From the start I knew that writing for an audience that would be read aloud was going to provide it's own unique challenges. My initial impression of the phase two podcast wasn't something of a negative feeling. I actually enjoyed the development of my soon to be recorded podcast. However, the information I had to organize for the podcast proved to be the most difficult part to me. This was because I had to realize the time contraints in conjunction with accurate direct information on my topic of GMO labeling to fit with in.
In comparison to the written Webtext (which provided a whole separate type of conflict to me), the podcast actually came to me a bit easier. I attribute this ease to come from the obligation to narrow down the information only providing relevant and easily understood information. In this restraint of information share, I found that the choices I made (from the appeals used down to the structure of ideas) differed greatly between the two. In the Webtext there was an ability, more a requirement, to fully develop the ideas that were being presented about my topic. With no real limitations to word count the development of ideas came rather easily. In contrast, the podcast script was geared toward fully understood topics with little bits of research to back them up.
In that fundamental difference between the Webtext and podcast script, I selected information for the podcast that could be absorbed easily by the listener. With that decision came the type of appeal I plan to use to help facilitate that information transition. The choice I made was a combination of logos and pathos. The logos aspect of my podcast was in the statistics, and "short jabs" used at the expense of the corporations I was talking against. Pathos was then used to pull the listener in to the fight and make them feel as if they had the control to stop the string of corporate uncertainties.
Also noted through out the text is the verbal citing used to help give creditability to my claims. Unlike in the written Webtext, the podcast script had to rely on such citing given the obvious consideration of there being a listener rather a reader. So with the aspect of hearing over reading, giving verbal credit to the experts and sources used was important so that the reader can grasp those expert opinions used. Additionally, this difference has also played a significant role in the ethos developed through out my podcast script.
Overall, though there was many differences between context, rhetorical appeals, and structure, the Webtext and podcast script came down to the same basic research and marketing decisions. The research that backs the Webtext is the same research methods used to develop the podcast script. Same also applies to the marketing questions used when developing the argument in both. Given that the arguments were very similar is goes without question how the focus in both stayed similar. This similarity created an overall cause to drive both projects in a direction of action upon the readers or listeners.
Sunday, October 21, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Boolean Operators and results
Google Search
- GMO AND food labeling AND U.S- results were poor as they did not offer anything new, or credible for that matter, that I could learn from or apply to my project.
- GMO (food labeling or restrictions): This search actually resulted in an article presented to the public by a company called monsanto. If you do not know who they are; Monsanto is one of the largest producers, and largest advocate against the labeling of, GMO foods. This company has their hands in a great many organizations, including the FDA, USDA, ADA, and government strong holds that facilitate nutritional research in the U.S, all for the purpose of control over the food market. Additionally, this company is the leader in the "Say no to 37" campaign which is a proposition on the California ballot this coming month that, if passed, will require all companies to label GMO foods in California.
- GMO food and (FDA regulation): The results of this search came up with a few good sources of information to look at.
Google Advanced Search
- GMO AND food labeling AND U.S. : The results from this were very poor. It told me that I had to many words in a search and gave me very few results that were nothing close to creditable.
- GMO (food labeling or restrictions): The results from this search gave me a lot of results, but most of them were not credible sources, or gave opinionated points of view with little to no research to back any of the claims.
- GMO foods and (FDA regulation): Ironically I found many results that had a bias towards not labeling GMO foods. However, I found very little information pertaining to the actual restrictions, or lack there of, that is currently in practice.
Overall I did not really care for this method of google search. The results where very poor and flooded with opinion, but very little research or credible analysis to back them. Truthfully I did not find a single article that I would prefer to use that taught me something new. Not unless I want to follow opinions with other searches to verify any truth to the statements.
