Select Page
  

I want the essay after 4/6 however if you can send me the thesis and the outline in 11 days which is the 24 I will appreciate it? plus I already chose the two articles attached belowBelow are the guidelines for our Essay #2, which you will be working on for the next few weeks. One major difference between Essay #1 and Essay #2 is that in your first essay, you were primarily evaluating other writers’ arguments for effectiveness. For this essay, you will be crafting your own argument. It is important, therefore, that at some point, you review the Rhetorical Analysis packet and understand that you should be making conscious moves in your own writing to establish credibility, appeal to logic, acknowledge the opposition, rely on reasonable assumptions, avoid fallacies, and support your claims with sufficient evidence. These guidelines also include the grading rubric that will be used.
fake_news_argumentative_paper__124_sp_19_.pdf

20180312094738the_evolution_of_a_claim.pdf

Don't use plagiarized sources. Get Your Custom Essay on
I want the essay after 4/6 however if you can send me the thesis and the outline in 11 days which is the 24 I will appreciate it? plus I already chose the two articles attached below
Just from $10/Page
Order Essay

20180312094738how_to_save_the_news.pdf

20180312094737facebook_mounts_effort_to_limit_tide_of_fake_news.pdf

20180312094736a_new_journalism_for_democracy_in_a_new_age.pdf

Unformatted Attachment Preview

Exploring a Current Issue
150 points
You have read six op-ed pieces on the topic of Fake News and the Unstable State of Journalism:






