 |
| Skeeze. Humphrey Bogart Jack Brown Lauren Bacall Actor. 7/20/2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain License.
Note: I have only been able to conduct one interview thus far with Associate Professor Alex Braithwaite from the School of Government and Public Policy. The next one is scheduled for Monday at 10am with Professor Polakowski.
Genres:
-Journal Articles
-Books
-Public speeches/ conference discussions
I found the public conference talks the most interesting, mostly because I would love to be able to attend one of these major conferences to see what these political scientists have to say and see how much it greatly differs from what policy makers actually think/do.
Differences:
-Even though each of these genres is different in terms of medium of publication and formatting, they all still hold essentially the same purpose and end up being written/spoken for the same audience. Most readers of academic journals are other professionals within that field, most readers of these type of research and theory-based books are professional within the field and the only people that really attend these conferences are other political scientists or academia from a university/research type background.
-Journals may be used more for research, books for reference, and conferences for discussion and thought on the subject.
Difficulties:
-The basic feeling I got from my interview on the difficulties in writing for this subject is getting the people you actually want to read and listen to the research to do so. The majority of writing in this field tends to stay in this field, even though it is intended for real-world application.
Mass Media:
-In the mass media, some examples of these pieces can be found in newspapers, popular magazines outside of just academic journals, or even broadcast across social media like Facebook and Twitter. Fortunately, politics is everywhere, but unfortunately the nitty gritty research that actually studies the effects of government policy is often overlooked by the majority of the population.
Interview #2 with Michael Polakowski, Professor on Public Policy and Criminal Justice: Genres: -Journal Articles -Conferences -Emails This professor really only discussed these three main genres that he typically writes in as of now. The one I found the most interesting was the journal articles he discussed, and how those articles can be sent to actual policy makers, and because of those articles discussed, the theories that can turn into policy. Differences: -Main audience of these genres nd mediums is other professionals within the academic field and policy makers who may potentially make these theories into policy. Difficulties: -Pretty much the same difficulty as getting people to actually listen to and understand what is being said, especially if they come from outside of the profession. Mass Media: - This professor avoids mass media at pretty much all costs. He stays up to date with the news and everything, but pretty much shies away from anything like Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, etc. He is what I would say is more "old school" and relies more on real publications rather than virtual ones. |
Sunday, February 28, 2016
Report on My Interviews
From Academia to Social Media
-I chose one of the authors of an article from this journal. His name is Steve Martin and I was only able to find him on LinkedIn.
-Considering LinkedIn is like the "professional Facebook" pretty much everything on there about him is in a professional aspect. His profile really just includes his title, positions he has held including jobs, and where he earned his education from. Martin earned his degree from Aston University and became a lecturer there for six years until the year 1994. After that he was university Research Fellow at Warwick Business School for 6 years.
-After that he transitioned to Cardiff University where he worked as the Director for the Center of Local and Regional Government Research. Now he serves as a professor in public policy and is also the director of the Public Policy Institute for Wales at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom.
-Since I was only able to locate this author on a professional network, unfortunately his actual persona didn't really come through, so there was basically no difference between him on social media versus the article he co-published in this journal.
-Considering LinkedIn is like the "professional Facebook" pretty much everything on there about him is in a professional aspect. His profile really just includes his title, positions he has held including jobs, and where he earned his education from. Martin earned his degree from Aston University and became a lecturer there for six years until the year 1994. After that he was university Research Fellow at Warwick Business School for 6 years.
-After that he transitioned to Cardiff University where he worked as the Director for the Center of Local and Regional Government Research. Now he serves as a professor in public policy and is also the director of the Public Policy Institute for Wales at Cardiff University in the United Kingdom.
-Since I was only able to locate this author on a professional network, unfortunately his actual persona didn't really come through, so there was basically no difference between him on social media versus the article he co-published in this journal.
 |
| Sankowski, Dariusz. Knowledge Book Library Glasses Textbook. 11/19/2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License. |
Academic Discourse and Genre
Genres:
-There are 6 articles, 1 full research paper, and 4 books reviews, which are basically just shortened, opinionated essays.
-So the articles in this piece are all kind of short and clear and concise. There is much more "white space" in the articles than the other two genres, more subheadings and charts and graphs included. Some also include a type of discussion piece at the end that leaves an open-ended question or idea for the reader.
-This paper was actually in a rather different format than a typical college research paper. There was much more data included in the forms of graphs and charts, along with footnotes, and reference to base the information off of. Some long paragraphs at times, but a lot of heavy research.
-The book reviews were probably the most in the standard college essay or book-type format, and were not very long, only two to three pages in length. Block paragraphs with long explanations and a long list of references at the end.
-I was lucky enough to have a list of the genres in my journal with the names of each underneath, so I didn't have to coin my own phrase. So here are my thoughts on the purpose of each and the intended audience:
-There are 6 articles, 1 full research paper, and 4 books reviews, which are basically just shortened, opinionated essays.
-So the articles in this piece are all kind of short and clear and concise. There is much more "white space" in the articles than the other two genres, more subheadings and charts and graphs included. Some also include a type of discussion piece at the end that leaves an open-ended question or idea for the reader.
-This paper was actually in a rather different format than a typical college research paper. There was much more data included in the forms of graphs and charts, along with footnotes, and reference to base the information off of. Some long paragraphs at times, but a lot of heavy research.
-The book reviews were probably the most in the standard college essay or book-type format, and were not very long, only two to three pages in length. Block paragraphs with long explanations and a long list of references at the end.
-I was lucky enough to have a list of the genres in my journal with the names of each underneath, so I didn't have to coin my own phrase. So here are my thoughts on the purpose of each and the intended audience:
- Article- provide data and research compiled into a hypothesis or course of action that should be taken judging by the research conducted.
- Paper- Show extensive research on the main topic discussed in the journal by the articles. This provides the majority of the context for the journal.
