Unit 2 Essay: Rough Draft

                                                                       The Many Lives of SOPA

                Have you ever played a game of Telephone? For those who haven’t, it goes like this. A number of people sit down in a circle and the starter comes up with a phrase. They whisper it in the next person’s ear, and it travels around the circle this way until the last person says it out loud. In a good game, the phrase gets twisted along the way and ends up as something completely different. The media likes to play Telephone. When an event happens, all the varying outlets reporting on it take different angles to the point where the original story is no longer the focus, and by the end of its life, usually has brought some greater social question into being. This ability to add to and develop a story is a relatively recent feature brought about by the internet. Online, anyone can comment or post about the news, and with millions of people logging on each day that is like a million people in a game of Telephone. Jeff Jarvis commented on the new development of a news story. In the past, an event happened, a journalist reported it, it was printed in the paper and then the story was tossed the next day. With the internet, the process doesn’t stop at the story; if anything that is where it begins. As Jarvis said “in print, the process leads to a product. Online, the process is the product” (Jarvis). As a story is reposted and altered from blog to blog, the new approach taken is what is important; it is another talking point for the conversation.  To illustrate the many lives of a news story, we can look to the SOPA/PIPA narrative and see how it progressed over time.

                The Stop Online Piracy Act (SOPA) was introduced to the House floor on October 26^th of last year. The act was designed to protect intellectual property such as movies, television shows, and songs from being accessed illegally online. It included provisions to ban search engines from linking to pirating sites, to order internet providers to block those same sites , and to shut down websites entirely that infringed on copyrighted material. A similar bill, the PROTECT IP Act (PIPA) was introduced in the Senate earlier last year. In December, the SOPA/PIPA story entered the news as a blog post for the New York Times. The article, headlined “Media and Entertainment Companies Add Support to Proposed Antipiracy Legislation,” reports on the entertainment corporations view that piracy online is hurting the American economy (Chozick). Not exactly front page news, this piece was probably oriented towards followers of politics and business.

                After a lull, the SOPA/PIPA story took off. With big names like Google and Wikipedia confirming a demonstration of censorship, the approach of the coverage turned from the facts of SOPA to the protests against it. On Wired, David Kravets posted an article confirming the upcoming blackout of hundreds of websites. He informed the reader of the protest taking place and why it had escalated this far. As his blog “Threat Level” is described as a “daily briefing on security, freedom, and privacy” it is fitting that SOPA should appear on it (Kravets). The international implications of SOPA and PIPA and the provisions of the acts to seize websites are directly linked to security and privacy. Kravets successfully targets his audience by providing pertinent, topical information on his blog.

                With the occurrence of January 18^th, the day of the blackout, the story took another turn. Not only reporting on the protest anymore, many pieces appeared about Wikipedia and the affect it was having by shutting down. NPR published a piece on their blog “The Two-Way” that acknowledged peoples’ reliance on Wikipedia and included several ways that Wikipedia had provided themselves to get around the blackout (Memmott). Following this line, the story developed further on NPR the next day. In response to comments that the previous article had undermined the strength of the blackout, Edward Schumacher-Matos posted an article defending NPR’s position.  On his blog “Ombudsman Perspective,” a site that hosts a writer without ties to NPR for an outside view, Schumacher-Matos wrote that the post in question had simply restated what Wikipedia had provided on their own page and had even quoted them to prove it. With these posts, the SOPA/PIPA story progressed from the protest as a whole, to Wikipedia’s influence, to a discussion of the reporting being done.

                As the likelihood of SOPA and PIPA passing successfully through Congress died down, the conversation in the media took another turn. In a post on “Moneybox”, the Slate hosted blog about business and economics, the topic was the democratic process. Titled “5 Lessons From the SOPA/PIPA Fight,” the article hits such points as agenda control, the significance of deep pockets, and “in America, always bet on change not happening” (Yglesias). Notice how the act itself is no longer the purpose of the discussion; this piece took SOPA and used it as prime example of American government.

                Mark McKenna thought to approach SOPA in another way. As a law professor at Notre Dame with a focus on intellectual property, McKenna came into the conversation armed with the current property and piracy laws in affect. In a contributing piece on Slate, he used SOPA to enter the subject of legislation in place that has been overlooked in all the media coverage. He writes “I’m hoping this week’s backlash will focus future discussion on the many ways in which intellectual property law is already causing the harms that made SOPA and PIPA so terrifying, because many of the objectionable features of those two laws are already in use” (McKenna). With the credibility of a law professor, he is well equipped to kick start and educate the public on this neglected topic.

