The blog I have chosen is called Enviroblog and can be found at http://www.enviroblog.org. In a small description about itself, the blog describes its aims as an attempt to encourage a "smart" discussion about the intersection between the environment and public health. More specifically, it mostly discusses possible toxins in our food, clothes, etc. Because it does focus so heavily on toxins, rather than on health in general, however, the blog promotes an atmosphere of fear and danger in which so many of the objects around us may be hazardous. I feel that this makes it an appropriate blog for discussion in our class.
(Now, for the respondents--here are the prompts you can choose to comment on after you visit the blog and read some entries, etc.)
1. Analyze the interface of the featured blog. Focusing on visual elements on the home page, make an argument in your comment on the class blog about what the interface implicitly suggests about the blog's central theme(s), values, or identity (see Writing Analytically on how to make the implicit explicit). Make an inference that could be a topic for class discussion and debate.
2. Look for an argument or disagreement occurring in the comments on a particular post on the featured blog. In your comment on the class blog, analyze the key issues and points of contention in the comments. Based on your observations, develop a theory about what blog’s readers value as a community. Use the following questions to get you started:
• What issues or ideas do people seem to agree upon despite the larger disagreement?
• Do people on the blog think some comments are rude or inappropriate, and if so why do you think this is?
• What rhetorical strategies do commenters use to construct their arguments?
• How do commenters reference other comments, and what does that suggest about the nature of interaction within the community?
3. Look for an argument or disagreement occurring in the comments on a particular post on the featured blog. Respond to that argument with a comment of your own on the featured blog. Explain your comment on our class blog and ask our class how they might respond. If you receive a response to your comment on the blog we're analyzing, post an update about how readers responded to your presence or ideas.
4. Look through several posts for any claims about a writer's or several writers' ethos on the featured blog. In your comment, develop an analytical theory about how ethos is working on the blog. Here are some questions to get you started:
• How do writer(s) invoke their education, status, experiences, beliefs, or identity? Do these methods ever backfire (do readers ever respond negatively to a writer's identity, education, etc.?)
• If there are multiple writers contributing to the blog, do you see any similarities or differences in appeals to ethos across posts? What assumptions can you make about the community based on what appeals to ethos bloggers seem to rely upon most? (For example, is education seen as particularly important? Political beliefs? Gender? Anything else?)
5. Look through several posts for any direct references or appeals to the audience on the featured blog (you might look for the use of the pronoun "you"/"we" or for more subtle techniques, such as posing a question to the audience or inviting the audience to respond). Write a comment on our class blog that states your theory about what those appeals to the audience suggest about who the writer believes the audience is, what they believe the audience values, or what the relationship between the writer/audience seems to be (for example, does the writer ask for the audience's opinion or position herself as an authority, or something else entirely?).
6. Look for one instance or several instances in which an author of a post makes a claim or introduces a new idea on the featured blog. In your comment on the class blog, write an interesting analysis of the rhetorical techniques the author uses to make this argument. You might consider the following questions:
• Are any of the ideas particularly controversial, and if so, how does the author attempt to persuade the audience or account for the controversy in advance?
• Look for whether readers generally agree or disagree. Formulate a theory about what the trends you notice suggest about the nature of the community, their values, the purpose of the blog, etc.
• Does the author cite any evidence or an authority on the subject, and if so, who or what is considered persuasive? Do the readers agree? What kind of knowledge does the community seem to value or disagree upon?
• Does the author introduce a new idea by referencing or attempting to improve upon someone else's idea? What might we learn as writer's about how arguments can be built off of or proceed from other arguments? (What's effective and what's not effective?)
7. Read through several posts and comments and formulate a claim about whether or not you think the featured blog actually does anything. In other words, does the blog seem to have any effect on people's knowledge, values, ideas, etc? Provide evidence for your claim in your comment on the class blog.
It is clear that this blog plays to our fears of whether products are safe for us or not. It implies that there should be more regulations on products or things where there is a risk of chemical/toxic exposure to substances. Because it is so pro-regulatory and seems to dismiss Republicans, as it did with the Governor of Maine once, it can be assumed this is a left-wing blog. From this it can be further inferred that this blog is trying to make Republicans seem scary by saying they do not care about the health or safety of small children. I feel this shows how the media can use fear to persuade people to hold certain political beliefs in that sense.
ReplyDeleteThe Enviroblog difiantly effects people's values and beliefs on what our government believes to be safe and not safe on products or substances with a risk of chemical or toxic exposure. In the "Hold Applause" blog, one person posts a comment that they are shocked or disappoves that our government does not take action or fulfills their promises to keep their people safe from these toxins.