- Book Reviews: These analyses of books dedicated to the topic of the journal provide background and additional research on the topic available to the reader. Most likely the
 |
| Me. 2/28/2016 via Iphone. My license.
|
Rhetorical Analysis of Academic Journal
 |
| Me. Late at Night via Iphone. Licensed to me. So I actually was not able to track down a physical copy of the journals I mentioned in my previous post, especailly since many of the journals in the library stopped being published as a hard copy and all reverted to electronic copies. I am guessing to save paper and space in the library. So instead I opted for a copy of a journal I was able to locate and dust off from the ancient stacks of books. This journal was most likely compiled and written by professors. The journal itself comes from the Erasmus University Rotterdam, compiled by two professors from that school. Many of the authors included in the journal are also professors who have also conducted research on the topic (government public policy), and sent in there research to this academic journal. The paper specifically notes that it compiles papers from comparative research and cross-disciplinary research in order to remain interesting for the reader. However, like most academic journals, the main audience of this journal will most likely be other professional and researchers in the field of study. Although the authors probably want their work to actually be seen by policy-makers, it most likely won't. This was probably used as a course material for a class at some point as well. Context: This journal was published when the US still had a very strong presence in Iraq and there was political unrest in Spain, Haiti, Iran, Libya and North Korea. There is also a spatial context note in the journal, noting that there were specific cases in the Netherlands and other parts of Europe being analyzed on their recent development of infrastructures like healthcare as a contributor to economic growth. Message: The overall message of the piece is more of a suggestion to two types of government addressed in the journal; representative and participatory democracy and how they work together better on spatial investment in infrastructure development. Purpose: Suggest better methods that democratic government can deal with spatial economic growth in order to reduce tensions.
|
My Field of Study
Students in my field of study basically learn how to analyze historical and current government policy and how it affects government, economics, and society in general.
People in this field generally go onto be researchers in the field of political science, or maybe work as a political advisor for politicians. They may go on to be politicians or work in some type of foreign affairs aspect like at an embassy.
I found that I have a passion for politics, specifically because I see so many problems with our current political system and I think there really is something that can be done to fix it. It may sound far-fetched or impossible, but I honestly believe one voice has the power to cause change if heard by the right people. My ultimate goal is to help people, whether I pursue a career in this field or not, politics encompasses a wide range of things and careers I could go after.
For me personally, these are the three most exciting people currently in the field:
Top Academic Journals:
-American Journal of Political Science Published online
-British Journal of Political Science Published online
-American Political Science Review Published online
People in this field generally go onto be researchers in the field of political science, or maybe work as a political advisor for politicians. They may go on to be politicians or work in some type of foreign affairs aspect like at an embassy.
I found that I have a passion for politics, specifically because I see so many problems with our current political system and I think there really is something that can be done to fix it. It may sound far-fetched or impossible, but I honestly believe one voice has the power to cause change if heard by the right people. My ultimate goal is to help people, whether I pursue a career in this field or not, politics encompasses a wide range of things and careers I could go after.
For me personally, these are the three most exciting people currently in the field:
- Martha McSally- She was elected to Congress very recently from our district here in Tucson and has already been accomplishing things in Washington. I had the pleasure of meeting her and working with her on her campaign and got to know her as a genuine, humble person and someone I look up to.
- Barack Obama- This may seem typical, but I actually find him to be one of the most interesting presidents we have had as a nation. He has a way of communicating with the people that is very unique and in my opinion, why he has so many supporters/haters.
- Donald Trump- Perhaps one of the most "exciting" people in this field right now more because of what he says rather than his actual political science views more than anything else. Still, an interesting man to follow.
Top Academic Journals:
-American Journal of Political Science Published online
-British Journal of Political Science Published online
-American Political Science Review Published online
 |
| English. Typewriter. 7/5/2015 via Pixabay. Public Domain License. |
My Interviewees on Social Media
- Where:
- Braithwaite I was able to find on only Twitter and Facebook, which I confirmed with him during our interview were the only two he was on.
- Polakowski I found on absolutely nothing. Every search result turned back one random person under that name and it wasn't him. Not really surprising, he's pretty old school.
- Facebook did not provide much information, most of what eh posts on there is just with his wife and I felt creepy. Twitter however, he tends to retweet a lot of stuff. he actually mentioned this during the interview too that he likes to retweet things so he can look back at them later. A lot of the things had to do with the presidential election, typical political scientist, and a lot had to do with world conflict.
- In the academic journal, Braithwaite definitely has a more professional tone and states mostly facts and hypotheses. On social media, he is more light-hearted, funny at times, and rather witty. His political views definitely come out more over social media.
 |
| Polski, Anna. Social Media. 8/19/2014 via Pixabay. Public Domain License. |
My Interviewees as Professional Writers
The Interviewees:
- Alex Braithwaite
- Professor Braithwaite's professional works have included several pieces that he has prepared for political conferences, articles that have been published in academic journals and he has even written a book on conflict hot spots.
- Journal Article: The Battle for Baghdad
- Book: Conflict Hotspots
- Michael Polakowski
- Unfortunately I did not find much as far as works written by this professor. I know he has conducted research on his field of study, specifically in criminology and justice, but he has been more limited to that and his teaching than anything else.
- Context:
- Braithwaite- Both of Braithwaite's pieces are rather recent and he continues to write journal articles and even told me he intends to write another book. The time frame of each of these pieces is obviously paramount, especially since much of the content he talks about is about issues in the Middle East. The first article was just recently published in 2015, a time when ISIS has been on the rise and the struggle over Iraq has been continuous. His book was written back in 2010. There were still a multitude of problems back in the Middle East, but ISIS did not have as much traction back then. In that book he explained how violence occurs from political instability, so he was basically saying he was expecting something else to happen in the Middle East due to the political instability.
- Polakowski- Like I said, unfortunately I did not find any publications by this professor. I think he usually sticks more to research and lectures than actually publishing in political journals or writing any books.
- Message:
- Braithwaite- The main message in his journal about the Battle of Baghdad is basically saying that the reason the city of Baghdad is such a hot spot for conflict is because it is such a densely populated area, there is quite a military presence there, and there is a large road network which means easily transporting materials.
- The main message of the book is that political instability causes violent conflict. However, he goes much more in-depth with how this occurs, where it is more likely to occur according to location, city size, population, etc.
- Purpose:
- The purpose of each of Braithwaite's is basically to illustrate what causes conflicts and therefore how they can be prevented. He stated in his interview that much of what he writes is for policy-makers, but almost never read by them. So maybe if they read some of his work, they wouldn't be scratching their heads wondering why problems keep arising in certain areas.
Saturday, February 27, 2016
My Interview Subjects
 |
| Associate Professor Alex Braithwaite |
 |
| Professor Michal Polakowski |
 |
OpenClipArtVectors. Job Interview Career Conference Conversation. 10/22/2013 via Pixabay. No attribution.