“The Remedy for the Spread of Fake News? History Teachers” (Kevin Levin)
“How to Save the News” (William F. Baker)
“Facebook Mounts Effort to Limit Tide of Fake News” (Mike Isaac)
“Solving the Problem of Fake News” (Nicholas Lemann)
“A New Journalism for Democracy in a New Age” (Pew Research Center)
“The Fall, Rise, and Fall of Media Trust” (Michael Schudson)
Using 2-3 of the articles above, and 2-3 articles you found on your own (a total of 4-6 sources needed),
write an argumentative essay, answering one of the following key questions:
Key Questions
1. Who should be responsible for preventing the spread of fake news, and to what extent is each
group responsible?
2. How does fake news and the unstable state of journalism today affect society, and how can we
begin to address this issue?
3. Why is good journalism important in our country, and what happens when it is compromised?
1. Purpose: Avoid problems in logic, especially through an understanding of fallacies, and employ
rhetorical appeals and elements of Toulmin’s model of argumentation (SLO #2).
 Audience: Someone who does not see fake news or the unstable state of journalism as a problem.
 Requirements:
o The MLA-formatted essay must be 2,000-2,500 words, not including the Works Cited page.
o
The final draft must be submitted to Canvas using the highlighting/annotation pattern
indicated in the Canvas submission area for this assignment.
English 124 ◊ Spring 2019 ◊ Prof. Sarah Martin
Exploring a Current Issue: Grading Rubric
Category
Rationale/Comments
Points
Possible
Title is appropriate and original: Yes/No
Title
&
Introduction
Introduction includes a hook/attention-grabber: Yes/No
Context regarding the topic/issue is provided: Yes/No
/20
Thesis clearly answers one of the Key Questions: Yes/No
Body paragraphs have a clear topic: Yes/No
Body paragraphs progress in a logical order: Yes/No
/20
Organization
Clear claims are made to support the thesis: Yes/No
Logical reasoning and effective appeals are used: Yes/No
Development &
Support
Adequate evidence is used from articles to support points: Yes/No
Paraphrase and quotation are used effectively: Yes/No
/60
At least 3 forwarding moves and 1 countering move are used: Yes/No
Restates thesis and summarizes key points: Yes/No
Conclusion
Ends with a global statement or call to action: Yes/No
/20
Final Draft is highlighted/annotated appropriately: Yes/No
Grammar &
MLA formatting is correct.
MLA Format
/30
Essay is free of errors which might interfere with meaning.
/150
Total
English 124 ◊ Spring 2019 ◊ Prof. Sarah Martin
Name _______________________________
English 124
The Evolution of a Claim
Write down everything you know about the topic of “fake news.”
Make a claim about fake news—one that could generate several pages of writing.
Now that you have viewed the Mary Poppins and Scary Mary trailers, revise your claim.
Explain your rationale for the revisions you made to the claim.
Take notes on the TED-Ed video “How False News Can Spread.”
Now that you have viewed the TED-Ed video “How False News Can Spread,” revise
your claim.
Explain your rationale for the revisions you made to the claim.
Take notes on the video “The Five Core Values of Journalism.”
Now that you have viewed the video “The Five Core Values of Journalism,” revise your
claim.
Explain your rationale for your new claim.
What is the most important thing you learned about the writing process based on
today’s activities?
How to Save the News
by William F. Baker
www.pbs.org/now/journalism-crisis.html
Octtober 16, 2009
William F. Baker, is president emeritus of WNET, the country’s largest PBS station, and a university
professor at Fordham University in New York City.
There’s no doubt that news in America is in trouble. Of the 60,000 print journalists employed
throughout the nation in 2001, at least 10,000 have lost their jobs, and last year alone newspaper
circulation dropped by a precipitous 7 percent. Internet, network and cable news employ a dwindling
population of reporters, not nearly enough to cover a country of 300 million people, much less keep up
with events around the world. It is no longer safe to assume, as the authors of the Constitution did, that
free-flowing news and information will always be available to America’s voters.
It’s time for the public discussion to focus less on what has caused this swiftly escalating crisis—the
mass migration of readers to the Internet and the effects of the economic meltdown feature in most
explanations—and start talking seriously about solutions. Saving journalism might seem like an
entirely new problem, but it’s really just another version of one that Americans have solved many times
before: how do we keep a vital public institution safe from the ups and downs of the economy? Private
philanthropy and government support are the two best answers we have to this question.
One of the best-known examples of philanthropy’s response to the news crisis is ProPublica
(propublica.org), which was founded in 2007 by editor in chief Paul Steiger with retired banking
tycoons Herbert and Marion Sandler. The group, which relies mainly on grants from the Sandlers to
stay in operation, maintains a staff of thirty-five reporters and editors, who specialize in hard-hitting
investigative journalism with a long memory, the kind that cash-strapped commercial media have
always been wary of supporting. With stories on Hurricane Katrina and Guantánamo already published
in places like the New York Times, the Washington Post and The Nation [see A.C. Thompson,
“Katrina’s Hidden Race War,” January 5], the group exemplifies how valuable the nonprofit news
sector can be.
The group’s finances and the scope of its operations, however, are a perfect example of why
philanthropy can never be the sole answer to America’s news crisis. ProPublica’s annual budget of $10
million is exceptional by philanthropic standards, but it is still less than a single newspaper, Denver’s
Rocky Mountain News, was losing per year before its owners shut it down. An army of ProPublicas is
needed before America can replace the capacity for good journalism it has already lost.
That said, the private, not-for-profit news sector is worth paying attention to. Some of the new
organizations cropping up might be models for others, if they’re successful. Two representative
examples are the Investigative Network (currently a for-profit, with plans to become a hybrid not-forprofit and for-profit entity) and the Under-Told Stories Project. Founded to fill a void in coverage of
the multibillion-dollar Texas Statehouse budget, the Investigative Network (pressforthepeople.com)
