Skip to main content

Blog Post #6: OFCARL Scholarly Article

Works Cited

Edward C. Pease (2003)

The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage
Opinions adequately supported?
The opinions in this article are adequately supported. The author attributes ideas to Brian Patrick, who researches the “media of the National Rifle Association.” The author cites direct quotations from Patrick throughout the course of the article and even mentions Patrick’s novel regarding the topic of the NRA thriving amongst the bad press.
Are the facts verifiable?
This article is a review of the novel “The National Rifle Association and the Media: The Motivating Force of Negative Coverage by Brian Anse Patrick”. That being said, there are no facts presented by the author to be verified, rather the author restates claims from the novel and either agrees or disagrees.



Is the material outdated?
The topic of the NRA and its power in the United States is still relevant today. Though for this type of novel-review article, relevance does not play a role. Therefore, the article’s publishing in 2003 does not affect the author’s opinions about the novel being reviewed.

Author credibility?
The author, Edward C. Pease, formerly a newspaper journalist, is now a Professor and is the Head of the Department of Communication at Utah State University. These satisfy the required credentials for this type of writing, which anyone can partake in. Reviewing a novel is not exclusive to those with extraordinary educations or histories, therefore Pease is credible enough for this paper.
Sources Cited?
As stated previously, the only source to be cited is the author of the novel which the review article is being written about. Pease does cite the author and the name of the novel in the article, therefore citing all necessary sources.
Logical Reasoning? Fallacy?

There appears to be no logical reasoning or fallacy in this article, as it mainly quotes and responds to text from Patrick’s novel on the effects of media on the NRA.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Blog Post #5: "Shake Me Down" - Cage the Elephant

In the song “Shake Me Down”, by Cage the Elephant, there are many themes and ideas to be explored. Spoiler Alert!!! The music video ends with the lead actor dead, his wife shaking his body in bed, fruitlessly attempting to wake him up. From this, we know that all the metaphors preceding his death will somehow relate to his death. The scene begins with the actor waking up in monotoned, grey-colored bedroom, which metaphorically represents his dissatisfaction with the life he was living. He is seen tying his sneakers and suiting up for a jog outside, glancing over at picture frames of what seem like family, specifically deceased family. This moment occurs as the singer says the line, “Not a lot of people left around.” Later, the main character finds an old fort and reminisces on childhood memories through flashbacks. He sees a young girl who seems to be his daughter and holds her with a longing gaze. The daughter could represent someone he is leaving behind after he dies or someone he...
Post a Comment
Read more

Blog Post #9: Consider the Lobster

I first read this article during my Junior year of High School in my AP English Language and Composition class. I remember discussing the ethics and morals of boiling a lobster and how disgusted I felt after leaving class that day. To this day, I have not eaten lobster. Why? Because of Mr. Wallace and his existential crisis of an article. Re-reading this paper today was certainly different from reading it two years ago. Back then, I was ready to be upset about anything and everything. Thus, I wrote off lobster from my life. Now, I relate more to Wallace’s ending statements, in which he writes that he has “an obvious selfish interest…since I like to eat certain animals and want to be able to keep doing it.” This statement reflects the Maine Lobster Festival as a whole. On the surface, it is a fun festival in which one eats plenty of freshly cooked lobster. Digging deeper, we find that this festival is a place where lobsters are inhumanely boiled alive by the hundreds. It wasn’t unt...
Post a Comment
Read more

Blog Post #7: Debunking

Debunking the Junk Recently, President Trump has added Amazon to his long list of foes. In a Tweet, he stated: “ Only fools, or worse, are saying that our money losing Post Office makes money with Amazon. THEY LOSE A FORTUNE, and this will be changed. Also, our fully tax paying retailers are closing stores all over the country...not a level playing field!” An uneducated, uninformed child, such as I, may glance at this Tweet and believe that Amazon is causing the loss of jobs and money for the United States Postal Service. This statement seems like a legitimate accusation on a powerful company that has monopolized and revolutionized online retail. Being the largest provider of online orders requires a partnership with a delivery system, thus: the USPS. While it may seem realistic for one company to cause the loss of money for another, this particular case proves to be false. Yes, the USPS may have had a “net loss of $2.7 billion for 2017,” but their “package delivery, howe...
Post a Comment
Read more