Interview Questions:
1.
Can you please give brief
description of who you are and what you do?
2.
How has your background
prepared you for writing in your field?
3.
How would you describe your
position/job/professional works?
4.
What kind of professional writing
do you usually do?
5.
Can you provide me with any
examples of genres within your field?
6.
What genre do you typically
write in?
7.
Which one do you find the
most effective? The hardest? Most favorite? Least favorite?
8.
Who are you writing for?
9.
How do you display what you
write/produce?
10.
Have you published any
books or pieces?
11.
When did you write your
most recent book?
12.
Why did you write it?
13.
In what way did personal
experience or current events influence your writing?
14.
What kinds of audiences do
you write for?
15.
How have you seen the
typical genres of your field change?
16.
Do you use social media?
Attend conferences, lectures, speak at those?
17.
It is typical to
email/text?
18.
What are you most proud of
publishing? Why?
19.
I noticed you have some
works in progress? Do you know when those will be published?
20.
Who or what are you writing
them for?
21.
Would you be open to
answering some follow up questions via email should I have some more?
|
Sunday, February 21, 2016
A Brutally Honest Self-Review
In all honesty, really enjoyed working on this project. Towards the beginning of the project, I was very motivated to find sources, begin writing and crafting my QRG, and then life kind of got in the way and I didn't devote nearly as much time to it in the final two weeks as I should have. Sure, I did the blog posts and kept up with the revisions in order to satisfy those requirements, but I did not allot nearly enough time for some hardcore revision on my part. Although I did end up finding the time to really hone down my piece and make it something presentable and something that I was proud of, it really stressed me out and caused quite a bit of work in the last weekend which I could have avoided.
Local Revision: Variety
Again, this was a step I covered in my personal revision prior to working on the blogs for deadline 5, so I made sure to cut out most of my run on sentences and only leave those that were required for comprehension. I made sure to include a good mix of both short and long sentences as well as short bulleted phrases, easily digestible by the reader and I left space between paragraphs, allowing an easier read for the eye.
Revision of Pronouns
I actually used very few pronouns within my QRG. Although I discussed some people throughout the story, in order to avoid confusion, I made sure to stick to the use of their names, or some variety of their names in order to confusion for the reader. This was part of my revision I had done prior to doing to the blog post, so by the time I got to this step and realized this was asked of me, I had already eliminated most of the ambiguous pronouns.
My Pronouns
Pronouns:
we
he
he
his
he
his
his
he
their
you (the American public)
they (President Obama and former Secretary Clinton)
we
All "he" and "his" pronouns refer to Ambassador Chris Stevens.
we
he
he
his
he
his
his
he
their
you (the American public)
they (President Obama and former Secretary Clinton)
we
All "he" and "his" pronouns refer to Ambassador Chris Stevens.
Local Revision: Passive and Active Voice
Active (Specific):
killed
erected
overthrown
establish
rebuild
undermine
increase
sparked
portrayed
overtake
trapped
fled
alerted
captured
fending
ceases
evacuated
destroyed
conducted
suspect
Active(General):
is
start
was
had
helped
were
looking
seen
arrives
being
increasing
approve
deny
think
lied
learned
Passive:
established
helped
received
denied
ignored
released
produced
stated
walked
played
heard
captured
recovered
destroyed
conducted
held
Questions:
killed
erected
overthrown
establish
rebuild
undermine
increase
sparked
portrayed
overtake
trapped
fled
alerted
captured
fending
ceases
evacuated
destroyed
conducted
suspect
Active(General):
is
start
was
had
helped
were
looking
seen
arrives
being
increasing
approve
deny
think
lied
learned
Passive:
established
helped
received
denied
ignored
released
produced
stated
walked
played
heard
captured
recovered
destroyed
conducted
held
Questions:
- Mostly specific or passive, but a pretty even balance of the three
- I could use more specific verbs than general verbs, especially in the description of the actual event.
Local Revision: Tense Usage
Present :
is
start
working
establish
rebuild
looking
attack
increase
release
trying
overtake
setting fire
flush out
regains
search
arrives
ceases
increasing
approve
deny
think
cover
fending
Past:
established
thought
killed
sent
erected
named
had
overthrown
helped
rebuild
were
was
considered
led
received
denied
ignored
released
produced
sparked
portrayed
stated
walked
played
heard
trapped
alerted
claimed
captured
pulled
seen
evacuated
recovered
destroyed
conducted
held
lied
learned
Questions:
is
start
working
establish
rebuild
looking
attack
increase
release
trying
overtake
setting fire
flush out
regains
search
arrives
ceases
increasing
approve
deny
think
cover
fending
Past:
established
thought
killed
sent
erected
named
had
overthrown
helped
rebuild
were
was
considered
led
received
denied
ignored
released
produced
sparked
portrayed
stated
walked
played
heard
trapped
alerted
claimed
captured
pulled
seen
evacuated
recovered
destroyed
conducted
held
lied
learned
Questions:
- Most prevalent- past tense
- Effect: During description of the attack, more present tense to provide real-time action. However, the story itself already took place so this is set in a way to portray the actions that were not taken in advance.
- Most present tense: Description of attack. Most past tense: Everywhere else when describing the events before and after the attack.
- I already used this technique in the description of the attack!
My Verbs
is
established
thought
start
was
killed
sent
erected
named
working
had
overthrown
helped
establish
rebuild
torn
were
looking
undermine
was
considered
attack
led
received
increase
denied
ignored
released
produced
sparked
portrayed
stated
walked
release
played
trying
heard
are
overtake
setting fire
trapped
hearing
fled
alerted
requesting
flush out
defend
regains
calls
search
finding
claimed
captured
pulled
seen
arrives
being
fending
ceases
evacuated
filling
recovered
destroyed
promising
conducted
increasing
approve
deny
held
think
lied
suspect
cover
learned
Tally: released x3
heard x2
request x3
established
thought
start
was
killed
sent
erected
named
working
had
overthrown
helped
establish
rebuild
torn
were
looking
undermine
was
considered
attack
led
received
increase
denied
ignored
released
produced
sparked
portrayed
stated
walked
release
played
trying
heard
are
overtake
setting fire
trapped
hearing
fled
alerted
requesting
flush out
defend
regains
calls
search
finding
claimed
captured
pulled
seen
arrives
being
fending
ceases
evacuated
filling
recovered
destroyed
promising
conducted
increasing
approve
deny
held
think
lied
suspect
cover
learned
Tally: released x3
heard x2
request x3
Local Revision: Wordiness
Before:
The whole large event that sparked all of the controversy occurring now between the House Investigative Committee and Hillary Clinton and the other government officials in the State Department, all started with a man named Chris Stevens. Stevens was the ambassador between the United States and the Libyan government and he worked in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He was placed there post-Qaddafi period in order to build relations with the Libyan government and help maintain the government so that rebels could not take over. Libya has been a mess of gunfire, dirt, blood, sand, and turmoil ever since the removal of Qaddafi from power and is an incredibly dangerous place to be right now. However since the involvement of Chris Stevens, relations have begun to improve.