ReplyDelete#7
ReplyDeleteI think that this particular blog helps to inform people of products and other things that contain possible harmful chemicals and toxins. After reading many of the comments on several different blogs I think some people take this blog too seriously. I believe that some readers think that the blog is word for word true and they do little or no other research on the particular subject that they just read about. I think the blog as a whole helps us to get some background information on things that could potentially be dangerous for us. With that being said, I think the readers should do further research on the particular blog that caught their attention before making an opinion on the matter.
#1
ReplyDeleteThe interface of Enviroblog implicitly says a couple things. When I scrolled down, I noticed pictures of two awards that Enviroblog had received. One is for "Top Blog Award" and the other is for "Top 100 Blogs". By having these on the front page, I think Enviroblog is implicitly saying they are top bloggers and that they are trustworthy. There is also ads with kids on them promoting "Kid-Safe Chemicals". With this ad Eviroblog could be implicitly saying the toxins are harming our children and that this blog is helping protect the children. This blog's interface has a lot of underlying meanings. The main theme is being environmental and exposing toxins. However, is this blog only promoting saving the earth or are there hidden intentions? Could this blog be trying to persuade different political spectrums?
#7. This is a very good site for holding political, public and private organizations accountable. The comments on the blog though are the real interesting piece for me. Some of them clearly beleive that by reading this blog they know all they need to know and don't need to do more research. others seem to be people who are doing what the author wants and getting upset about issues that if looked at fully should be upsetting because they show lapses in our safety sometimes from the people who are there to supposedly protect us. However there is also a third group who clearly are doing more research and are probably more interested in this subject than the others. From what I have seen of the diverse responses to the blogs it is clear to me that this blog really does impact the views and beliefs of many of those who read it while also challenging them to help keep companies, governments and individuals honest on the environment and our safety.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis blog does not really do anything. The information it displays is relatively old in terms of blogging material for a modern generation. These politicians were caught obviously by wikileaks and now are unable to be crooked inside the government. Yes, other things to this extent may go on, but much of what the government does is unbeknownst to the American public anyways. Although this does shine light onto some of what a couple officials did when there is a conflict of interests, but it is over with; not a big deal. And another thing: why would China officials look the other way to allow a toxic chemical that has been banned for 20 years into their country? No wonder those idiots got caught.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete#7 After reading several posts and comments, it seems as though the blog is sometimes able to accomplish its goal: To bring to light potential harmful toxins and environmental events that could have a negative impact on our everyday lives. While the blog is certainly one sided and doesn’t share any of the positive regulations that our government is implementing, it does inform readers of important information that can protect their health. Many of the posted comments include people who were unaware of the harmful effects of certain toxins and environmental situations. However, for those that have previous knowledge of the situations, the blog serves as a place where readers can continue to display their displeasure with the United States Government and the lack of awareness for public safety. There are also a few readers with previous knowledge that disagree with the certain articles and attempt to disprove suggested findings. The article, Borax: Not the green alternative it’s cracked up to be, displays several different types of responses. This article is able to persuade some readers to change their ways and eliminate borax from their home but many readers disagree with the article’s findings and disregard most of the information.
ReplyDelete#7
ReplyDeleteWhile reading through the articles and comments, this blog accomplishes the fear element portrayed in the media well. The government is barely doing anything to eliminate the use of these toxic chemicals bought on a daily basis nationwide. In the article titled "Chromium-6 in Gas Drilling Wastes?" cancer is brought up to heighten the fear that because Americans are consuming these toxic products, everyone is at risk. One comment I found particularly interesting was commented on the article "Hold the Applause". Since the government is not taking influential actions to eliminating toxic chemicals, every consumer needs to be more aware of the ingredients in the products in which they're buying simply by reading the label. An action step is generated to petition this issue on a voting ballot to make sure that the U.S. government eliminates the use of these harmful chemicals. My idea as a reader is how about the government uses a little bit of all the taxes Americans pay to eliminate the usage of these chemicals in the consumer market to increase public safety. Therefore this article does have an effect on the reader; it raises awareness, enlightens a new knowledge, and even includes an action step which every adult can participate in.
#1
ReplyDeleteThe blog's interface is very plain with the exception of the header of the page. This colorful banner shows red and green colored fruit that appears to be apples. The apples are blurry and as the reader moves toward the left side of the page the apples become 1s and 0s. The numbers give the impression that it is a computer code. The implicit meaning of this is that today's foods are technologically modified. The central theme of the blog is the environment and how today's products negatively affect the environment. Is the blog therefore implying that genetically modified foods are hurting the environment?