                Almost four months after the publication of that first New York Times article, an AP wire story entered the blogosphere. Picked up by many, including The Huffington Post, the piece presented online piracy as the entertainment industry’s problem, not the consumers. The author, Martha Irvine, is attempting to discover the root of issue. While acknowledging that people are guilty of pirating, she proceeds to blame the entertainment business for not providing content readily online. Irvine described this as a “radical notion,” stating “what if young people who steal content weren’t viewed as the problem?” She suggests that instead of pushing for strict, anti-piracy laws, the entertainment industry could find a solution in working with the consumer and openly providing content through things like licensing agreements (Irvine). While this story certainly belongs in the SOPA/PIPA debate, the only mention of the acts is in the fourth and tenth paragraph by the words “anti-piracy bills” (Irvine). This article illustrates the extent that a news story can be removed from its origin.

                To continue the SOPA/PIPA discussion, I would take my cue from Irvine. In the whole online piracy debate, the focus has been on penalizing and preventing illegal downloading of copyrighted property. I believe this is the wrong approach. Instead of trying to keep songs and television shows and movies locked away, entertainment outlets should be focusing on making their product more available. People don’t use pirating websites just because they are free; they also use them because they are easily accessible. These websites have anything you could ever want to watch r listen to readily available. If legitimate entertainment companies provided these sites, people would get their product the “right” way and they could even charge (a reasonable price) for it. If I could watch any episode of Hey Arnold! at the touch of a button I wouldn’t mind paying a few dollars for it. iTunes is an excellent example. The iTunes store is an easily navigated interface that contains movies, shows, and songs for a reasonable price. Ever since I got an iPod, I use the store and get all my music the legal way. I find it much easier to search and click “Buy” than to find a site to download off of and convert the file. Pirating sites are currently filling a need in our society. People like to have access to what they want, when they want it. Most content isn’t made available online through legal means, so pirating websites provide it. If entertainment companies stopped holding on for dear life and just let go, they could be filling that need and cashing in.

                Once a story is released into the world, the ideas of millions go into reshaping it, turning it this way and that, until the end product is noticeably different. This process has no limits; it can last anywhere from a few days to a few years. The one thing you can count on though is that somewhere someone will comment on it, the Internet has ensured that. Online news sites and blogs have made information more accessible now than ever. Anyone can get online and trace a subject and anyone can write an article and post it. The internet creates the setting for this discussion; each new article, each new angle brings a talking point to the conversation. As opposed to traditional news of old where the process ends at publishing, this continuing development usually leads to a sort of epiphany. The SOPA/PIPA story took many forms over time. Beginning as a report of battle in Congress, the story brought the legislation already in place to the forefront, and finally someone questioned the overall approach to online piracy. A story is simply a tool to initiate thoughts of the larger subject; the resulting online dialogue serves to filter out the important questions and maybe find some answers to them. 

Chozick, Amy. "Media and Entertainment Companies Add Support to Proposed Antipiracy Legislation."

      Web log post. Media Decoder. The New York Times, 13 Dec. 2011. Web. 26 Feb. 2012.

Irvine, Martha. "Online Piracy: Youth Shaping Future of Online TV, Movies, Music." Web log post. The

      Huffington Post, 18 Feb. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Jarvis, Jeff. "The Press Becomes the Press-sphere." Web log post. BuzzMachine. 14 Apr. 2008. Web. 26

      Feb. 2012.

Kravets, David. "A SOPA/PIPA Blackout Explainer." Web log post. Threat Level. Wired, 18 Jan. 2012.  Web.24 Feb. 2012.

McKenna, Mark P. "Don't Stop at SOPA." Web log post. Slate, 20 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Memmott, Mark. "If You Really Need Wikipedia Today, You Can Get To It." Web log post. The Two-Way.

      NPR, 18 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Schumacher-Matos, Edward. "The Wikipedia Blackout and the 'Scabs' at NPR." Web log post.

      NPRombudsman. NPR, 19 Jan. 2012. Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

Yglesias, Matthew. "5 Lessons From the SOPA/PIPA Fight." Web log post. Moneybox. Slate, 20 Jan.   2012.Web. 24 Feb. 2012.

What is "taking an approach?"

            Harris initially defines “taking an approach” as writing in the “mode of another author.” As to the definition of mode, it’s a style of thinking or how the author goes about writing and organizing and presenting their ideas. Taking an approach is different than just forwarding; you don’t just provide more examples to affirm a position, you reshape it. Harris then goes on to use the example of a cover song; I thought of hamlet and The Lion King. Both things take a new approach to old material. 

This is where I get confused. In this chapter, Harris didn’t really give a satisfactory definition of “taking an approach,” or at least not a clear one. To me there seemed to be three or four completely different methods that he was labeling the same thing. The example I wrote above about cover songs and such seems to contradict the sentences just before it. A cover song uses an author’s subject matter but takes its own approach. Just before that, Harris was defining “taking an approach” as using the author’s approach to further one’s own subject matter, or even the author’s subject matter. He kind of flip-flops. And then after loosely stating this, the rest of the chapter is a discussion on how to acknowledge your influences! Which seems to be a completely different idea, like a new method called “making acknowledgments.” In this discussion he illustrates how pointing out who and what experiences have influence you to your readers is a valuable thing; that way they know where you are coming from and how to read your work. He provides many examples of writers doing this at the beginning of their books, like in an introduction. “Metatext” is when writers write about what they are going to write about. I always thought this was kind of superfluous; why explain everything you are going to write about and why when you could just get on with it? If you write an affective essay/book/whatever you shouldn’t have to spell everything out beforehand.  

