what I would like to do with the project is look at items like the film linked above, and discuss how the internet has been socially transformed from an archival/research tool into a medium of socio-political information distribution. Sub-topics I am interested in regarding this are subversive publication and discourse communities, open access to information, non-mainstream discourse methods developed through internet technologies, etc. etc..
The problem I am having is that I am horrible at framing projects like this in terms of "scholarly/academic" questions/arguments. In Dr. Huot's Literacy:... class, a colleague of ours often asks if it is possible to "use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house" and items like _Zeitgeist_ seem to be doing just that: using the internet (a creation of the military-industrial complex) to distribute information directly opposed to "the master's house."
I don't want to limit myself to this movie alone, and am beginning to scour the interweb (har har) for more subversive material (surely, there is more than enough material in this area). What I am concerned about is whether or not there is any theory/scholarly analysis of this sort of subversive use of the internet that I should specifically be looking for. Anyone know?
Totally inappropriate in terms of our project? I intend to frame my paper on new means of discourse, distribution, writing using the internet as a gateway/medium/etc. Too broad?
E.
So, what I would like to do with the project is look at items like the film linked above, and discuss how the internet has been socially transformed from an archival/research tool into a medium of socio-political information distribution. Sub-topics I am interested in regarding this are subversive publication and discourse communities, open access to information, non-mainstream discourse methods developed through internet technologies, etc. etc..
The problem I am having is that I am horrible at framing projects like this in terms of "scholarly/academic" questions/arguments. In Dr. Huot's Literacy:... class, a colleague of ours often asks if it is possible to "use the master's tools to dismantle the master's house" and items like _Zeitgeist_ seem to be doing just that: using the internet (a creation of the military-industrial complex) to distribute information directly opposed to "the master's house."
I don't want to limit myself to this movie alone, and am beginning to scour the interweb (har har) for more subversive material (surely, there is more than enough material in this area). What I am concerned about is whether or not there is any theory/scholarly analysis of this sort of subversive use of the internet that I should specifically be looking for. Anyone know?
Totally inappropriate in terms of our project? I intend to frame my paper on new means of discourse, distribution, writing using the internet as a gateway/medium/etc. Too broad?
E.
Sunday, September 28, 2008
Logistical Challenges
Here’s my broad research question: What is writing within the context of composing a profile for an online dating site? More specifically, I will investigate the following question: What rhetorical considerations do writers employ as aids to invention while composing online profiles on a dating website?
My current plans for this project include two aspects. For this class, I’m intending to run 1-2 online focus groups of dating site users who have previously composed profiles. In one of Dr. Newman’s rhetoric classes, I’m attempting a rhetorical analysis of a corpus of profiles, with a focus on invention/topoi.
Both parts of the project have some challenges at this point. I think I’ve got a decent site to hold online focus groups—it’s called DimDim. I checked out Adobe Connect (thanks for the lead!), but without a paying membership, they only allow 3 people in a chat, including the moderator. Dimdim allows up to 20, although my groups will be 4-5 participants, I hope. Here’s where the initial logical challenge comes in—I have to recruit participants. My initial intention is to subscribe to a dating site, and then send emails to a random set of other users requesting their participation. I’m a bit dubious about whether I’ll find enough willing participants. It appears that I need them to give me an email address to enroll them in a Dimdim discussion, unless I operate the conference as an open room, which makes me nervous about crashers. Alternately, if I cannot find enough participants, I could probably put together a less elegant snowball sample. But, my preference is the randomly selected groups to provide more control for selection biases. I intend to run two groups—an all male group and an all female group. I have the questions mapped out for the groups already, although I’m not going to post them here in the public domain.
Regarding recruitment, I’d be quite grateful for ideas and comments on my current plans. Also, if I wind up doing a snowball sample, I will probably be asking all of you for potential leads. :)
The second part of the study, the rhetorical analysis of profiles, is also tricky. Here I’m concerned most about building a reliable study without imposing intentionality bias. I can’t look at profiles and know what cognitive processes informed their composition. And, I ought not to conclude that all aspects which appear related to invention processes were created in deliberate fulfillment of invention heuristics. So, I guess here I’ll start coding and see what happens.
So now that I’ve rambled on too much about my own stuff, this article is tremendously helpful when thinking about the methods involved in formulating and writing up a study:
My current plans for this project include two aspects. For this class, I’m intending to run 1-2 online focus groups of dating site users who have previously composed profiles. In one of Dr. Newman’s rhetoric classes, I’m attempting a rhetorical analysis of a corpus of profiles, with a focus on invention/topoi.