After:
Libya is a country which has been in turmoil since anyone can remember. However, after the US finally established a foreign presence, we thought things would start to look up. In October of 2011, the murderous Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was finally killed by a rebel uprising. Shortly after, within the next year, the United States sent Chris Stevens to the capital of Tripoli and erected a US consulate in the city of Benghazi. Stevens was quickly named the US ambassador to Libya and he began working with the rebel militia that had overthrown Gadhafi’s regime.
The revised paragraph is shorter but also much more to the point. I like this new paragraph a lot better and feel it better fits the style of a QRG.
The whole large event that sparked all of the controversy occurring now between the House Investigative Committee and Hillary Clinton and the other government officials in the State Department, all started with a man named Chris Stevens. Stevens was the ambassador between the United States and the Libyan government and he worked in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He was placed there post-Qaddafi period in order to build relations with the Libyan government and help maintain the government so that rebels could not take over. Libya has been a mess of gunfire, dirt, blood, sand, and turmoil ever since the removal of Qaddafi from power and is an incredibly dangerous place to be right now. However since the involvement of Chris Stevens, relations have begun to improve.
After:
Libya is a country which has been in turmoil since anyone can remember. However, after the US finally established a foreign presence, we thought things would start to look up. In October of 2011, the murderous Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was finally killed by a rebel uprising. Shortly after, within the next year, the United States sent Chris Stevens to the capital of Tripoli and erected a US consulate in the city of Benghazi. Stevens was quickly named the US ambassador to Libya and he began working with the rebel militia that had overthrown Gadhafi’s regime.
The revised paragraph is shorter but also much more to the point. I like this new paragraph a lot better and feel it better fits the style of a QRG.
Friday, February 12, 2016
Peer Review 2
First Review: Nick Hernandez's Podcast
Second Review: Leah Crowder's QRG
1. I definitely need to add more conventions of a QRG in mine. Leah utilized bullet points and quick answers and it made her QRG so much easier to digest than just two long paragraphs. I also need to be more quick ad to the point and really expand on my background information, since that is so vital to my topic.
2. Top 3 problems with my QRG:
Second Review: Leah Crowder's QRG
1. I definitely need to add more conventions of a QRG in mine. Leah utilized bullet points and quick answers and it made her QRG so much easier to digest than just two long paragraphs. I also need to be more quick ad to the point and really expand on my background information, since that is so vital to my topic.
2. Top 3 problems with my QRG:
- Lacking conventions of a QRG- I need to add in more bullets, subheadings, pictures, quick and succinct explanations, etc. to make this easily readable.
- Lacking enough background and in-depth detail of the events surrounding the controversy before, during and after the fact- I need to beef up my facts basically and make it less boring and confusing.
- Further explain why this is such a hot topic to the audience and not just the one seen plastered all over the media about Clinton.- There are several issues I could delve into deeper in this QRG to really enhance my analysis of the controversy.
3. Strengths of my draft:
- Good, not great yet, explanation of the actual attack on Benghazi with decent imagery- I need to further enhance this feel so the audience feels as if they were there.
- Good illustration of the key stakeholders, but I could definitely enhance their characters and why they stand to gain or lose so much.
- Solid foundation for a good analysis, but I definitely need to build on my analysis a lot this weekend.
Tuesday, February 9, 2016
Peer Review 1
I chose to peer review Gabby Marty's rough draft because I was very interested to see the controversy she found based on her major.
Here is her rough draft which I added some comments to:
Project 1 Draft
And here is the project rubric I created for her rough draft:
Project 1 Rubric
Here is her rough draft which I added some comments to:
Project 1 Draft
And here is the project rubric I created for her rough draft:
Project 1 Rubric
 |
McPhee, Nic. Editing a Paper. 1/26/2008 via Flickr. Creative Commons License.
After reviewing this draft by Gabby, I realized that I still have quite of work to do to my own project to get it up to par with a good QRG. Although her draft was rather rough as well, she was able to include a lot more imagery in her writing than I included on mine and I really liked the way that spoke to the reader. I definitely still need to add a lot of "meat" to my project, but then after I have done that, I need to edit it for imagery and other the ability to really capture the reader. It shouldn't just all be facts facts facts.
Gabby's Mistakes:
Gabby's Successes:
|
Sunday, February 7, 2016
Draft of Project 1
Libya is a country which has been in turmoil since anyone can remember, however when the US finally got a foot in the door there, we thought things would start to look up. In October of 2011, the murderous Libyan dictator Moammar Gadhafi was finally killed by a rebel uprising. Shortly after in the next year, the United States finally established its presence in the country by sending US ambassador Chris Stevens to the capital of Tripoli and erecting a US consulate in the city of Benghazi. Stevens began to create a strong relationship with the Libyans there and relations with the country were looking up. Little did he know, the day after his arrival in Benghazi for meeting on September 10, 2012, the US consulate in Benghazi would be attacked by a vicious militia group
The whole large event that sparked all of the controversy occurring now between the House Investigative Committee and Hillary Clinton and the other government officials in the State Department, all started with a man named Chris Stevens. Stevens was the ambassador between the United States and the Libyan government and he worked in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He was placed there post-Qaddafi period in order to build relations with the Libyan government and help maintain the government so that rebels could not take over. Libya has been a mess of gunfire, dirt, blood, sand, and turmoil ever since the removal of Qaddafi from power and is an incredibly dangerous place to be right now. However since the involvement of Chris Stevens, relations have begun to improve.
