Looking Back

Through out this course I learned quite a few new things. I learned the technical terms of writing, that we have apparently been learning for while now. I learned that no matter what I will still hate the news, but I have understood the ways that the media circulates information as the story progresses. My writing habits have changed in a way that, I feel like I can think of different ways to spice up my papers thanks to Harris. I also learned how to find faults in people’s logic about literacy, which still kind of pisses me off that “old men” think we are illiterate because we are evolving. My new habits of writing have and will serve me well when it comes to being creative when I write essays or even just creatively. Now I know that there are other ways to explain things rather than pure regurgitation of what I’ve read.

New Story Everyday

Stories come in all sorts of headlines, particularly Jodi Arais’ case, some say she is innocent while other claim she is a “whore” and a “murderess with memory loss”. The killing happened so long ago it’s hard to even grasp the idea that in 2008 this woman was accused of stabbing, shooting, and slicing her fiancé or boyfriend all in one swift moment. Now, just four years and ten months later her story has resurfaced in a new light. Not only is she perceived as a killer, but now she is a killer with memory loss, or so they say. Well, we do believe in “innocence till proven guilty”. Many sources are having a hard time keeping up with Arias’ countless tales. With new updates of her trail, those who believe in her innocence are very few and adamant about it to. Although for those who want her sent away or even killed it is becoming a chore to keep up with the details of her case, and her unstable stories.  

Most main news sources are simply, as Harris would say, “forwarding” what they know. Sure, here and there they are inclined to discretely throw in their own two cents, but mostly it is simply sending out information to the mass so they are up to date. On the other hand blogs and personal sites tend to lean toward “countering” or even “taking an approach”.  Personally, the main news sources are nice to understand what is really going on. Although, I must admit the personal blogs and sites that talk about the case are quite entertaining; the voices would echo in a stadium.

In most news outlets a sense of personal bias is seen in the wording used to describe a quote or the motions that the prosecutor, Juan Martinez, and defendant, Jodi Arias, act out. While news sources like The Washington Post and Fox News Latino, attempt to maintain the integrity of the story by simply stating the facts, HLN and AZ Central add a bit more to the story with blunt characterizing words.  The first two news stories use latent words casually thrown in throughout the article like: “barked, moaned, cried, dryly, angered, methodically, jealous rage, hammering” to subtly evoke emotions from their readers about the case. Whereas HLN and AZ Central have no issue on takeing an approach by outwardly associating Arias with words like: “flustered, floundered, damage control, cracked, panics, zombie-like, ‘lies & cries’, hysterical, break down, raunchy sex, ashamed, frightened, duplicity,” to paint a picture of who Arias is, whether it is true or not. 

The news sources that use subtle emotion triggering words to explain to the reader what is going are often times known for the conservative role they take in providing news for the public. And the sources that weren’t afraid to take a blunt stance are known for the liberal and sometimes neutral stance they take. One news sources that was able to provide information without characterizing Arias or subtly evoking emotion about the case was ABC News. Throughout the article ABC keeps a formal and factual tone with no emotion evoking phrases or words.

As for blogs, I was quite surprised by the two extreme ends people took on how they felt about the case, as well as a neutral stance. While some provided analysis of the case word for word, others brought factual information to their followers, and some even rebutted the contents of why the trial is wrong.  Harris would say all these blogs are “taking an approach” to the case and full heartedly defending it, or simply “forwarding” what they know.

Blogs like “Call for Justice: Sometimes There Are Monsters Walking Among Us” on WordPress, was probably the most detailed and entertaining to read as well as on the extreme end of opinions. The blogger had an extreme disliking to Arias and often times even pointed out some of the minute things the prosecution didn’t mention. With italicized commentary the author allows his or her followers to be persuaded that Arias did kill Anderson, and she should be given the death penalty. Then there was David Lohr who writes for the Huffington Post. Lohr takes a more neutral stance and blogs daily live updates of the case. For the most part he is able to blog without any bias about the trail. Lastly there is the Jodi Arias innocence obsessed blog, in the form of a website that takes an extreme end on the case. This blog as well this is committed to daily updates of the trail and support of Arias. The blog not only justifies the belief of why Arias is innocent, but they also attack the prosecutor and why he is at fault.

As fascinating as it is to see all the different ways Arais’ trail is being presented in articles and blog spheres after four years, I think the evolving nature of how her case was present on CBS News 48-House is much more representative of how news in the digital realm circulates. 48 Hours a segment from CBS News managed to interview Arias and understand her side of what was happening. When the accusation were first made 48 Hours conducted an interview on Jodi Arias. This wasn’t presented as an article, but instead a 43-minute video. How they portrayed her four years ago is nothing like what they portray her as in the update video. The update does not characterize Arias as the innocent accused killer anymore, but instead makes viewers question ‘why the hell she has so many versions to her story’. 

