Wednesday, November 10, 2010
Week 11.2
Today we read and discussed the Ted Koppel essay. After looking through the essay again, what things does he do well? What techniques can you use from his essay to apply to your writing? Look at things like organization, format, purpose, language, style, rhetorical appeals, etc. I want to see at least three aspects in your response. Also, for every aspect, make sure to give me an example from the text. I want to see page numbers and quoting.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Looking back at the essay made me realize that I don't like the way Koppel formatted his writing. The dialogue that was added in the middle was very distracting and caused unnecessary line usage. Due to the fact that he is from the news and wrote for a popular newspaper adds to his ethos. People will believe what he has to say and take him more seriously--even though he used sarcastic and informal tone. For example, Koppel's first sentence says, "The Patriot Act--brilliant!" (Koppel 472). He also says "Whoops" later on in the essay (Koppel 476).
ReplyDeleteWhen looking back through Ted Koppel’s essay I found that I was not a fan of how he formatted his writing. On page 473 Koppel uses a commercial for an example and completely changes the format of the paper. I think Ted had a lot of good examples in his essay to back up his thoughts. He also did a good job in explain each of his examples so the reader knows exactly what he is talking about. For example, Ted says, “And how about all the information collected by popular devices like TiVo, the digital video recorder that enables you to watch and stone an entire season’s worth of favorite programs at your own convenience?”(Koppel 475), this is a good example of him explaining exactly what he is talking about. When the title, “Take My Privacy, Please!” is read you know right away the tone of the essay, sarcastic. This is a good title and it makes the reader more interested in reading the essay. Koppel does a good job of keeping the tone throughout the entire paper.
ReplyDeleteTed Koppel, in his essay,"Take My Privacy, Please!", supports his claims well,while making a convincing argument for public discovery of whom,and where the publics private information is being used, and accessed by. The language is simple. His informal use of fragments, for effect, and catch-phrases that stop and make you think, could be an effective tool in my own essays, by making them easier to read, since I tend to use lenghty sentences. For instance, he said,"He who names it and frames it, claims it" (Koppel 472). Being short and to the point is easier on the reader, while getting them to think. It does not exhaust them. His conversational style could be of good use too. For instance, when he said, "But then who, even after 9/11 would have voted for that?"(Koppel 472). It gets the reader involved. His organizational techniques could also be effective in my own esssays. Such, as when he began two consecutive paragraphs with, "No such legislation exists..," and,"Both the House and Senate..,"(Koppel 476). This kind of organization would certainly make my essays much easier to read and follow, as well as making them easier to write. Even though Ted Koppel's essay was sarcastic, which may have cost him some of his readers, it was a convincing argument.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading Ted Koppel’s essay I decided that I did not like the way that he wrote the essay. In his essay he wrote in a very conversational tone because he was writing this for a newspaper article, you see this being used when he asks questions like, “But then who, even right after 9/11, would have voted for that?”(Koppel 472), then follows that by answering his question starting with “Precisely” (Koppel 472). This shows that he is thinking about things that his readers would be thinking while reading this essay and answering their questions in a conversational tone. I did not like the way that Koppel on page 473 used dialogue from a real OnStar commercial I felt that it took a way from what the paper was really about, it was distracting for the reader. Also in his essay it was weird that he did not introduce the sources that he was using when he was quoting other people in his examples, “safety, security and peace of mind for drivers and passengers with thoughtful wireless services that are always there, always ready” (473). This quote that he uses, was not introduced so the reader does not know where Koppel got it from, and if it was a reliable source.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back at, I realized I do not like the way Ted Koppel wrote this essay. He has a very sarcastic tone which throws you off as you read this story. On page 472 he asks the question "But then who, even after 9/11, would have voted for that?", he then answers the question with the next paragraph that starts with the word "Precisely". This is a question most people would ask and he answers in a sarcastic yet conersational way. I also don't like how on page 473 he throws in the script to a commercial. It changes the tone and style of the whole essay and I find it hard to read. Yet, I do like how he uses examples that are easy to understand and that most people know what they are. He talks about Onstar on page 473 and TiVo on page 475, these are electronics that you see everywhere.