On September 11, 2012 the US consulate in Benghazi was attacked by rebels with small arsons, artillery and RPGs late at night. As soon as the gunfire was heard, and it was made clear it was an attack on the Americans in the consulate, the city was in a frenzy. People started running and screaming, cars were burning in the streets and US ambassador Chris Stevens was carried through the streets by rebels until he was recovered by more friendly Libyan citizens that took him to a hospital. Nearby, at a CIA annex, which was supposed to be covert, attacks were made as well and two more US citizens were killed. Immediately after the reports were made of the attacks, US officials Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama came out saying the attack may have been prompted by protests surrounding a crude YouTube video. The current controversy is trying to figure out if there were indeed protests or this was a planned attack in coordination with Al Qaeda, especially since it was the 11 year anniversary of the attacks on New York City.
US consulate attacked the day after Stevens' arrival in Benghazi
The whole large event that sparked all of the controversy occurring now between the House Investigative Committee and Hillary Clinton and the other government officials in the State Department, all started with a man named Chris Stevens. Stevens was the ambassador between the United States and the Libyan government and he worked in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He was placed there post-Qaddafi period in order to build relations with the Libyan government and help maintain the government so that rebels could not take over. Libya has been a mess of gunfire, dirt, blood, sand, and turmoil ever since the removal of Qaddafi from power and is an incredibly dangerous place to be right now. However since the involvement of Chris Stevens, relations have begun to improve.
On September 11, 2012 the US consulate in Benghazi was attacked by rebels with small arsons, artillery and RPGs late at night. As soon as the gunfire was heard, and it was made clear it was an attack on the Americans in the consulate, the city was in a frenzy. People started running and screaming, cars were burning in the streets and US ambassador Chris Stevens was carried through the streets by rebels until he was recovered by more friendly Libyan citizens that took him to a hospital. Nearby, at a CIA annex, which was supposed to be covert, attacks were made as well and two more US citizens were killed. Immediately after the reports were made of the attacks, US officials Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama came out saying the attack may have been prompted by protests surrounding a crude YouTube video. The current controversy is trying to figure out if there were indeed protests or this was a planned attack in coordination with Al Qaeda, especially since it was the 11 year anniversary of the attacks on New York City.
 |
| Inside the US consulate following the attack |
The Time Period
Local:
15 Libyans helping US investigation into US Benghazi mission attack murdered: US Senate report
US House Republicans vote to start new Benghazi investigation
National:
All-Star Panel: Truth about Libya attack continues to come out
State Department Screwed Up Tripoli Escape, Won't Say How
World:
Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed
Benghazi attack suspect pleads not guilty
At the same time this event occurred, or right before, there was a video released on YouTube which sparked a lot of outrage and protest across the Muslim world as it depicted the Prophet Mohammed in a very negative and derogatory light. This was originally seen as the cause of the attack, but because of the significance of the date September 11, and other evidence that was gathered from the ambassador, this attack was believed to be pre-planned. The date of the attack was chosen specifically because of its significance to the US and as a probe to the US that the problem with Al Qaeda is not over, despite the rising tensions occurring with ISIS at the time, when it was just beginning to be a problem.
15 Libyans helping US investigation into US Benghazi mission attack murdered: US Senate report
US House Republicans vote to start new Benghazi investigation
National:
All-Star Panel: Truth about Libya attack continues to come out
State Department Screwed Up Tripoli Escape, Won't Say How
World:
Marathon Benghazi hearing leaves Hillary Clinton largely unscathed
Benghazi attack suspect pleads not guilty
At the same time this event occurred, or right before, there was a video released on YouTube which sparked a lot of outrage and protest across the Muslim world as it depicted the Prophet Mohammed in a very negative and derogatory light. This was originally seen as the cause of the attack, but because of the significance of the date September 11, and other evidence that was gathered from the ambassador, this attack was believed to be pre-planned. The date of the attack was chosen specifically because of its significance to the US and as a probe to the US that the problem with Al Qaeda is not over, despite the rising tensions occurring with ISIS at the time, when it was just beginning to be a problem.
The Setting
The main setting for this story took place in Benghazi, Libya, more specifically the US consulate in Benghazi and the CIA annex nearby. The US consulate in Libya was erected basically in the middle of the city, amid ruins from the war that ravaged Libya just a few years prior from the ruling of the dictator Qaddafi. The city itself is filled with numerous buildings, almost stacked on top of one another, all of which are th4e color of sand. The city itself is almost dirty, but that is more because of the fact that it is in the middle of the desert, and there is just sand everywhere. The smell of fresh Middle Eastern goods from street vendors is apparent and the sound of some turmoil still fills the streets. Despite attempts to make this a safer area for citizens and for the US to occupy, there are still rebel uprisings, especially from the Al Qaeda backed militia group.
Stakeholder #3
Libyan President Mohammed Magarief:
The third and final stakeholder that I feel is the most important is the Libyan president. He maintains solid relations with the US following the attack and backs the protection of the US government 100% because he has been trying to mend the US-Libyan relation since the removal of Qaddafi. He speaks perfect English, although with a slight accent, but he is very cool and collected and resigned. He is not a very out-spoken person, in fact he is almost quiet, but he makes himself heard and he makes sure he is very precise in what he says about the issue.
Claims:
"There is enough proof that it was a pre-planned act of terrorism."
"Not on this attack (the movie) has nothing to do with this attack."
"I think it was Al Qaeda elements, hiding in Libya."
Since the attack, the Libyan president has maintained that the attack was pre-planned, likely the acts of Al Qaeda and had special significance because of the date it was executed on. He consistently shows his backing of US presence in Libya and is trying to help in the situation.
The third and final stakeholder that I feel is the most important is the Libyan president. He maintains solid relations with the US following the attack and backs the protection of the US government 100% because he has been trying to mend the US-Libyan relation since the removal of Qaddafi. He speaks perfect English, although with a slight accent, but he is very cool and collected and resigned. He is not a very out-spoken person, in fact he is almost quiet, but he makes himself heard and he makes sure he is very precise in what he says about the issue.
Claims:
"There is enough proof that it was a pre-planned act of terrorism."
"Not on this attack (the movie) has nothing to do with this attack."
"I think it was Al Qaeda elements, hiding in Libya."