Both parts of the project have some challenges at this point. I think I’ve got a decent site to hold online focus groups—it’s called DimDim. I checked out Adobe Connect (thanks for the lead!), but without a paying membership, they only allow 3 people in a chat, including the moderator. Dimdim allows up to 20, although my groups will be 4-5 participants, I hope. Here’s where the initial logical challenge comes in—I have to recruit participants. My initial intention is to subscribe to a dating site, and then send emails to a random set of other users requesting their participation. I’m a bit dubious about whether I’ll find enough willing participants. It appears that I need them to give me an email address to enroll them in a Dimdim discussion, unless I operate the conference as an open room, which makes me nervous about crashers. Alternately, if I cannot find enough participants, I could probably put together a less elegant snowball sample. But, my preference is the randomly selected groups to provide more control for selection biases. I intend to run two groups—an all male group and an all female group. I have the questions mapped out for the groups already, although I’m not going to post them here in the public domain.
Regarding recruitment, I’d be quite grateful for ideas and comments on my current plans. Also, if I wind up doing a snowball sample, I will probably be asking all of you for potential leads. :)
The second part of the study, the rhetorical analysis of profiles, is also tricky. Here I’m concerned most about building a reliable study without imposing intentionality bias. I can’t look at profiles and know what cognitive processes informed their composition. And, I ought not to conclude that all aspects which appear related to invention processes were created in deliberate fulfillment of invention heuristics. So, I guess here I’ll start coding and see what happens.
So now that I’ve rambled on too much about my own stuff, this article is tremendously helpful when thinking about the methods involved in formulating and writing up a study:
Smagorinsky, P. (2008). The method section as conceptual epicenter in constructing social science research reports. Written Communication 25, pp. 389-411. He writes from a reviewer’s perspective and sets a high bar in terms of accurately depicting methods, but also provides some useful tips for the methods design process itself.
Project - sigh
I am not sure if I am any further than I was in class last week. In fact, since I have been reading articles about my topic, I think I am more excited about the project, but frustrated since I have pinned down exactly what I want to do. Mostly my problem is that I come up with a great topic for my literacy class (since I want to do something similar) but it has nothing to do with technology - or I come up with a great topic for technology that has nothing to do with anything writing related. Needless to say I am floating above my landing -- hoping to land soon -- with about 20 research questions for my other class. Heavy sigh.
Here is what I am working with/thinking about. I am interested in the assumptions producers of reproductive health information have about the women who access that information. From the research I have done, on Kent's campus, women have 3 face-to-face points of contact for information: Women's Resource Center, Women's Health Clinic and Planned Parenthood. And then, whatever they find online (with all 3 F2F points of contact having websites and links to other pages). Each location has a slightly different mission, and I am interested in the assumptions these centers make. I want to look at the print material in the centers and the information online (where those from outside of the university could find and use). I was thinking of limiting the information I look at to birth control and pregnancy, since reproductive health is broad. So, I guess my question would be something like: What assumptions do women's health centers make, when producing written information, about their users online and in print?
Thoughts? Workable? Back to the drawing board?
Here is what I am working with/thinking about. I am interested in the assumptions producers of reproductive health information have about the women who access that information. From the research I have done, on Kent's campus, women have 3 face-to-face points of contact for information: Women's Resource Center, Women's Health Clinic and Planned Parenthood. And then, whatever they find online (with all 3 F2F points of contact having websites and links to other pages). Each location has a slightly different mission, and I am interested in the assumptions these centers make. I want to look at the print material in the centers and the information online (where those from outside of the university could find and use). I was thinking of limiting the information I look at to birth control and pregnancy, since reproductive health is broad. So, I guess my question would be something like: What assumptions do women's health centers make, when producing written information, about their users online and in print?
Thoughts? Workable? Back to the drawing board?
project
If I remember correctly, this week we are supposed to blog about our seminar paper ideas. The research questions that I'd like to explore are: How does a the same Presidential address get mediated and remediated by different technologies (i.e. what gets accentuated, added, taken away as the text is transformed/transmitted?) In other words, how much does a "message" get altered by different media? What contraints do various iterations of the same text place on readers/viewers--and what are the implications of this in terms of civic literacy?
In some of my other course work I've been studying the rhetorical aspects of "call to arms" speeches by U.S. Presidents, and trying to figure out these speeches persuade. Obviously, to answer my research question, I could study any Presidential address. However, I'd like to stick with one of the ones I've been working on: Bush's 2002 address to the public in which he laid out the "threat from Iraq." I'd like to study 1) various mass mediation of the entire speech (a television broadcast, an audio broadcast, a transcript) and 2) some mass remediations of the speech which excerpt and recontextualize parts of the entire text (evening news stories--30 second soundbites; and perhaps a newspaper article on the Internet).