                Harris’s points about acknowledgements were fine, but I didn’t see how they had anything to do with “taking an approach” as he originally defined it.  I honed in on his personal example of when he applied this method. Harris said he had read a book where the author had used terms to provide the organization and flow for his discussion and had taken that approach and used it in his own book. This is what I see as taking an approach; using another author’s organizational and tonal style and writing in that way. 

                The Onion doesn’t do much in way of applying someone else’s approach but they certainly have their own. They write about the news by being satirical. They write humorous articles in which they take the truth and turn it completely upside down and then present it straight-faced with a serious, professional front. Like the article “Disturbed Beltway Sources Report Congress EerilyCooperative Today.” The story points out how we have come to expect Congress to be an uncooperative body by writing that if they are, the world must be coming to an end.

Changed my mind...

(Looking back through my posts, the last unit 1 blog stuck out to me the most. Reading through it I realized I don’t agree with much of what it is saying anymore. For this reason I chose it to be revised. The following is the revision which picks up  response to the original post. I forward my original thoughts but then counter them to follow a different line of thought. And just a warning: I will be referring to myself in third person.)

           

             Blogs are a great new source for online writing, from both a personal and social view. I’m new to blogging and so far I’ve found it a very exciting medium; it is cool that you are able to create a space all your own, for your thoughts and ideas, online. You also have complete creative freedom, you can post whatever you want when you want.  As Conrad states, “On my blog I get to post whatever I want and I don’t have to worry about a billion responses.” She focuses on the relative privacy of blogs when compared to something like Facebook; they just don’t get as much traffic, especially an everyday person’s blog. I also enjoy this feature of the current blogosphere; it’s kind of a new field and unless you are well known you don’t need to worry about who is reading your posts. In focusing entirely on this, however, I think Conrad overlooks an important aspect of blogging. It’s in human nature to want to connect and share with others; blogging feeds this. Online we can be connected to millions in an instant and through blogging we can share our thoughts on any number of subjects. What would the good of this be if we didn’t care who read our work? It’s all about being part of the conversation right? 

                If I continue to blog, I hope I can provide entertaining and informed discourse. And if I happen to get any followers, not that I really expect to, I hope they will at least find something interesting. You always need to keep your audience in mind, that way you can speak to them directly when necessary and completely ignore them when not.

<--> Countering

              Harris’s idea of “countering” is found in finding a piece of writing’s limits when “coming to terms.” When countering you use the limits of a text to move onto your own counterproposal. As opposed to forwarding, Harris says countering is not “Yes, and” but “Yes, but.” The idea is to present the argument another text makes and then discuss what it left out or didn’t consider to introduce your point. To counter, you present something “not as wrong but as partial.” Harris splits countering up into three approaches. To “argue the other side” you define the side that the text has argued and then present the opposing view. When “uncovering values” you bring out a concept that the author overlooked in his discussion and use it to talk about another view. Harris said “our texts always say more than we mean.” This is very true. A person reading your work may get something completely different out of it than what you meant. Any nuance of phrasing can lead to another line of thought, even when you didn’t mean anything by it. This is what makes writing and reading interesting, the endless possibilities. The last part of countering is “dissenting.” This happens when you present the logic of a line of thought in a text and then argue against it. 

                I thought an important part of this chapter was Harris’s advice to not be too critical, or at least be the right kind of critical. If your position depends upon another text, you need to be a little polite so as not to totally discredit it and make you seem more reasonable. People probably won’t listen to you if your entire argument is spent berating your opponent. Harris gives the advice to not attack a chosen text’s exact wording or the motive behind it; all you can do is argue with the thoughts presented, not the person behind them. That’s a different battle, and not a very academic one. Harris also says “critique needs to lead to alternatives.” Not only should you not attack the author, you should also quickly present the ideas you are to oppose and then get on with presenting your view. That’s what your work should mainly focus on anyway, what you think. It is also important to know what the text you are referencing is trying to achieve; if you get it wrong you could end up looking very silly arguing against a side that doesn’t exist. In countering done well, the old author loses, the new author gains and the idea discussed has been altered.

                You could call a lot of what the Onion does as countering. When the blog posts an article satirizing something in the news, it usually is trying to point out the irony of some argument. Like the headline about Iran worrying over America’s nuclear weapon production. The Onion points out how we as a nation worry about other country’s nuclear power, but find it alright to have such a store ourselves. It doesn’t exactly fit Harris’s typical countering, but this is kind of like dissenting. The post presents a line of thought and then points out its flaws.