Since the attack, the Libyan president has maintained that the attack was pre-planned, likely the acts of Al Qaeda and had special significance because of the date it was executed on. He consistently shows his backing of US presence in Libya and is trying to help in the situation.
 |
| Associated Press. Libyan president says 50 arrested in US consulate attack. 9/17/2012 via Livemint. Generic License. |
Stakeholder #2
The second stakeholder for this controversy would be President Barack Obama. The reason he holds such high stakes for this is because this attack happened right in the middle of the race for his re-election. An attack like this looked terrible to the administration and only served to fuel distrust in the White House prior to the election. He directly reported about the incident and agve his statement the day following the attack and should he have said just one thing wrong, his re-election would have been in jeopardy.
President Obama is typically seen as a more lax president; he makes jokes and sparks controversy for some of the things that he does, but he always turns on the serious "president" face when it is needed. He speaks in a very distinctive way that causes the listener to wait for each word he is saying and he seems to make every word sound like a promise.
Claims:
"The day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism."
"I pledged to the American people was that I would find out what happened, make sure it did not happen again, and make sure we would hold accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime."
"They gave us a series of reccomendations and those reccomendations are being implemented as we speak."
What the president is basically trying to prove by these claims is that he is taking action to make sure the problem is solved and that it is being figured out and resolved "as we speak". He wants the American people to know that he is doing everything he can to not let an attack like this happen again.
President Obama is typically seen as a more lax president; he makes jokes and sparks controversy for some of the things that he does, but he always turns on the serious "president" face when it is needed. He speaks in a very distinctive way that causes the listener to wait for each word he is saying and he seems to make every word sound like a promise.
Claims:
"The day after it happened I acknowledged that this was an act of terrorism."
"I pledged to the American people was that I would find out what happened, make sure it did not happen again, and make sure we would hold accountable those who had perpetrated this terrible crime."
"They gave us a series of reccomendations and those reccomendations are being implemented as we speak."
What the president is basically trying to prove by these claims is that he is taking action to make sure the problem is solved and that it is being figured out and resolved "as we speak". He wants the American people to know that he is doing everything he can to not let an attack like this happen again.
Stakeholder #1
 |
Dubrovnik, Just. Hillary Clinton to Visit Croatia 10/29/2012 via Top News. Attribution 2.0 Generic License.
The first stakeholder is Hillary Rodham Clinton. You have probably seen her face plastered over every news media outlet for the past three years since Benghazi and more recently because of her candidacy for President of the United States. She is typically seen wearing very conservative and modest clothing and when she speaks in public, she always does so very solely and clearly, as if she is trying to make sure there is no confusion as to what she is saying and she is carefully calculating everything she is saying. She has a very "political" look to her, meaning she always looks perfectly put together and polished. However, having been in the public spotlight now for abut twenty years, she has quite some wear and tear evidenced on her face and especially recently in how aged she looks at some hearings and speeches.
She tries to be friendly to everyone, but it is clear by the way she distance herself that is always calculating everything she says and who she speaks to. When she is speaking she keeps her head up, but when she is being spoken to she almost seems to have an attitude to what is being said to her. Claims: "I'm here to honor the victims" "I was the one who recommended Chris Stevens... I was the one who recommended him to be amabassador to the president." "I took responsibility, and as part of that, before I left office, I launched reforms"
Through these claims, Clinton is basically trying to claim responsibility for the attack so she is seen in a better light by the American public and show that she was personally connected to those killed and is saddened by it just like everyone else.
|
The Big Event
The whole large event that sparked all of the controversy occurring now between the House Investigative Committee and Hillary Clinton and the other government officials in the State Department, all started with a man named Chris Stevens. Stevens was the ambassador between the United States and the Libyan government and he worked in the US consulate in Benghazi, Libya. He was placed there post-Qaddafi period in order to build relations with the Libyan government and help maintain the government so that rebels could not take over. Libya has been a mess of gunfire, dirt, blood, sand, and turmoil ever since the removal of Qaddafi from power and is an incredibly dangerous place to be right now. However since the involvement of Chris Stevens, relations have begun to improve.
Or so we thought.... On September 11, 2012 the US consulate in Benghazi was attacked by rebels with small arsons, artillery and RPGs late at night. As soon as the gunfire was heard, and it was made clear it was an attack on the Americans in the consulate, the city was in a frenzy. People started running and screaming, cars were burning in the streets and US ambassador Chris Stevens was carried through the streets by rebels until he was recovered by more friendly Libyan citizens that took him to a hospital. Nearby, at a CIA annex, which was supposed to be covert, attacks were made as well and two more US citizens were killed. Immediately after the reports were made of the attacks, US officials Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama came out saying the attack may have been prompted by protests surrounding a crude YouTube video. The current controversy is trying to figure out if there were indeed protests or this was a planned attack in coordination with Al Qaeda, especially since it was the 11 year anniversary of the attacks on New York City.
Or so we thought.... On September 11, 2012 the US consulate in Benghazi was attacked by rebels with small arsons, artillery and RPGs late at night. As soon as the gunfire was heard, and it was made clear it was an attack on the Americans in the consulate, the city was in a frenzy. People started running and screaming, cars were burning in the streets and US ambassador Chris Stevens was carried through the streets by rebels until he was recovered by more friendly Libyan citizens that took him to a hospital. Nearby, at a CIA annex, which was supposed to be covert, attacks were made as well and two more US citizens were killed. Immediately after the reports were made of the attacks, US officials Hillary Clinton and President Barack Obama came out saying the attack may have been prompted by protests surrounding a crude YouTube video. The current controversy is trying to figure out if there were indeed protests or this was a planned attack in coordination with Al Qaeda, especially since it was the 11 year anniversary of the attacks on New York City.
 |
| Al-Fetori, Esam. The U.S. Consulate in Benghazi is seen in flames during a protest by an armed group said to have been protesting a film being produced in the United States September 11, 2012 9/11/2012 via Reuters. Attribution 2.0 Generic License. |
My Sources
 |
Eric. The 7 Most Common Types of Information Sources for Creating a Winning Research Paper. 9/18/2013 via Writingspot.co.uk. Generic Attribution 2.0 License.
- Where: This is from the US Department of State Website, which is a .gov address. It is a very official report detailing the events leading up to the Benghazi attack.
- Who: There is no specific author because this is a transcription directly from the meeting of the State Department officials investigating the attack in Libya.
