Timed Writing #2 100 points You have a 110 minutes to write a short five paragraph summary/analysis essay. Save your essay as you write. Read all the way to the end before you begin. Instructions: Choose two of the articles as your subject. Write a short introduction that includes a hook. Give the reader background or context for the essay, and be sure to include authors and titles. State the authors' main purposes and the audience to whom they are writing. Next, write one paragraph summarizing EACH essay. Write one paragraph analyzing the ideas you find most interesting FOR EACH ESSAY. Be sure to notice instances of strategies all writers use. Examples include the rhetorical appeals, point of view (angle of vision), complexity, description, figurative language, comparison and explanation. Next, give your personal response to the readings. Explain which essay you found more persuasive and why. You may use 'l'. ☺ For the conclusion, provide closure for your discussion. Avoid simply restating the summaries. Instead, explain your current thinking about and identify areas you'd want to research more. Tips Review your annotated essay quickly, looking for ideas you responded to Keep track of time. You have 110 minutes. Don't spend too much time on the intro and conclusion. You will need more time on the summary and analysis. Save time for editing...10 - 15 minutes. Look for common errors. -ed endings, plurals, capitalization, vague or excessive pronoun usage Comma-splices...be suspicious of sentences with a comma before a pronoun. It, they, this, that, these, those, he, she, are SUBJECTS, so they may begin a new sentence. Fragments...be suspicious of a sentence beginning with an --ing word. That may be a clause that needs a complete thought to finish the sentence. Source B Hart, Roderick P., and Mary Triece, “U.S. Presidency and Television.” Available at http://www.museum.tv/debateweb/html/equalizer/essay_usprestv.htm. The following passage is excerpted from an online article that provides a timeline of major events when television and the presidency have intersected. April 20, 1992: Not a historic date perhaps, but a suggestive one. It was on this date [while campaigning for President] that Bill Clinton discussed his underwear with the American people (briefs, not boxers, as it turned out). Why would the leader of the free world unburden himself like this? Why not? In television's increasingly postmodern world, all texts—serious and sophomoric—swirl together in the same discontinuous field of experience. To be sure, Mr. Clinton made his disclosure because he had been asked to do so by a member of the MTV generation, not because he felt a sudden need to purge himself. But in doing so Clinton exposed several rules connected to the new phenomenology of politics: (1) because of television's celebrity system, Presidents are losing their distinctiveness as social actors and hence are often judged by standards formerly used to assess rock singers and movie stars; (2) because of television's sense of intimacy, the American people feel they know their Presidents as persons and hence no longer feel the need for party guidance; (3) because of the medium's archly cynical worldview, those who watch politics on television are increasingly turning away from the policy sphere, years of hyperfamiliarity having finally bred contempt for politics itself. Source C Menand, Louis, “Masters of the Matrix: Kennedy, Nixon, and the Culture of the Image.” The New Yorker, January 5, 2004. The following passage is excerpted from a weekly literary and cultural magazine. Holding a presidential election today without a television debate would seem almost undemocratic, as though voters were being cheated by the omission of some relevant test, some necessary submission to mass scrutiny. That's not what many people thought at the time of the first debates. Theodore H. White, who subscribed fully to [John F.] Kennedy's view that the debates had made the difference in the election, complained, in The Making of the President 1960, that television had dumbed down the issues by forcing the candidates to respond to questions instantaneously He also believed that Kennedy's “victory” in the debates was largely a triumph of image over content. People who listened to the debates on the radio, White pointed out, scored it a draw; people who watched it thought that, except in the third debate, Kennedy had crushed [Richard M.] Nixon. (This little statistic has been repeated many times as proof of the distorting effects of television. Why not the distorting effects of radio? It also may be that people whose medium of choice or opportunity in 1960 was radio tended to fit a Nixon rather than a Kennedy demographic.) White thought that Kennedy benefited because his image on television was “crisp”; Nixon's-light-colored suit, wrong makeup, bad posture—was "fuzzed.” “In 1960 television had won the nation away from sound to images,” he concluded, “and that was that." “Our national politics has become a competition for images or between images, rather than between ideals,” [one commentator] concluded. “An effective President must be every year more concerned with projecting images of himself.” Copyright © 2005 by Call SAMPLE QUESTION ONLY: PRATI Source D Adapted from Nielsen Tunes into Politics: Tracking the Presidential Election Years (1960-1992). New York: Nielsen Media Research, 1994. TELEVISION RATINGS FOR PRESIDENTIAL DEBATES: 1960-1996 Homes People (millions) (millions) 28.1 N/A Year 1960 Rating 59.5 Networks Candidates Date ABC Kennedy- Sept. 26 CBS Nixon NBC NO DEBATES 1964 1968 1972 1976 Carter-Ford Oct. 6 52.4 37.3 63.9 Oct. 28 1980 45.8 58.9 80.6 Anderson- Carter- Reagan Mondale- Reagan 45.3 Oct. 7 38.5 1984 65.1 36.8 Sept. 25 33.3 1988 65.1 ABC CBS NBC ABC CBS NBC ABC CBS NBC ABC CBS NBC ABC NBC CNN ABC CBS NBC CNN FOX Bush- Dukakis 38.3 Oct. 11 35.7 1992 62.4 Bush- Clinton- Perot Clinton- Dole Oct. 6 1996 30.6 31.6 46.1 SAMPLE QUESTION ONLY: DRAFT FORMAT Source E Ranney, Austin, Channels of Power: The Impact of Television on American Politics. New York: Basic Books, 1983. The following passage is taken from a book that examines the relationship between politics in the United States and television. . In early 1968 [when President Lyndon Johnson was running for reelection], after five years of steadily increasing American commitment of troops and arms to the war in Vietnam, President Johnson was still holding fast to the policy that the war could and must be won. However, his favorite television newsman, CBS's Walter Cronkite, became increasingly skeptical about the stream of official statements from Washington and Saigon that claimed e were winning the war. So Cronkite decided to go to Vietnam and see for himself. When he returned, he broadcast a special report to the nation, which Lyndon Johnson watched. Cronkite reported that the war had become a bloody stalemate and that military victory was not in the cards. He concluded: “It is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could On hearing Cronkite's verdict, the President turned to his aides and said, “It's all over.” Johnson was a great believer in public opinion polls, and he knew that a recent poll had shown that the American people trusted Walter Cronkite more than any other American to “tell it the way it is.” Moreover, Johnson himself liked and respected Cronkite more than any other newsman. As Johnson's aide Bill Moyers put it later, “We always knew that Cronkite had more authority with the American people than anyone else. It was Johnson's instinct that Cronkite was it.” So if Walter Cronkite thought that the war was hopeless, the American people would think so too, and the only thing left was to wind it down. A few weeks after Cronkite's broadcast Johnson, in a famous broadcast of his own, announced that he was ending the air and naval bombardment in most of Vietnam-and that he would not run for another term as President. לל
Purchase answer to see full attachment