For this week's assignment, you will create an audio or a video presentation that examines from various points of view the complex ethical issue you selected last week as your focus for discussion.As the producer and correspondent of a television or radio news magazine (like 60 Minutes, VICE News, or All Things Considered), you have been assigned to deliver an informative, 12-minute segment on the contemporary issue that was the focus of your discussions last week and this week. Corporate policy requires that you consider insights from two or more academic disciplines or professions, for example Nursing and Social Work, or Philosophical Ethics, Psychology, and Biology. (Note: These are only examples; you are free to choose your own disciplines.) It also requires that you interview credible representatives of at least two distinct positions on the issue. You do not need to remain neutral on the issue; in fact, you are expected to state and defend your own position with clear reasoning in your own words.The intended audience for your segment is an intelligent but perhaps uninformed public, so this is your opportunity to engage them in an issue that matters to you.Option 2: Produce the audio segment, as you would for broadcast as a radio program or as a podcast. Once again, you will be the correspondent, but are welcome to invite others to participate or record yourself in different roles. As with the video option, Kaltura is an excellent format for audio. However, you may also record audio over a PowerPoint presentation (with simply text and/or images on individual slides). Include the following concepts in this assignment:Explain the issue you selected and have been discussing since last week, with reference to practical instances.Describe relevant contributions to the issue from at least two different academic disciplines.Explain at least two distinct positions on the issue, considering each fairly. If the two different academic or professional perspectives you have included agree on the issue, be sure to explain the other side of the debate and main arguments for that side. Defend your own position on the issue clearly.Your instructor may provide video feedback on your work, as well as completing the official scoring guide for the assignment.Assignment RequirementsYour assignment should also meet the following requirements:Communication: Create a video or an audio presentation that reports on a contemporary social issue from multiple perspectives.Media presentation: A video or audio recording of minimum 12 minutes in length, with notes or a transcript to ensure accessibility to everyone. Upload the presentation.Resources: There is no minimum number of resources required; however, use your judgment to ensure your topic is thoroughly researched.APA guidelines: Resources and citations are formatted according to current APA Style and Format. When appropriate, use APA-formatted headings.Font and font size: Font should be appropriate size and weight for presentation, generally 24–28 points for headings and no smaller than 18 points for bullet-point text.

Analyze the qualities of a teacher or educator that were discussed in the “Teacher vs Educator (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.” article ( http://wpc.6fdc.edgecastcdn.net/006FDC/AU_Curricul... ) Evaluate yourself and explain the qualities you possess that will make you a great educator.The “I Will Be a Great Educator” assignmentMust be 1 to 2 double-spaced pages in length (not including title and reference pages) and formatted according to APA style as outlined in theAshford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..Must include a separate title page with the following:Title of paperStudent’s nameCourse name and numberInstructor’s nameDate submittedMust use at least 1 scholarly source. You can use the Scholarly, Peer Reviewed, and Other Credible Sources chart to help you determine a proper scholarly source.Must document all sources in APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.. Here is a tutorial for in-text citations (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site..Must include a separate reference slide that is formatted according to APA style as outlined in the Ashford Writing Center. Use the APA References List page (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. to help you with this task. Here is a link to the APA Reference List template (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. located on that page.For help setting up your paper in APA style, please use the APA paper template (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site. provided by the Ashford Writing Center.To assist you in completing the library research required for this assignment, view this Quick ‘n’ Dirty tutorial (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site., which introduces the Ashford Library, the research process, and provides some library search tips. (Ashford University Library. (n.d). Quick ‘n’ Dirty [Video file]. Retrieved fromhttp://library.ashford.edu/ (Links to an external site.)Links to an external site.)Please incorporate these personal qualities: compassionate, forgiving, hardworking.

