--> Forwarding

          Most of the idea of “forwarding” can be found earlier in Harris’s discussion of “coming to terms” with a text. In that chapter, he said you had to approach a text and by applying it find out what its uses and limits are. Forwarding is the idea behind the “uses” of a text (the limits are apparently found in the next chapter on countering). When you forward a text, you take some aspect of it, whether it be the author’s status, an idea, or an actual phrase, and tie it into your writing. He splits forwarding up into four areas. By “illustrating” a text you are using it for examples; you find a section of writing with the same motive as your own and incorporate it to present your discussion in a different way. When “authorizing” a text you cite the expertise of the author, and similarly when “borrowing” from another text you add exact words and ideas to support your position. “Extending” a text is the last facet of forwarding; to do this  you take an idea and put it in a different light, put your own spin on it.

Before reading Harris’s book, I would have called this idea of “forwarding,” research. Like when I’ve had to write a paper for school with so many sources, I would look up useful articles and then plug them in here and there in my argument.  I saw it as using others’ work to give yours credibility and academic weight. And I also just saw this as applying to true research papers. But I realize this isn’t the case; anything you write should draw on other texts. And the information you use is not just adding to the validity of your paper, but continuing the discussion already put in motion by those authors your take from and the ones before them. That’s the idea of forwarding. When writing like this your paper stops being independent; it becomes part of the stream of ideas. Other authors’ thoughts flow into yours and you combine with them, forward them, and then send them off to join with someone else’s.

In forwarding, I think most of the text remains the same. Early in the chapter, Harris talked about forwarding as sending your work out into the world. In this sense, you lose the control over what happens to it, but under his extended definition, most of the text will be conserved. According to Harris, when you take from other texts, you are supposed to place it in context (explain what it originally meant) and then apply it to your argument. Nothing is lost here, and I wouldn’t say anything is gained either. It could be said that the original text has been altered because it is being put in the context of a new argument which may be talking about something completely opposite. Because the text will now be associated with this new idea, it has been altered. 

Because of the nature of the Onion, I haven’t found much serious forwarding. There is a fair amount of “extending” though. Whenever it posts articles that parody the real news that day, the Onion is pointing out the news and then twisting the idea to suit its purpose.

Analyzing the Onion

         Author- The Onion as a whole doesn't have one political or social leaning. It exists to comment on news and point out the absurdity in society's logic.

         Audience- I think the Onion targets a more tech savvy group of people. They do have a paper in circulation, but the majority of their content is found online. It's also geared towards younger people in that it is more entertaining than a straight forward news source. You read the Onion for enjoyment, with news and social commentary on the side.

         Purpose- The Onion comments on news (fact and fictional) by using satirical articles to present the event in a different way. It wants to show how ridiculous some things are that we hear about in the news everyday. The Onion can also be just for humor, like when it presents everyday events as important breaking news.

The Big Onion...(see what I did there?)

             By reading the New York Times and the Onion, Jarvis’s idea of a press sphere became apparent. A few days ago I read an article in the Times about the No Child Left Behind Act. Apparently Obama is going to release some states from the ridiculous 100% proficiency requirement and allow them to reach goals that they set in their own time. Thank goodness. Cutting funding for failing schools is not the way to make them better. But anyway, that same day I got on theOnion and saw they had something to say about No Child as well. They demonized students and said we’re really not worth teaching. To quote the sub-heading: “Officials say these vicious little bastards are beyond any kind of help.”

           

We are in the age of the press sphere where our news comes to us through many different channels. When keeping up with the news, it could get a little hectic trying to sift through every source. The great thing is most of our news sources today, whether it is Facebook, a newspaper, or a favorite blog, tend to comment on the same events. And an even greater thing is that they all typically interact with the event in a different way. The New York Times (as a reputable news source) provides the factual report while the Onion provides satirical commentary. I find this a much more entertaining way for the news to function. If I get on the Onion and see “Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500^th Nuclear Weapon” my attention is caught. I’ll read the article, get a few laughs, and then jump over to the Times to see what real event it sprang from. Blogs provide the little entertainment needed to keep people interested; they don’t have to follow the rules of true journalism so they can be more creative. 