Annotated Bibliography
Laskawy, T. (2012, April 4). FDA to GMO labeling campaign: What million signatures?. Retrieved
The idea behind this article is about a particular recent decision of the FDA to denounce the volume of support given to the "Just Label It" petition (JLI) that was recently summited to the FDA regarding the labeling of GMO foods. The docket was presented with 1 million supporting signatures, or as the FDA calls it "comments", but when address by the FDA the comments were only 394 in number. The significance behind this is that the FDA claims that any petition presented is viewed at 1 comment regardless of how many signatures make it onto that one petition. However, in the past the FDA has utilized a petition X with X number of comments, or signatures type of system. It begs the question then why now do they only claim one petition with one signature regardless of how many actual signatures that petition received?
Authority: The actual credibility of this article comes primarily from the large amounts of hyper links used to facilitate the point the author is making. He provides to his story with actual evidence in the several hyper links used. However, his needless comments on the topic does not help bring any authority to his article, but more brings a childish sarcastic aspect that only will push the reader away from believing what he has to say.
Accuracy: The accuracy of information is spot on. I remember reading about this particular issue a while back. More over, the hyper links certainly help give you more information that helps reduce errors in the transfer of information.
Currency: I believe this issue is as current as it gets almost. This just happened earlier this year and provides a real current insight to the fight of consumers and the government on food standards and safety.
Objectivity: This aspect is where the article is lacking. It is clear that the author has support for the petition advocating for GMO labeling. His comments riddled through out the article also help demonstrate his distain for the issue he is writing about. Though i can be understood that the author is very upset at such an overt display of unprofessionalism by the FDA, but this still creates a bias that is just as overt and unprofessional.
Monsanto. (2012). Food safety. Retrieved from
This article by Monsanto (is pains me to even use them as a reference) pertains to the view of safety as given by Monsanto, a leading super giant in the biotechnology industry. It provides commonly asked questions regarding GMO food safety and the testing that backs their claim. It displays this information in a question/answer format.
Authority: Despite the negative light this company is placed under, their authority on this matter is very relavent as they have been a crucial part in the development and use of GE foods. However, it should not go without saying that this company is also one of the biggest antagonists of GE food labeling both publicly and monetarily.
Accuracy: This aspect is where I find the article looses is foot hold. Yes, technically speaking the information given is very accurate. Though, the information given is extremely vague in that there is a large grey area left uncovered by the answers given to the questions. There is no single study used to help facilitate the readers understanding that this company believes what it is saying, or that it is true. Additionally, accuracy in this context should be met with legitimate science and not opinion, or hear say by the company that provides the information. Monsanto address no real matter of research other than simply giving you the FDA website and saying this is what we do. In that I find the accuracy of this website lacking, but if only given a short skim with a rhetorical eye.
Objectivity: As I have all ready mentioned, this article provides the very definition of bias (much like the previous article). Monsanto is openly critical of current food policy that have any impact on GE foods and the safety that consumers demand from them. Monsanto is the largest contributor to the production of and research on GE foods. Do you really think they are going to say that they are unsafe and need to be labeled?
Project Censored. (2011, September 30). US agencies trying to outlaw GMO food labeling.
This article briefly discussed how the FDA is making attempts to regulate the world food supply and its opinion of GMO food labeling. In short, this article touches on the FDA's actions and opinions that say there should be no need for GMO food labeling in any country and further more that there should be a ban placed on labeling GMO foods period.
Authority: The website that this came from is not one that I have heard of, but the sources given at the end of this article are very reliable. However, this website is attached to a magazine that, with a little research has been in circulation for a little a while that helps provide information about government censorship.
Accuracy: The accuracy of this article is legitimate The issue used is one that the FDA has openly admitted on several occasions. The sources given at the end also add to the accuracy of this article.
Currency: This article was originally written in 2011, but was featured in the 2012 issue of a magazine associated with this website. So the issue is relatively current and still pertains to the struggling issue of GMO foods.
Objectivity: The focus of this website is one that fights against government censorship. Against with tis article I found a level of bias that was geared towards making the government, in this case the FDA, look bad. Though I did find that this article voice was written with no sarcasm and seemed to only provide the small facts of the issue. With the sources given at the end, the reader can also follow through and develop their own opinion with the information.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)