- When: The time stamp on this transcription is from October 9, 2012, about one month after the attack so tensions are still running pretty high and everyone is still in a frenzy to understand what happened and why there was such little security at the American consulate in Benghazi.
- What: This source is very important because it details all of the events leading up to the attack, with the people who were directly involved in making those decisions. Whenever you are investigating a controversy, or anything for that matter, you need a good background to understand exactly what happened, and that is what this source provides.
- Where: The host of this source is NPR; Arizona Public Media. NPR is known for being a pretty objective news source, meaning they have respected writers, who report the news without adding much bias.
- Who: The author of this piece was Erica Ryan. She has been working with NPR for some time now and has helped write several pieces of political importance, including the coverage of the 2010 and 2012 elections, and she previously wrote for the Associated Press. She began as a local reporter and has worked her way up to be an accomplished successful writer for a few national news media outlets.
- When: This story was published on December 19, 2012 and then edited one day later. This would have been right after the elections, so there were still questions flying around, aimed especially at the White House and the State Department about why there wasn't enough security.
- What: This is probably my most important source as far as what actually happened during the attack. This is the most detailed re-telling of the events I have found and it is really helpful in simply describing the events of the actual attack.
-Where: This source was found on the online version of the New York Times. As we know, the NY Times is a world renowned resource and publishes hundreds of respectable, well-spoken writers. Although the NY Times may provide some bias to the piece, it is still a very valid source of information.
- Who: There are actually three authors of this piece, but the main author is Pulitzer-prize winning American journalist Mark Mazzetti. Mazzetti has worked in the news for over ten years now dealing with world affairs and the Washington Bureau, and he as worked for such news outlets as the Los Angeles Times, US News, The Economist, and presently works for the New York Times. He has spent time in the Middle East as a reporter in Afghanistan and Baghdad and was awarded the Pulitzer prize for his book detailing the intensifying violence in Pakistan and Afghanistan. Basically, he is a seasoned reporter and journalist and has reported on government affairs for over ten years now, making him a very credible source.
- When: This story was released on January 15, 2014. At this time, fears were still heightening concerning the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, bringing only more tension to the Middle Eastern conflicts. ISIS had just claimed Fallujah, sparking more concern across the Middle East about their strength.
- What: This source provides information about the attack could have been prevented, meaning this is most important to my stakeholders from the State Department who were in charge of monitoring the amount of security in Benghazi at the American Consolate. So if it was discovered that more action could have and should have been taken by our government prior to the attack, then that poses a big problem for Clinton and her chiefs of staff at the State Department.
- Where: This story comes from cbsnews.com and is a direct video recording of Hillary Clinton's opening statement in front of the House Benghazi Committee responsible for investigating the attack. CBS tends to be less partisan than other news outlets and provides a credible source to this project.
- Who: There is no actual author of this piece since it is a video recording likely taken by a member of the CBS news team during the hearing. But since this is a raw video, the source of it is very credible.
- When: This hearing and the video took place on October 22, 2015, three years after the attacks on Benghazi. At this time, Hillary Clinton has already announced her candidacy for president of the United States, so she is under intense scrutiny from the public, especially regarding this issue and how it was handled.
- What: This opening statement helps to provide some more background information on the attack from one of the main stakeholders in the issue. Obviously, Clinton is also trying to defend herself and honor those killed during the attack, so the statement is not just strictly facts.
- Where: The source of this piece is similar to the last source in that it is simply a video published online by Fox News Network, from the full hearing of the Benghazi House Committee with Hillary Clinton. It was published by the Fox News YouTube channel and is simply a video recording from the hearing.
- Who: Again, there is no specific author to this video since it was just live streamed by a Fox News camera man on October 22. The video was not tweaked at all, so it is a credible source.
- When: The video was live streamed on October 22, 2015, right after Hillary Clinton announced her candidacy for president and tensions are increasing over ISIS in the Middle East and towards the government in general.
- What: This source provides direct commentary from Hillary Clinton, who was the Secretary of State at the time of the attack and leading up to the attack. She is probably the person coming under the most scrutiny and attack because of what happened, especially now that she is running for president. Her account of what happened and direct emails with Chris Stevens, the ambassador killed in the attack provide critical information into understanding why the attack happened.
- Where: This video was found on Foxnews.com. Fox news, although known for being rather right wing, is still a valid news source, they simply add some bias into their reports and it is up to the audience to decide how they will interpret it.
- Who: There is no specific author of this piece, it just simply says it was published by Foxnews.com The video was from the Senate report on Benghazi and the report below details what was said.
- When: This video and report was published on January 15, 2014, the same day the Senate report was given. Interestingly enough, this is also a slight rebuttal of sorts to the New York Times article I discussed earlier. They are both reporting on the same thing, but say slightly different interpretations of what was said and what it means to the attack.
- What: This video of the Senate report and the interpretation of what was said is a very important source to me because it deals with the main conflict surrounding the Benghazi attack. There is a lot of speculation as to whether the attack was in result of protest or if it was a planed and coordinated attack, so if Al Qaeda was indeed involved then it was definitely a planned attack and the State Department should have known about it.
- Where: This report was made by the Accountability Review Board, which was the primary investigative committee of the Benghazi attack, which interviewed everyone involved with Benghazi and relations with Libya. This report comes directly from the state.gov website.
- Who: This report does not have a specific author either, because it comes from the transcripts of the Accountability Review Board's interviews with witnesses and those working on relations with Benghazi. It was likely written a transcriber in the committee.
- When: This report was released in 2014, two years after the attack happened and everyone involved was questioned. However, this was released prior to the hearing of Hillary Clinton and the further release of her emails that were found on a private serve, so the ARB is still missing some information that came out during that hearing.
- What: This report provides valuable information about not only the attack, but who should held accountable for the attack. This is perhaps one of the most controversial topics surrounding the attack; who should be held most responsible and this report details who and why because of their role in the issue.
- Where: This report was found on the website for the House Intelligence Committeee which provided an investigative report of the attack and described exactly what happened, including debunking some of the false reports that came out right after the attack that were either false or misleading due to misinformation.
- Who: The report was made by Chairman Mike Rogers and Ranking Member CA Dutch Ruppersberger. They are each high ranking members of the House Intelligence Committee who have served on the committee for quite some time now. They are just providing a report of the findings of the committee as a whole.
