5 Years Later (My Texts)

If anyone's interested:

ABC News: Katrina: Five Years Later

NBC Dateline with Bryan Williams (6 parts)

Public Memory, critical frame?

The past week or so, having jumped back into this paper, I've been having some issues organizing my thoughts. I have so many ideas and issues running around in my head, that all that comes out is blubber. My office mates can attest that I've been acting strangely, standing on desks and creating crazy post-it collages in an attempt to get some of the basic themes out of my head. They may worry for my sanity (of course, it's November and sanity is relative here, at this time, it seems), but to some extent it's been helpful. Of course, much this probably should have simply been posted here so I have some help untangling my thoughts. But now, to move onto the part I really enjoy and see as a driving force of my paper, Public Memory. After the jump, I pull out some of the concepts about Public Memory and apply them to this situation. This is not a literature review, but I see integrating that into this structure a possibility. I've left in many of my questions (sorry for the distracting parenthetical), perhaps you, my lovely readers, can help me answer them.

UPDATE: WED MORNING, This rough couple of pages is missing an introduction, the first section (rhet and pm), and all semblance of citations. I also trail off towards the end, but this is as far as it's getting today. I shall update soon. Forgive me if this causes any confusion. Still willing to hear comments on my *cough* working draft. 

Take it back now ya'll

Last Sunday, I posted the historical context. This Sunday, I want to think about what came from that process. I'm not happy with my final results, but working through the assignment brought up some wonderful thoughts and questions for the final draft of this section. Thank everyone who has contributed feedback, which was also helpful in writing this post.

Historical Context

Introduction

A little over five years ago, Hurricanes Katrina and Rita devastated the gulf coast. When the flood waters left, they revealed lives lost, a city so damaged it still has not recovered, as well as a myriad of problems in the media and government. My interest is how much of that and what part of that the media has brought back for the fifth anniversary- narratives stitched together from the fragments created by journalists who experienced the devastation first hand. To reconstruct this context, we need to look at how journalism interacted with the disaster, how it continues to interact, and how that interaction contributes to collective memory.

And we proceed onward.

Just wanted to post a quick update. Thank you to everyone for your great suggestions! I've decided to look at the major news specials that aired just a few weeks past for the 5th anniversary of Hurricane Katrina.  I do realize I've broken my own guideline, but the lure of the visual was too strong to resist. I've found ABC's and possibly NBC's dateline, but I'm having trouble finding CNN's. Anyone have any ideas how to go about finding something that only aired on TV a few weeks ago?

I haven't jumped into my context yet, but after chatting with K, I have some great directions to go:
-Conventions of news memorials
-News media and their role in the Katrina memory. (This past week I've watched so many news clips of journalists who said screw objectivity and presented a very emotional connection to the disaster relief. There's no way that hasn't played a part in how we remember the disaster.)
-The Katrina phenomena, meaning how discourse surrounding disasters since Katrina have alluded to (or ignored) the events of 2005, especially in the news media. This disaster discourse, in turn, takes part in the construction of the 2010 memorials of Katrina.

If anyone has run across anything related to this in their readings, I would appreciate a heads up!
Have a wonderful day! -S

Shall we dance?

Ah, this post shall flow more easily. In terms of the semester paper, the issues I'm struggling with seem to be common ailments. My confused thoughts can be summed up with one question: how do you find something to write about?

I have a few thoughts that are slowly limiting my options:

• I want to do an actual text. Although I adore visual rhetoric, I want to deal with something more foundational for this time.
• Of course, memory or something with a memory component. I'm fascinated with museums and websites that deal with this sense of memory, but it's difficult to write about those without introducing a visual component. 
• Of course, with memory work you're often dealing with the past, but this project needs to have some importance in the present.

Currently, I'm mulling over dealing with Katrina, but I'm open to suggestions of all sorts. If you have an idea about a particular text I would love to know! I'll try to be dignified and not beg for comments, but help would be appreciated!

Thanks! -S

"A High-Tech Lynching for Uppity Blacks"

Hello Classmates,

I ran into difficulty during this deceptively "easy" assignment. Where do you draw the line between description and analysis? When it comes to a film scene, such as Ehrenhaus describes, I can see that distinction easily; but within a summary of the rhetorical nature of a speech, where does that difference come in? How do you know when you're steeping your description in analysis?

-S

------------------------------------------
Clarence Thomas

Statement Before the Senate Judiciary Committee

"A High-Tech Lynching for Uppity Blacks"

Full text and video at American Rhetoric

Senator Biden opens the hearing set to confirm Judge Clarence Thomas as Supreme Court Justice with an acknowledgment that Thomas has had a difficult day. With an invitation to speak before the official proceedings begin, Judge Thomas proceeds to frame the hearing as not only the end of a difficult day, but also an offensive exploitation of an innocent man. He begins by denying everything. Two of the longest words in the speech, "unequivocally" and "categorically" precede that denial, and phrases such as "each and every single," "ever," and "in any way ever" follow the denial. These words work to establish his innocence, but the redundancy serves to fashion a sense of ridiculousness. With every paragraph, where he spells out why the hearing is both offensive and exploitative, the hearing is labeled "a travesty," dealing with "sleaze" and "dirt."
His primary audience, the Senate Committee, is rarely addressed in formal terms. Within his denunciation of the hearing, he clearly calls out “this committee.” On the rare occasions he acknowledges an actor or creator of the “disgusting” hearing, he places blame on the committee rather than outside actors. By blaming his audience, he picks up the persona of a victim, a receiver of injustice. His tone is offended. His language is very clear and straight forward using short sentences, often starting with “I”. In doing so he shames his audience and elevates himself to an honorable person. This with his emotional appeals to other individuals with integrity and families, frame Thomas as a falsely accused and wronged individual and the hearing as completely ridiculous and unnecessary.

10 Across: Mock Fanfare (4-letters)

Let's make this short and sweet. Over the course of the semester, I hope to:

1. Foster an awareness of my writing, which will allow me to be more conscious in my style choices.
2. Experiment with several approaches to and ways to describe my text to evaluate my rhetorical style.
3. Open my posts to questions and criticisms of any sort. This I see as the primary goal of this blog, as feedback the feedback will inform my writing style and experimentation. I love feedback!
4. Use this blog as a motivational tool. In order to accomplish the first three goals, I shall need to work proactively at this project. No procrastination here!

Thank you ladies and gentlemen. I think it's going to be a great semester!