ReplyDeleteThere are both aspects that I liked and didn't like from Ted Koppel's essay "Tamke my Privacy Please". I really liked how Koppel started off his essay by grabbing your attention right away. "The patriotic act- brilliant!"(472) With this, you know what he will be talking about and its good that he relates his topic to something that happened earlier in history. But after you got through the introduction, the structure of the rest of the essay was not very strong. On page 473, Koppel adds in a comercial that is typed up on the page. I do not really liked how he did that. He could have just described the commercial, but he instead took the time to waste space on the page. I think that the segment of commercial was not necessary to add to the essay. Also, Koppel jumps around to different topics to explain his point, but none of them are really related and don't get the proper transition sentences to the next example. It would have been strong to have a few examples that had gone into a lot more detail. So overall, this essay did have both strong and weak points.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back at the essay I found that I didn't like the way in which Ted Koppel wrote his essay. In his essay he wrote very sarcastically which made it weird to read. For instance on page 472 he asked " But then who, even after 9/11, would have voted for that?" He than goes on to answer his own question in the next paragraph by saying precisely which was pretty much like saying exactly to his question. I feel like a lot of people would ask this question and he answers it so sarcastically that I feel like he wasn't taking it seriously. On page 473 he talks about a commercial. This changes the way in which the essay was going. There was one thing that I liked though and that as how he made everything really easy to understand. If you didn't know something it was usually explained. Like on page 475 when he talked about TiVo. This really connected me to the essay because we have used TiVo and so I know about it.
ReplyDeleteTed Koppel wrote his essay well. He made sure the organization fit fairly well throughout the essay and made sure his point were clarified. I can use the fact that he used background information to support both sides in my essay. His organization of the essay was good. He made sure that each point was clearly stated and supported but evidence and quotes. His purpose was well stated and his appeals were good. He stated in the essay that, “As sociologist Janet Poppendieck made clear in her book Sweet Chariot, there is something in the food-banking culture and its relationship with donors that dampens the desire to empower the poor and take a more muscular, public stand against hunger.”(489) When he states this, he uses ethos to make a point. He also uses a language that makes people want to believe his point. He says, “We did out job well, and everything grew”(490). This relates it to the readers and makes his point very clear.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking back at Ted Koppel's essay, I thought he used many great examples to support the point he was trying to get across. The biggest example he used was the Onstar commercial on page 473. The only problem with the written out commercial was that it kind of slowed down the essay. The author also organizes his essay very well. His transitions are nice and smooth. On page 474 Koppel transitions from talking about Onstar to E-ZPass. It makes sense to put one after the other because they both are used in a car. I think the author's purpose was to explain that some electronic devices, although may be usefuly, may invade your privacy. On page 474, in the last paragraph, made me feel that he knows that technology is useful, but the language he uses suggests he believes it takes advantage of the customer. Techniques I could use from this essay for my future essays would be to use a lot of examples to help argue a point I'm trying to get across.
ReplyDeleteLooking at the essay made me realize that I did not like the way that Koppel organized his writing. When he added the dialogue in the middle it was very distracting. The fact that he is from the news and wrote for a popular newspaper adds to his ethos. People will believe what he has to say and take him more seriously, even though he uses a sarcastic tone. For example, "The Patriot Act--brilliant!" (Koppel 472). He also says "Whoops" later on in the essay (Koppel 476).
ReplyDeleteTed Koppel does an excellent job of highlighting how people’s privacy is invaded in everyday life. I would like to use his use of examples to make a point when writing my own informative essay, I think he does it well. I am not, however, a fan of his format, I found it difficult to follow and unnecessarily confusing. He also used rhetorical appeals and language quite well.
ReplyDeleteTed Koppel had some strong points in his essay, which was what he probably did best on. He brought up many examples of when people’s privacy is taken away, which I think is very important to make the essay strong. I think one technique I could use from this essay is critical thinking. “I wouldn’t want to think that anyone but Dwight knows where I am whenever I’m traveling in my car.” (474) This adds some comic relief but also makes readers think.
ReplyDeleteTed Koppel has a sarcastic tone in his writing. I think that it helps make his point because it makes people think about how ridiculous technology has become. "There is no end to what we willl endure, support, pay for and promote if only it makes our lives easier..." (472). This just states how we would go to such extremes and go through such struggles just as long as we benefit from it in the end. The title alone is sarcastic, "Take my Privacy, Please!" He sets the tone of being ironic and it lets the reader know that he's not being harsh or bitter, but he's trying to put an important point accross.
ReplyDeleteAnother thing that Koppel does well is the sentence structures that he uses in his essay also help with his tone. Every now and then he uses short abrupt transitions in the begining of paragraphs to emphasize his thoughts such as "brilliant!" "Precisely" (472) "Useful? Sure." (474). It gives a moment for the reader to think.
Koppel uses dialouge in his essay also. The dialouge isn't very useful, but it gives people something to think about and they can relate to the commercial if they've seen it.