- When: The report was published on November 2, 2014 about 11 about 10 months after the Senate report and after more emails from Clinton's private server came out.
- What: This is a very good source because it shows the progression of information that came out regarding the hearings and interviews from the people involved with Benghazi and how Clinton's emails affected the information that was since discovered and released.
- Where: The news website this article comes from is abc news, which is a credible news source for US news especially, but they also provide credible stories about world news as well.
- Who: The story was written by journalist Jonathan Karl. Jonathan Karl has worked with news in Washington for about 15 years now and was recently named ABC News' White Correspondent in 2012. He also contributes to Good Morning America, World News with Diane Sawyer, and Nightline. Basically he is a seasoned political writer.
- When: This story was published on May 22, 2014, about 4 months after the release of the Senate report, detailing what happened and who was responsible. This was also the same month the government completed their trade of a Taliban member for a Sargeant in the US Army.
- What: This story is a valuable source of information because it provides more information as to what the State Department was trying to claim following the attack on the US consulate. There was speculation as to whether or not the attack was in response to a YouTube video made to be anti-Islamic. What is really interesting is that the report says the White House contacted YouTube during the attack, as in our men were still on the ground fighting for their lives, and the government immediately tried to blame a video and the protest it evoked.
- Where: This article was found on the website, discoverthenetworks.org which is an independent news organization that analyzes news stories and claims to be a "guide to the political left". The fact that they have a .org url means they are privately funded, so they are likely not influenced by any partisan group directly.
- Who: There is no author of this article, it seems more like this was created on a blog-type platform where there is no specific author and they use a number of sources as well to compile their article.
- When: This article was released sometime in mid-2014. Although there is no specific date which is odd, all of their sources date prior to or in January of 2014. Additionally, the information provided does not include the hearing of Hillary Clinton which just occurred in late 2015 and still very recent news.
- What: This is yet another summary detailing the attacks on Benghazi, but it is a more comprehensive description of the events that took place before, during, and after the attack. This is valuable to me because some news outlets released more information than others, so having several sources that provide a "comprehensive" summary of events in very useful to draw information from.
|
Saturday, February 6, 2016
Analysis of my Rhetorical Situation
Audience:
- My audience for this quick reference guide will most likely be individuals with an interest in politics, or at least political scandals like Benghazi, and are probably somewhat educated. This type of person I'm guessing would most likely be a student who is short on time and would more likely read a QRG on a topic then a whole news article about it. They're typical news media consumption is probably based off of common news sites that they may briefly skim every morning to keep up with the news, but don't necessarily read every story. A lot of college students especially try to stay pretty politically aware with what's going on in the US, especially with social issues, so a big controversy like this would probably peak their interest since no one person on the street could tell you everything about what happened in Benghazi. So I would guess, student, early to mid-twenty's, working class, Democrat or Republican, politically-inclined.
Purpose:
- One of the main reasons I chose this controversial topic to discuss is because it is the type of topic that has so many facets to it, that most people are pretty confused about what actually happened in Benghazi. My goal with this project is to create a document that outline briefly, but with detail, exactly what happened in Benghazi and why there are now so many problems with the State Department and how they dealt with the issue. This QRG should tell readers exactly what happened, but also describe why there is so much outcry from the American public and why they should be concerned with what happened, especially since one of the key people involved is now running for president and they should be fully informed about the people they are looking to vote into the most powerful position on the nation. I want people to understand fully what is going on in Libya and why this attack happened in the first place, what led up to the attack, what exactly happened during the attack, and then understand the role the State Department and Hillary Clinton played in the whole matter. I want people to read this and walk away better understanding what the media is shoveling down their throat.
Author:
- Well for one, I am a perfect fit not only because I study political science but because I am incredibly passionate about politics and foreign affairs issues, especially in the Middle East. I study the Arabic language and culture as well so I have a unique knowledge of how and why the area the US occupies is under such strife and what kind of problems arise because of that. Additionally, I have followed the development of this story since day one of it occurring, something which most students and even your typical American probably hasn't done because I tend to follow any story which is related to politics and involves investigation. Basically, I study political science because I genuinely love the study of politics and world affairs, and I think I can really show that passion through my writing and re-telling/analysis of the problems in Beghazi that led to an attack.
- My audience for this quick reference guide will most likely be individuals with an interest in politics, or at least political scandals like Benghazi, and are probably somewhat educated. This type of person I'm guessing would most likely be a student who is short on time and would more likely read a QRG on a topic then a whole news article about it. They're typical news media consumption is probably based off of common news sites that they may briefly skim every morning to keep up with the news, but don't necessarily read every story. A lot of college students especially try to stay pretty politically aware with what's going on in the US, especially with social issues, so a big controversy like this would probably peak their interest since no one person on the street could tell you everything about what happened in Benghazi. So I would guess, student, early to mid-twenty's, working class, Democrat or Republican, politically-inclined.
Purpose:
- One of the main reasons I chose this controversial topic to discuss is because it is the type of topic that has so many facets to it, that most people are pretty confused about what actually happened in Benghazi. My goal with this project is to create a document that outline briefly, but with detail, exactly what happened in Benghazi and why there are now so many problems with the State Department and how they dealt with the issue. This QRG should tell readers exactly what happened, but also describe why there is so much outcry from the American public and why they should be concerned with what happened, especially since one of the key people involved is now running for president and they should be fully informed about the people they are looking to vote into the most powerful position on the nation. I want people to understand fully what is going on in Libya and why this attack happened in the first place, what led up to the attack, what exactly happened during the attack, and then understand the role the State Department and Hillary Clinton played in the whole matter. I want people to read this and walk away better understanding what the media is shoveling down their throat.
Author:
- Well for one, I am a perfect fit not only because I study political science but because I am incredibly passionate about politics and foreign affairs issues, especially in the Middle East. I study the Arabic language and culture as well so I have a unique knowledge of how and why the area the US occupies is under such strife and what kind of problems arise because of that. Additionally, I have followed the development of this story since day one of it occurring, something which most students and even your typical American probably hasn't done because I tend to follow any story which is related to politics and involves investigation. Basically, I study political science because I genuinely love the study of politics and world affairs, and I think I can really show that passion through my writing and re-telling/analysis of the problems in Beghazi that led to an attack.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)