aims to use the revenue it gets from selling subscriptions to niche information streams to fund
investigative journalism in the general public interest. The group’s founder, investigative reporter Paul
Adrian, hopes that funding will also come from story syndication and philanthropy. Groups with such
a diverse mix of support as part of their initial business plans are likely to become more common.
The Under-Told Stories Project (undertoldstories.org) is devoted to increasing public awareness of
underreported international topics. The group is funded partly by sale of its stories, most of which end
up on public television and radio, and partly by its institutional partner, Saint John’s University in
Collegeville, Minnesota. Organizations that get some support from endowed nonmedia institutions
might also become more common.
It’s also worth noting that in an environment of diminishing opportunities for young journalists, the
Under-Told Stories Project arranges internships. Ensuring that good reporting will be around in the
long term is just as important as preserving what we have now, and the private, nonprofit media sector
would do well to pursue it more vigorously. (Full disclosure: I am an unpaid adviser to both the UnderTold Stories Project and the Investigative Network.)
Because such fledgling enterprises are potentially so valuable to the health of our media, they should
be loudly and publicly encouraged at this stage, even though there will never be enough of them to
solve the news crisis on their own. At Harvard’s Hauser Center, I’ve launched a database of nonprofit
news efforts (hausercenter.harvard.edu/medialist). Many of the listed organizations are in the early
stages of development, and now is the time when publicity and donations can make a decisive
difference. If you’re looking for somewhere to donate, or if you know of a group that we haven’t found
yet, I urge you to get in touch. But for a nation in the midst of a crippling news crisis, my list is still
alarmingly short, and, as a potential replacement for our commercial media, it can never really be long
enough.
I would love it if supporting the news were seen as a routine civic obligation—”this month’s city hall
coverage adopted by the Elks Club” is easy to imagine—but those days, if they ever come, are likely
far in the future, and adopting a stretch of highway is a far cry from building it in the first place.
To survive the current crisis, we need bigger, faster solutions. We need to do what other mature
democracies have long done: fully fund our public media with tax dollars. Calling in the resources of
the central government to bear on any national problem is sure to be obscured by the fog of ideological
and partisan distractions permeating the debates about the climate crisis and healthcare. I can already
hear the hysterical, clamoring opposition to “socialized media” or “government takeover of the news.”
Better funding for All Things Considered on NPR or NewsHour on PBS will not turn either program
into a propaganda outfit for the government. The BBC is not Pravda, and Japan and most of Europe,
which have enjoyed extremely well-funded public media for decades, are not a network of totalitarian
states. German public television, for example, is amply funded with revenue collected under the aegis
of the central government but administered through a decentralized system designed to preserve
regional independence. There are numerous democratic nations with public broadcasting systems that
are both well funded by their central government and also well shielded from its political influence.
In America, more robust public media won’t weaken or constrain our commercial media. No matter
how well funded PBS and NPR become, American cable news will still be free to devote 22 percent of
its total coverage to stories like the death and burial of Anna Nicole Smith, as it did in February 2007.
Even though it goes against habits of American governance, and even though the Obama
administration and its allies are mired in the slow advance of other ambitious projects, now is the
moment to advocate greatly expanding our public media. The rapid corrosion of our commercial news
demands that something be done soon, and it is still early in the administration of a popular,
progressive president, when sweeping changes are possible.
John Nichols and Robert W. McChesney have correctly deemed efforts to solve the news crisis a
national infrastructure project [see “The Death and Life of Great American Newspapers,” April 6]. We
don’t leave it up to private nonprofits to maintain our roads and bridges, outfit the Army or provide
public transportation. Volunteer militias and private fire departments rightly did not survive the
progressive reforms of the nineteenth century. You can still hire a private security firm or travel in a
private jet, but the government also assures a basic measure of protection and mobility to every
taxpaying citizen. Why shouldn’t it be the same for the news and information whose circulation the
founding fathers saw fit to protect in the First Amendment?
Total federal support for American public broadcast media in 2007 was about $480 million. That might
seem sufficient or even impressive until you compare it with the BBC, which serves a nation with onefifth the US population but which received the equivalent of $5.6 billion in government money in
2007. When it comes to public media, the United States is decisively outspent by the governments of
most other major democracies. Japan, whose population is less than half the size of the United States’,
spent the equivalent of $6.8 billion for public broadcasting in 2007; Germany, with one-third the size,
spent about $11 billion; and Canada, a tenth the size, spent $898 million. Even Denmark and Ireland,
with populations smaller than New York City, far outspent the United States per capita, with respective
budgets equivalent to $673 million and $296 million.
The amount the government now sets aside for public broadcast media is about what it costs the
military to occupy Iraq for two and a half days. Taking into account the hundreds of billions lavished
on the interim survival of our elite financial institutions, funding our news infrastructure won’t be a
hardship. Just a small fraction of the $45 billion—that’s billion with a “b”—Citigroup alone has
received since October 2008 would give NPR and PBS all the money they need.
Unlike the benefits that come from bailing out investment banks and insurance conglomerates, a
stronger investment in public media would give all citizens a concrete and valuable service. Turn on