Link to video This week we are discussing a wonderful TED talk by Andreas Ekstrom; he focuses on research and how we can't always believe that our search engines are neutral.  After you have watched the short TED Talk, respond to the following questions:  What is Ekstrom's thesis or main argument?  What does Ekstrom use to back up her claims? What kind of examples does she share with her audience? Does Ekstrom try to appeal to your logic, your emotions or both? Think about the big three rhetorical strategies (ethos, pathos, logos) and discuss: Does Ekstrom effectively appeal to her audience?  (Remember to use specific examples.)  Do you agree with Ekstrom? Why or why not?  Do you have a different understanding on how you will do your research for Project 3 because you have watch this talk? Why or why not?  What was your biggest takeaway or AHA moment from this Talk? What interested you or surprised you the most?  Peer 1: 1)Ekstrom’s main argument is that although people want to believe that a google search is completely unbiased, that could never be achieved. The speaker claims in his Ted Talk that when we do searches about only facts, it is unbiased because there are facts that cannot be argued. However, when we complicate our google search more, then that is when we invite bias into our search. For example, if we google “why did [insert event] happen?” then we will get articles that contain opinions. At the end, the speaker claims that behind every algorithm is a person with a set of beliefs that no code could ever completely eradicate. He says earlier in the video that is the case because the person or group that wrote the article will have facts on hand, yet we all have different interpretations of those facts. Factors that influence our opinion include gender, age, race, etc. 2)The speaker uses a variety of examples to prove his point. First, he starts by relating his experience of asking students why they use Google. They all said different reasons, but one student said that she thinks that she will always get an unbiased search. This scenario was the basis of his entire Ted Talk. Next, he did a live demonstration of a search on Michelle Obama, and retold the event of 2009 about how Google took down a racist picture of her. The speaker then compared that event with a somewhat similar event that took place with a search on a terrorist. In protest against his terrorist actions, people published pictures of dog poop in a way that made it so that the image would be shown when people do a search on him. In this case, Google did not intervene. These two examples show that personal beliefs do influence not only the things that are posted, but how search engines filter what gets to be posted. 3)I think that the speaker mainly appeals to our logic in his argument, but he does put small instances of pathos. Ekstrom appeals to logic when he did his search live because it shows the audience that what he is claiming actually does take place. This helps us to agree with him. Although logic is the main component, he evokes some emotion when he mentions the terrorist that killed so many people. Also, when he mentions what happened to Michelle Obama because so many people respect her and like her so to talk about this racist act would make people feel strongly about it. At the end, he invites all of the coders to understand that their beliefs do affect their work, so they need to make sure that they use this power responsibly. I feel that statement evokes some sort of emotion because it makes us realize that we all have this power in our hands so we do not want to misuse it.4)I agree with the speaker because I see bias in all of my searches and what pops up in my feed. On a seperate tab I pulled up my feed and an article by NBC News is featured entitled “Why some people aren’t wearing masks during virus crisis”. Although there might be facts and NBC is credible, it seems like there might be some opinions reflected in the article. Also, since we use google as the main information for news stories, I think that even the sources of the articles themselves are biased. For example, a Republican source will have a different interpretation than a Democratic source about a certain political event. Even when we look up YouTube videos, we often look for people’s opinions on topics that may not seem that important. For example, people look up dancing videos, and they come to believe that one way of dancing is “cool” whereas another dance move is “bad” or “lame”.5)I think this Ted Talk has given me a better understanding of how to conduct a research query. In the beginning, he stated how to do a query that invites facts, whereas wording our search another way might bring biased results. Personally, I tend to do a lot of Google searches that bring articles based on personal opinions. I do not do this on purpose, I think it is just a habit. That being said, I do not think it is wrong that we look up someone’s opinion on a matter especially if we have to build our own. But we just need to take it with a grain of salt. Specifically for this essay project, I think that I personally need to make sure that my sources are not completely biased so that I can give a better argument so this video has helped me to understand the search process better. 