It occurs to me that all of these are important (re)mediations of the text and all of them change how the text is read and understood. I mentioned in class how the live CNN broadcast of the speech included the words "Showdown in Iraq"on the bottom of the screen--adding something to the text that a radio listener, say, would not have consumed. I'm assuming that most TV news broadcasts which "reported" the speech selected clips that accentuated the threat from Iraq (and deemphasized any doubt about the need to go to war)--but I'm not sure of this and it's one of the things I really want to find out. Interestingly enough, the speech was NOT broadcast live on the major networks because, of course, Fear Factor is much more important than a President making a case for war. Because of this, I think that the news broadcasts which discuss the speech may have been how most--or at least a lot--of the people learned about it. This makes it important for me to discuss these news broadcasts, but this presents some challenges (see below)
I'm already running into a number of problems/challenges that maybe you all could give me some advice on. First, the scope. I'm really interested in getting a number of examples of mass mediation in different media, but I'm not sure how many is enough and where to stop. The speech itself was broadcast on TV, on radio, and probably over the Internet. The speech transcript was also disseminated in newspapers and online. The speech was also remediated on tv evening news broadcasts, on radio news broadcasts, in newspaper articles, online news websites, etc. Part of me wants to look at a large number of these (re)mediations because I think it's interesting just how much the "message" gets replayed for the public and the consequences of this on public understanding. However, I can't possibly study every or even most of the mediations of this speech, so how should I limit myself? I was thinking perhaps of looking at the t.v. broadcast of the speech, a radio broadcast, and an online transcript of the speech on a website, a television t.v. news broadcast. Already this seems like too much and not enough for me to do. Any thoughts?
The second major problem I'm having is getting access to the things I want to study. At the whitehouse.gov website you can download a video, audio, and transcript of the speech. However, the video at the .gov website is not the video that live viewers watched. Those who viewed the speech live saw a news channnel video (including "Showdown in Iraq" or other such nonsense. So, I'd rather study a cable news broadcast. There are clips of a broadcast on youtube, but not the full speech. Does anyone know how, if, one can find the complete broadcast? I've searched and come up empty-handed. In addition, I've come up empty-handed when looking for T.V. news broadcasts that discussed the speech? Again, does anyone know how to get access to such broadcasts?
I think I have an interesting research question, but I'm sort of getting stonewalled as I try to look at versions of the speech to study.
Thanks in advance for any tips/advice you can throw my way,
John
In some of my other course work I've been studying the rhetorical aspects of "call to arms" speeches by U.S. Presidents, and trying to figure out these speeches persuade. Obviously, to answer my research question, I could study any Presidential address. However, I'd like to stick with one of the ones I've been working on: Bush's 2002 address to the public in which he laid out the "threat from Iraq." I'd like to study 1) various mass mediation of the entire speech (a television broadcast, an audio broadcast, a transcript) and 2) some mass remediations of the speech which excerpt and recontextualize parts of the entire text (evening news stories--30 second soundbites; and perhaps a newspaper article on the Internet).
It occurs to me that all of these are important (re)mediations of the text and all of them change how the text is read and understood. I mentioned in class how the live CNN broadcast of the speech included the words "Showdown in Iraq"on the bottom of the screen--adding something to the text that a radio listener, say, would not have consumed. I'm assuming that most TV news broadcasts which "reported" the speech selected clips that accentuated the threat from Iraq (and deemphasized any doubt about the need to go to war)--but I'm not sure of this and it's one of the things I really want to find out. Interestingly enough, the speech was NOT broadcast live on the major networks because, of course, Fear Factor is much more important than a President making a case for war. Because of this, I think that the news broadcasts which discuss the speech may have been how most--or at least a lot--of the people learned about it. This makes it important for me to discuss these news broadcasts, but this presents some challenges (see below)
I'm already running into a number of problems/challenges that maybe you all could give me some advice on. First, the scope. I'm really interested in getting a number of examples of mass mediation in different media, but I'm not sure how many is enough and where to stop. The speech itself was broadcast on TV, on radio, and probably over the Internet. The speech transcript was also disseminated in newspapers and online. The speech was also remediated on tv evening news broadcasts, on radio news broadcasts, in newspaper articles, online news websites, etc. Part of me wants to look at a large number of these (re)mediations because I think it's interesting just how much the "message" gets replayed for the public and the consequences of this on public understanding. However, I can't possibly study every or even most of the mediations of this speech, so how should I limit myself? I was thinking perhaps of looking at the t.v. broadcast of the speech, a radio broadcast, and an online transcript of the speech on a website, a television t.v. news broadcast. Already this seems like too much and not enough for me to do. Any thoughts?
The second major problem I'm having is getting access to the things I want to study. At the whitehouse.gov website you can download a video, audio, and transcript of the speech. However, the video at the .gov website is not the video that live viewers watched. Those who viewed the speech live saw a news channnel video (including "Showdown in Iraq" or other such nonsense. So, I'd rather study a cable news broadcast. There are clips of a broadcast on youtube, but not the full speech. Does anyone know how, if, one can find the complete broadcast? I've searched and come up empty-handed. In addition, I've come up empty-handed when looking for T.V. news broadcasts that discussed the speech? Again, does anyone know how to get access to such broadcasts?
I think I have an interesting research question, but I'm sort of getting stonewalled as I try to look at versions of the speech to study.
Thanks in advance for any tips/advice you can throw my way,
John
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)