#7
ReplyDeleteI believe the blog successfully achieves its intended purpose. The blog gives specific details of times and events that would persuade the reader into believing its accountability. The blog first grabs the readers attention by opening with a story about possible threats to children in America. By addressing the dangers to America's children, the blog draws at parents fears. The blog further attacks at the individuals fear by going into detail about the threat of dangerous chemicals and even toxins in our drinking water. The article titles and content are both striking at fear throughout the blog. This blog would very well have an effect on an individuals knowledge and values. By using the fear appeal the blog may even prompt the reader to take a stronger stance on the restrictions and issues talked about throughout the blog.
#5. In a February 24th post about a congressman's response to a scientific investigation, the author ends the article with "Whatever you do, don't sit back, relax, and assume the government is keeping your products safe." To me this quote and the content of the post suggest a few things about who the author thinks the audience is. The author seems to target people that are scientifically minded, or at least think they understand the science in the posts. This quote also suggests the author is targeting people who have a general distrust of the government and don't think politicians are qualified to make decisions on what chemicals are safe.
ReplyDeleteThe relationship the author seems to think he has with his readers is one of him shepherding his readers through our dangerous and ignorant modern society. He believes he is clueing his readers into secret information that most do not know or are not willing to accept. The writer leaves little discussion up to the readers, (there are almost no comments on any recent posts) and most of the questions the author poses are just rhetorical ones to back up his own statements.
After reading the Borax article's comments, I noticed that there was a disagreement with the author and other bloggers. It seems that the author pulled her information from another website and then blogged that this chemical, Borax, was not safe to use around the house. She listed certain short and long term side effects and further discussed that it should be avoided. A commenter read the article and pointed out key points that if used correctly and with the recommended amounts it would not cause such dramatic side effects. The side effects the blogger was referring to would only arise if a person was ingesting this said chemical. It seems that she was only trying to scare the readers to not use the chemical instead of asking them to research it on their own, yet a commenter did his homework and actually read/ disproved what the blogger said.
ReplyDeleteA first glance at this blog's interface, you might think the visuals are plain and give no insight to the blog itself, but a closer look may give a different answer. Each article of the blog has a picture at the top as the prominent attention grabber. The interesting part is that these pictures are images of common items that we would come in contact with daily. In articles such as "Borax", "EWG testifies on behalf of clean drinking water" and "Fluoride in your water", these pictures have very little to do with the actual content of the article. These common, day-to-day images actually provoke a response that these issues are much closer to home than one may think, which leads to a sense of urgency, concern and fear. Also, the blog has a large focus on children and children's products via pictures and content in the articles and advertisements on the side bar. Because a child's safety in general is a large concern for the population, this site uses that to again create that source of urgency and fear. Perhaps one of the goals of this blog is to say "Help us protect the environment, if not for yourself, at least for your children."
ReplyDelete#7
ReplyDeleteAfter reading several posts posted on the blog, I come into conclusion that the featured blog could give various impacts on the readers either in positive ways or in negative ways. Firstly, we can see that the blog try to create the sense of awareness among the readers. For example, when I first read about the BPA’s post, I can feel that the blog try to create a sense of awareness among people itself. As a consumer, we should be more extra cautious when things like these happen and we should ask ourselves more often, whether we are aware or not about things like this? So, I think, this blog provides a medium for us to increase our knowledge about things that are happening around us. Moreover, what I can see from this blog is that, the sense of awareness that they try to raise among readers could create feeling of fear among the readers in indirect way. Sometimes, when we are too cautious and alert of things that occur around us could lead us to fear of those things. But, the blog has their own way to suppress those fears among readers by suggesting several methods and solutions that readers could take. And these could be seen through their posts about the BPA and Dr. Oz Talks Toxics in Our Drinking Water. Lastly, I personally think, this blog for sure could have many impacts on readers through their every post.
#6 During my blog search, I suddenly stumbled over a blog which caught my attention entitled, "Eating the Rainforest". Eating Trees?? The author begins his or her blog by stating that a key figure of Brazil was qouted saying that the Amazon Rainforest should be cut down to provide more farmland. Growing up, I can recall several instances over the debate of the destruction of the Amazon; however, none of which I can remember involved agriculture in mind. Obviously, the author's view is against this proposal. Instead, he or she suggests an advancement of technology in both forestry and agriculture as an alternative. To conclude, the author includes the following possible fears that can arise from the devastation: threat to biodiversity, acceleration to global warming, and the depletion of the oxygen supply. Implicitly I gather the author asking a controversial question taking into considerstion the fact that Brazil is one of the world's main food producers. First, what is more important to human welfare, a neccesity like food or preserving the well being of the world for future generations?
