Research resources

http://www.nea.gov/
National Endowment for the Arts; find "Reports." Reports 46 and 47 are studies of reading habits.  


http://www.kff.org/
Lots of research on media use; much cited  Generation M studies


http://www.annenbergpublicpolicycenter.org/
Cited by Jenkins on the Daily show as source for political information.


http://www.commonsensemedia.org/research
Geared toward parents and educators; very recent report on children and media use.



Two recent NY Times articles about children and media use--could be good for arguments that work with the idea of how our media environment shapes us.
Screen Time Higher Than Ever for Children
Parents Urged Again to Limit TV for Youngest 


Web-searching tools:
http://www.refseek.com/
goes directly to academic sources; filters sponsored sites

http://www.sweetsearch.com/#
websites evaluated by educators

http://www.libraries.rutgers.edu/rul/lib_instruct/riot/
tutorial for doing research; about 20 minute long ( mostly good reviews from everyone who has watched!)

http://www.noodletools.com/debbie/literacies/information/5locate/adviceengine.html
directory of various online resources by topic

http://en.linoit.com/
stickies; great for organizing  your thoughts

http://bubbl.us
brainstorming site

http://www.mindmeister.com
brainstorming with the ability to add files

http://ipl2.org/
searches websites evaluated by library professionals

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE

Jon Stewart on Crossfire; 15 minutes but worth it!

We

“We make some people’s troubles our business while we ignore the troubles of others.” (Ignatieff  287).

“In the Huxleyan prophecy, Big Brother does not watch us, by his choice. We watch him, by ours.” (Postman, 155)

In discussing television, and in arguing that television is inadequate for displaying complexity, discussion, or even thinking, both Ignatieff and Postman position themselves and—significantly--their readers right in the middle of the debate.  They both, in other words, make use of the first person plural:  We—Us—Our.

What does that accomplish? On the one hand, by including themselves, they forestall objections that they are being elitist. They both see themselves as part of the audience; they aren’t simply talking down to an ignorant public. They aren’t saying, stop watching tv so naively YOU silly people.  They make their readers equals—and that is a generous rhetorical move (one worth emulating).  And, for democratic societies, the use of “we” emphasizes the fact that citizens are not passive subjects:  we are, after all, responsible for creating the cultures—political, educational, artistic, media-oriented—around us.

More broadly, though, both use the first person plural in order to discuss widespread trends. I have a tv monitor and I use it occasionally to watch movies on DVD.  I haven’t had tv reception in my home in close to 15 years.  Does that mean that Postman isn’t talking to me? Does that mean that I am an exception to these trends? Maybe.  But does the fact that there are exceptions mean his argument is flawed? Probably not. I’m still part of the “we” who are, as his title puts it, “Amusing Ourselves To Death.” Maybe I see the problems more clearly—like Postman himself—but nonetheless I live in a culture that has a hard time reflecting intelligent discussion in its mass media.

George Saunders, in a reading that is optional, brilliantly discusses the problem of the relationship between exceptions and trends in audiences of mass media. His essay works by presenting a variety of vignettes about what he calls the “braindead megaphone.” In one vignette, he parodies a newscaster sending in a report about how busy parking lots are at Christmastime. He argues that such patently obvious and thoughtless stories damage our ability to think critically when more serious stories are presented in similarly superficial ways. Moreover, if the people we trust to give us real news seem to accept shallow, illogical thinking, we start to wonder about our own response. If we respond critically to what he calls “dopey communication” but our newscaster seem unconcerned  “we’ll feel a bit insane, and therefore less confident, and therefore more passive” (9).

Another vignette discusses the problem of the relationship between the exceptional person and general trends more explicitly.  Saunders imagines a village in which a vegetable that turns people red is purchased on the cheap.  If you eat a lot, you turn red, and over time, the “village will have moved toward the Red end of the spectrum” (13).  He goes on: “Within that general trend will be all sorts of variations and exceptions:  this guy eats as much as he likes of that vegetable, but just goes a little Pink; this women, who can’t stand the taste of it and never eats is, stays the same color as always.  But in general, because of the omnipresence of that vegetable, the village is going to become Redder . . .” (13). Saunders explains this parable in his essay, so I won’t (in the hope that you will read it).  What seems interesting though is the assertion that village becomes Redder—you can’t escape—or escape noticing-- the large scale cultural change even you are not, yourself Red.

Sources.

Ignatieff, Michael. “The Stories We Tell: Television and Humanitarian Aid.” Hard Choices: Moral Dilemmas in Humanitarian Intervention. Ed. Jonathan Moore. 287-302. Print.
Postman, Neil. “The Age of Show Business.”Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discussion in the Age of Show Business. New York: Penguin, 1985, 2005. 83-98; 155-163. Print.

Saunders, George. “The Braindead Megaphone.” The Braindead Megaphone. New York: Riverhead, 2007. 1-19. Print.

Research reminders

Here are a few reminders from our library session last week:

Don't use main search box on first page of library site--not all databases are searched; slow; sorts results in a non-useful way.

Go directly to Databases.  EBSCO is a key set of databases. Within EBSCO, particular databases you might find useful for the assignment are:

• Communication and Mass Media
• Communication Abstracts
• Academic Source Premier
• Business Source
• PsychInfo
• SocIndex
• Newspaper Source

You can also go directly to these databases--useful if you want to search newspapers only, for example.

A second major collection of databases is ABI/Inform

Google Scholar:  If you are signed in through OU, you shouldn't have to pay. Only updated a few times a year. Possibly subject to manipulation.  BUT, a good source to help you narrow your search since it uses more 'natural language.'

Don't forget that help is available:  You can call the library (number on the "Ask Us" tab), or stop by the reference desk.  I am available for helping you, too!

Allow yourself plenty of time--you may have to wait for an ILL or a recalled book.

Don't forget to search for books--they can be quicker than scrolling through page after page of article results.  Once you are in the right area for a book on your topic you may stumble upon a treasure trove of material!

Please send me additional tips, or put them in the comment box.

Making up

If you've read my profile you know that one of my hobbies is knitting. Here's what I'm working on now.  Without getting too technical (for those of you not fascinated by textiles) this triangular scarf starts at one end with just four stitches and increases gradually by adding a stitch every few rows.  At the point pictured, there are about 50 stitches across; it will be over 100 across the row by the time it is finished.

I've put this up because it might represent one way to think about what you do when you "make an argument." We've talked about argument, and about what constitutes an arguable claim or thesis, but what I want to point out is that "make" really means create or write. You make an argument, not by simply finding quotations that back up your thesis, but by showing how the ideas--the component parts of your argument--are related. This is why the strategy of "stitching" is so important--as you take an idea forward and connect to a new idea, you are actually building something new.  

If you aren't into textiles, feel free to stop here. But I just wanted to point out that knitting is actually created by pulling one loop of yarn through another loop--just as ideas should be looped together, an old part picking up a new part but still  moving forward. Sound familiar?