6)What interested me the most was that Google does control what shows up on a google search. I think that is good when it comes to the racist files that are out there. However, I think that there might be some people that think this is a violation of free speech and are against these actions by Google. I also did not know how easy it was to publish pictures so that it shows up right away on a google search. It was also surprising that google checks these things every hour, and it makes me wonder how they do such a task. Another point I was wondering about: The speaker mentions Google as the main search engine. What about the other search engines such as Bing or Yahoo? Do they control the searches as well? My favorite is Google but is there a search engine that decreases bias better than their search engine competitors? Peer 2: 2- [1] I think Ekstrom’s thesis and main point was to make the audience aware of their own personal biases and agendas when doing research.  Google uses specific algorithms to generate search results.  As he mentioned, sometimes the algorithms sort themselves out, but other times Google has intervened in order to correct search results.  His main argument focused around comparing the Google image search results of Michelle Obama and Anders Behring Breivik.  On one hand, Google manually removed a racist photograph of Michelle Obama so that it no longer was a top result when you searched for images of her, yet on the other hand, Google did nothing when search results for Anders Behring Breivik generated images of dog poop on sidewalks.  Ekstrom contends that this is because “Michelle Obama is an honorable person” and “Anders Behring Breivik is a despicable person.”  Therefore, from Ekstrom’s argument, it’s safe to deduce that your Google search results may not always be from unbiased sources, and at a minimum, you should be aware and know your own biases, before assuming anything.[2] Ekstrom’s supported his argument by comparing what Google did to degrading pictures of Michelle Obama in 2009 and Anders Behring Breivik in 2011.  In 2009, Google decided that the racially fueled pictures of Michelle Obama, photoshopped to depict her as a monkey, were inappropriate and disgusting, and manually removed them.  At the time, Michelle Obama was the First Lady of the United States.  In 2011, shortly after Anders Behring Breivik committed heinous terrorist attacks in Norway, the Google search results of him depicted images of dog poop, and Google did nothing.  Ekstrom said that these Google image search results were essentially the same type of situation, yet Google chose to do something proactive and remove the images of Michelle Obama. [3] Primarily, I think Ekstrom appeals to logos during his presentation.  He states that when he attends lectures, he always asks students what search engine they use most often use.  Without failure, a student always says Google, and when asked why, a student will always say because they are “certain to always get the best, unbiased search result.”  It leads Ekstrom to question what unbiased research looks like, and he goes on to give to concrete examples to support why you should question where you get research from.  It is a very logical, sound argument, and easily appeals to logos.[4] I strongly agree with Ekstrom!  Using the current COVID-19 pandemic as an example: people rely on, trust, and spread the information they see, especially on social media.  Of course, some of it is true, but I see a vast majority that is simply false or is worded in a way to misinform or misguide the public.  It seems that more frequently, people think that just because it’s written and found on the internet, that it must be true – and more so to Ekstrom’s point – it can lead to misinformed opinions, advice, judgments, and outrage.  I agree with Ekstrom that you must be aware of these biases and opinions, and make your own determination, prior to accepting information.  Everyone has an agenda; so, when a far right-wing reads something negative about the “California liberals,” albeit false, they agree with it, so it doesn’t necessarily matter to them if it’s 100% true. [5] This video was interesting but did not really change how I will research for project 3.  My “standard” research practices are probably a little bit more involved than necessary because of what my job requires; however, they are practical for all research.  I often have to narrow the scope of my research so precisely in order to find something specific and on point for a case.  In the law there are two sources of reference: primary and secondary sources.  Primary sources are things like case law, statutes, the constitution – the law.  Secondary sources are things like reference guides and legal journals – information about the law.  Secondary sources point you in the right direction and tell you where to go for your citable research, and more often than not, starting with a secondary source (like Google) can greatly help!  And while you might find your exact answer in a secondary source, generally speaking, it’s not something you should cite to – so you have to backtrack a bit to find the primary source of the information. [6] I think that my biggest takeaway was to hear Ekstrom detail exactly how biased the internet is, though I am not surprised.  It makes sense that Google would intervene search results for Michelle Obama – an intelligent, honorable, woman who should be treated with respect – and not for Anders Behring Breivik – a terrorist who was convicted of mass murder.  But does that make it biased?  And as Ekstrom said, yes, it shows that Google based their decision on their own judgments and opinions of Michelle Obama and Anders Breivik.  I don’t think it is wrong what Google did – but it certainly shows a biased opinion.  I think more people should be informed that when you read or see something on the internet, that you should consult another source or two before arising to a conclusion.