ReplyDeleteI feel like this blog is informing us from the dangers that the environment have. Environment is being impacted in negative ways. The hold the applause article really caught my eye and is a interesting topic. In the begining they want to get rid of the harmful chemical to be able to protect the environment and public. There were several harmful chemicals on the hit list. But, then some of the people want to still try to sell and forgot that they are harmful chemicals. Even though this is a environmental blog in the middle of this article for some reason the author feels like money/ trying to still make money off the chemicals trumps being healthy. Overall the enironment is danger all the time.
ReplyDelete4.) Throughout the entirety of “The Envioroblog,” or any other informational blog, ethos is a large component, adding validity to the information for the average user. Right off the bat, we see that the blog aims to provide: “Smart discussion of the latest science and news on toxins in your food, water, and air, and what government agencies should be doing to protect public health.” The blog clearly aims to lure in the intellectual crowd, choosing words like “smart discussion,” “toxins in your [resources],” and “protect public health.” The intellectual connotation of these words boost the site’s ethos and make it appear as though a reasonably credible individual composed the short. At the bottom of the text, a link is provided, leading to information about the site’s editorial staff. Here, we can observe how “qualified” the writers are for relaying information based on the environmentalist literature they have composed, intellectual activities they have taken part in, and other proud passions they feel inclined to release to the public. The third editor, Olga Naidenko humored me slightly at her blatant attempt to gain respect from the reader, stating casually that she acquired here PhD in immunology simply because she could not breed rabbits effectively. Obviously it is a joke, but comes across to me as being rather pretentious. I would much rather hear about the real purpose for her choice in field concentration. The paragraph continues on to state that she is “perfecting the fifth language she is fluent in- German,” making me cringe further. In addition, a hyphen was used where a dash should have been in the sentence. A small mistake, but coming from the editor’s own page, I would have expected more. Needless to say, the blog delivers an intellectual impression at first glance but is riddled with a few backfires, diminishing its integrity, at least for myself.
ReplyDelete2.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading through the blog and the comments on the blog, I realized the impact a small blog could possess. The blog is able to spark out such diversified opinions on the topic. Obviously there is the group of people who blindly follow and believe the blog, immediately stopping of the use of the products while the other group is outraged by the naivety of the other group. Reading comments such as the one by Maybelline "because of the baby, Thank you for sharing this" really helps to bring out the innocent and naivety some of the commentators obviously possess. While other comments use sarcasm, exaggeration, and personification to create an argument such as commentator Pete who uses phrases such as "HIGH doses are very HIGH" and " what do you suggest with insect infestations do, get an aardvark?", such uses of words really not only disparages the naive people but makes their argument sound much more convincing. These comments really characterize the interactions of the community in which those with similar ideas are closely bonded together while those with differing ideas have lots of conflicts and trash talk.
#1
ReplyDeleteOne of the first things I noticed on the blog was the amount of advertisements by other popular websites such as facebook, youtube, and twitter. People who visit the site may make the connection that this is a popular blog because these websites put their names on it. There are also many awards posted on the website to make readers think that this is a reputable website. There is an extensive amount of articles which would make a reader believe that there is a broad range of topics and that they will be able to find an article pertaining to what they are looking for.
Enviroblog is like any other site that tries to make people to something they want. They want to get the word out about human health with these toxins infiltrating our food and clothes. They know that by talking about toxins harmful to human health that it will spark fear. By doing this they gain the interest in the readers reading it. I feel this fear factor is the only reason that I would find these toxins relevance to my own life. Yes I feel it is important to know about what harmful things can happen to us. But I feel we've been living with fears of infectious diseases, threats of terrorist attacks, and fears of natural disasters that these toxic materials should only be a small thing. So overall yes I do think the blog is sending out a good message. But it really should have little relevance of fear to us with everything else that is going on in the world. Plus I always say life is short, so why live in fear.
ReplyDeleteThe blog implicitly implies many things at first glance you see many links to articles or blogs written with creditable sources. This initial thought is backed up when you see them proudly displaying awards and honors of there blog. The awards are things as such as "top blog" and "top 100" with someone else. They imply they are involved all over the internet with links to major sites and offers to donate to cause and or there cause. They have well renowned people with articles on there blog for instance one by Dr.Oz. This blog uses there home page to imply understanding and the idea that you can trust the site and what they say. The main theme of there blog being environmental concerns and deadly toxins in our water and different items we use everyday. The blog is clearly using fear of our everyday items to support and help profit there cause. That might imply a agenda to support on political side.
ReplyDelete