cable TV news to find out about an event overseas, and you are likely to see a panel of well-coiffed
pundits sitting in a studio in New York, Washington or Los Angeles debating what might be happening
on the other side of the world. Switch to the same story on the BBC, and you are likely to see a
correspondent on the ground where the event is actually taking place. The BBC’s forty-one permanent
foreign bureaus are more than twice the number maintained by ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS each. This
isn’t a difference of national character; it’s simply a matter of money. For commercial TV, paying
pundits is a lot cheaper than doing the real work of reporting. And for public media, chronically small
budgets often make extensive original reporting too expensive, even for respected shows like
NewsHour.
To discern the real view the American people hold toward public media, it is necessary to pay attention
to one fact: voluntary viewer donations provide the biggest chunk of the money that keeps public
media in business, and have done so for a very long time. The phrase “supported by viewers like you”
is more than a marketing bromide. Except for stalwarts like the Ford and MacArthur foundations and
Mutual of America, and in years past Exxon and AT&T, foundation and corporate giving has never
provided as much to public television as small individual pledges. But despite its reliability, voluntary
public subscription is no way to fund a major public service.
Throughout the two decades I was president of WNET, New York’s PBS station, I spent a lot of time
standing in front of cameras asking viewers for money, so I don’t feel ashamed or unqualified to say
that even though it has essentially saved the medium and mobilized millions of Americans, the drawnout, droning pledge drive may finally be reaching a point of diminishing return. After factoring in the
salaries of development departments, the costs of direct mail and on-air solicitation, premiums, thankyou letters and the requisite tote bag, a sizable portion of every dollar that comes in to public television
is already spent. There is also the less quantifiable cost in viewers who, when faced with a pledge
drive, simply change the channel.
For more than fifty years the American people have shown, through their generous donations, that they
support the idea and the reality of public media. The government should acknowledge those decades of
widespread support by funding NPR and PBS both more extensively and more efficiently.
By increasing direct allocations to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, which is responsible for
disbursing funding to public TV and radio affiliates across America, the inherent inefficiencies of
fundraising via public appeal would be eliminated, and countless hours of airtime would be liberated
from pledge drives. It would also mean that Americans would get more in return for the money they
already pay to maintain the public media distribution network, which delivers NPR and PBS to 100
percent of the country.
Perhaps most important, pumping more money into our public media infrastructure could fortify the
eroding foundation of print journalism, on which the rest of news media depend. News shows on PBS
and NPR already routinely call on newspaper and magazine reporters to provide coverage. Expanding
this practice could mean jobs for the rapidly growing number of unemployed print journalists, or even
the survival of entire newsrooms in cities with closed or downsizing papers.
Once a newspaper or magazine is lost, its particular blend of institutional history, editorial and
reporting expertise, and its ties to the community are never fully recoverable. But an expanded public
media network, capable of deploying reporters across the nation and around the world, would at least
make sure that someone is always available to gather the news, and keep government and business
responsible to the public interest.
The costs of letting our journalistic institutions decay aren’t visible like collapsed bridges or tent cities,
but they’re just as dire. A thriving news media, which America is in real danger of losing, is the
unspoken assumption behind not only the First Amendment but the whole idea of self-government. It
shouldn’t seem radical to expect the same government that recognizes the freedom of the press to also
ensure the survival of the press.
Evan Leatherwood, a freelance writer based in Brooklyn, New York, helped research and write this
article.
This article first appeared in The Nation.
Facebook Mounts Effort to Limit Tide of Fake News
By MIKE ISAAC
The New York Times
December 15, 2016
The new fake news feature on Facebook, as the site makes an effort to flag articles that are not true.
For weeks, Facebook has been questioned about its role in spreading fake news. Now the company
has mounted its most concerted effort to combat the problem.
Facebook said on Thursday that it had begun a series of experiments to limit misinformation on its
site. The tests include making it easier for its 1.8 billion members to report fake news, and creating
partnerships with outside fact-checking organizations to help it indicate when articles are false. The
company is also changing some advertising practices to stop purveyors of fake news from profiting
from it.
Facebook, the social network, is in a tricky position with these tests. It has long regarded itself as a
neutral place where people can freely post, read and view content, and it has said it does not want to
be an arbiter of truth. But as its reach and influence have grown, it has had to confront questions
about its moral obligations and ethical standards regarding what appears on the network.
Its experiments on curtailing fake news show that Facebook recognizes it has a deepening
responsibility for what is on its site. But Facebook also must tread cautiously in making changes,
because it is wary of exposing itself to claims of censorship.
“We really value giving people a voice, but we also believe we need to take responsibility for the
spread of fake news on our platform,” said Adam Mosseri, a Facebook vice president who is in
charge of its news feed, the company’s method of distributing information to its global audience.
He said the changes — which, if successful, may be available to a wide audience — resulted from
many months of internal discussion about how to handle false news articles shared on the n …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment

Order your essay today and save 10% with the discount code ESSAYHSELP