Sources in the sphere don’t always overlap, which is also a good thing. If we only had access to the same ten stories everywhere our view would be very limited. Take for example another story I read on the Onion: “Intelligent, Condescending Life Discovered InDistant Galaxy.” Obviously, the Times wasn’t running anything on aliens that day.

The New(s) Cycle

            As I am rather partial to print journalism, this guy is really not my favorite person. “To keep talking about newspapers as if they were news is far too limiting in the discussion.” In my opinion, newspapers do carry news; I feel like that is the main purpose of them. Jarvis goes on to say how “it’s more about the process and not the product;” he’s logic seems a little turned around to me. A newspaper (or any other online source) is the product that starts the process rolling. If he was arguing for the value of new literacy, I could see where the process may be more important, but he is talking about the news and how we get our sources. So actually the product is pretty important; the process has to start somewhere.

            His “press sphere” is a representation of the way people receive news today. Compared to when people used to get news only through the filter of newspapers (a linear motion), today our news function is much more spherical. Jarvis throws all kinds of potential sources into the sphere including the government, witnesses, companies, and the press. I find his chart a little wanting. I can’t tell if the varying sizes of circles around each source are supposed to point out their significance, and I am also confused by the sources themselves. What is the difference between an observer and a witness? I think he is defining an observer as a reader who could comment? What are “Sources?” And I find it interesting that he lumps all news sources directly into “Press.” I understand his point that now we can create our own “news” because of the many resources available to us. But I don’t see linking to an archive as creating news. That is just providing background information, which is a great tool, but not exactly news. Resources like government databases and company websites are a great place for information, but news is the current event that is happening now, not old, factual information.

            I do agree with the theory of Jarvis’s model. I get my news from many sources now, not just one, and not just the press. I hear about a lot of things from general discussion with friends and then go to other sources to find more. I also found his idea of where the news stops interesting. He compares a journalistic view of the story ending as soon as the article gets published to the new reality of that being just the beginning. As soon as a story is published the process starts rolling; it gets read, discussed on the way to work, commented about on blogs, maybe referenced on The Daily Show. And really, stories nowadays never end. The ability to have archives online keeps the story in circulation forever. I’d never thought about it that way.

America's Finest News Source

The Onion

         I have chosen to follow The Onion. Why you ask? Because it is hilarious! The Onion writes wildly satirical articles on current, everyday, and fictional events, turning them completely inside out. It does this to point out the ridiculousness of things and sometimes just to make a joke. The entertaining aspect of it originally interested me, and I like it because pointing out societies logical flaws can be truly funny. And usually if I particularly like an article I try to find a serious news source and learn more.

It's about Time

It’s kind of a novel feeling to sit down in your dorm room over some easy mac and read the paper. I’d like to thank Prof. Leake for assigning our class to read the New York Times; it has changed my mind about reading the news. I never paid much attention to the news before. I thought it would be a chore to keep up on the daily news, to sit down and read through an entire newspaper. I guess I never realized you didn’t have to read everything (kind of a silly thought I know), you can pick and choose. And I have even come around to online news sites; even though they may still be killing print, they are very convenient. I’ve gotten into the habit of stopping at nytime.com after checking Facebook and my email. Regardless, when I pick up a newspaper, especially the Times, I know I’m holding something of substance that I can look through and educate myself on multiple subjects. That is pretty cool.

I’m not at news buff status yet where I will read any and all articles just for their merit. I read those that interest me. Over the past few weeks, I’ve read articles about Amazon and the Kindle, a boy with F.A.S.D. who got an assisting dog, that movie with Daniel Radcliffe in it, a monument they want to build in Germany to a polar bear who was abandoned and lived, and Mark Zuckerberg to name a few. Just this morning I read articles about Wolfram Alpha, and pilot safety training for naval pilots. I seem to find the human interest stories and those that I can connect with. When I see a headline with Facebook or certain magical celebrities in it there is definitely a higher probability I’ll end up reading the article.

I also read the occasional political op-ed and more pressing national news, but not as often. I hope to get to the point where I’ll find the International pages interesting, but as of now I just flip through them. If I understood more of the background of the problems in Greece and Egypt and every other country that makes big headlines, I would problem connect more to the articles. Jumping straight into it makes things like that a little hard to follow.