The use of live footage and interviews creates a much deeper connection and reaction to what the viewer sees.  Arias seen in a live time lapse of four years on how she tells her story and how she acts in court, will create a much more non hesitant judgment from viewers rather than simply reading an article. Not to mention the commentator also takes on a much harsher tone of voice when narrating the update then in the first interview, which also causes viewers to unconsciously pick up on that.

Harris would note that the CBS News segment is taking three different aspects of digitally rewriting into motion at once in the update of Arias’ trail. First it can be said that CBS News is “taking an approach” to how they first presented the Arias case. Then they are “countering” what was first assumed to be the accurate story with the updated versions of the story. This also goes along with the fact that Arias herself is also continuously changed her mind on what happened. And lastly they are “forwarding” the information that they believe is relevant to what is happening now in the case. 

I was quick to notice when I picked this story to follow that there really wasn’t much prior articles written about the case when the murder first happened. Often times there are headline stories when such a brutal murder happens, but not in this case. The closest thing to a prior story is the CBS coverage. The first coverage noted is mostly blogs, which have from the beginning taken a stand on what they believe.

The only accurate update you can get from a story like this is to actually watch the trail its self, which most blogs and news websites provide. I personally haven’t gone back and watched all the trials or done my homework on that case, but as far as the news and blogs persuade me, I must admit I agree with a good portion of the news that thinks she is guilty. But what do I know; I’m simply gathering what is given to me. Maybe once the trail is over it will be easier to get a full understanding of what happened from the day the murder was committed on February 25, 2008 in Mesa, Arizona to when the jury gives a final verdict.

Like many news stories Arias’ story has managed to circulate from local news to national. News tends to come to us wherever we go and in all forms too. Whether it be a creepy obsession site, a short and simply blurb, or a collaborated video, we find out. Over time as new information builds the reports evolve as well. Sometimes the news takes a complete 180 and portrays the story in a completely different light then what it was at first, or nothing changes at all. Each news source will have some sort of underlying bias that is presented in subtle or not so subtly ways. Often times most sources cater to their audience and the beliefs they hold, so if some site are openly bias in the information they provide, it might have to do who they are writing for.

Caption Confusion

           What is an image without a caption, and a caption without its image? Often times we are so absorbed in images we forget the words if there are any. You see an image and think, “holy crap, they depicted that so wrong, that didn’t happen like that.” Wait, what about the words? Don’t the words have any role in how you think about a picture, especially in a news article? Morris states, “Often…there are captions below them, or they are embedded in explanatory text.” Coming across an article, on two different news sources, about Jodi Arias’ trial I was indifferent about one, but shocked at not just the way the picture was captured but also how the caption presented in the other.

New York Daily News gives us a typical photo that would be taken in court with the defendant on the stand and the prosecutor standing to the side asking a question. This is fair enough.  The article Jodi Arias, claiming ‘memory problems’ when under stress, hammered by prosecutors for apparent holes in story as testimony in gruesome 2008 homicide continues is paired with the photograph and a caption that reads, “Prosecutor Juan Martinez asks Jodi Arias a question about her diary during cross examination in the Maricopa County Superior Court in Phoenix. Arias is on trial for the killing of her boyfriend, Travis Alexander in 2008.” The prosecutor is pointing to Arias in accusation of being unable to remember events of the day the victim died. This evoked no emotion of anger or pity for me personally, but it did make me want to understand the full story.

Now on CBS New’s Crimesider section the article, Jodi Arias Trial: Woman charged in lover’s murder struggles to explain memory lapse, is paired with not only a hostile photo but a caption that confirms how you feel about the image. Prosecutor Martinez is no long just pointing at Arias in accusation. Instead he is closer to her and is holding up her diary with an angry look on his face while Arias looks like she’s just enduring the questions. Already a feeling of hostility is mustering in my mind when I look at this image, but the caption put a cherry on top of it all. Under the photo it states, “Prosecutor Juan Martinez seen interrogating defendant Jodi Aria during cross examination testimony in Maricopa County Superior Court, Thursday February 21, 2013.”

Both articles are close to being identical in the information they provide about Jodi Arias being unable to recall information; although, with the simple change of a word the each picture evokes a different emotion. In the CBS article, I felt bad for Arias, almost like I was watching her be attacked. But in the NY article I only saw a woman who was being asked a question that she was trying to answer.

Not to mention the fact that the words “interrogate” and “ask questions” also play a huge role in the way you view the image. Interrogate evokes the idea of already assuming the person is guilty and the prosecutor is just trying to prove that point. Whereas asking a question seems like a less harsher wording, and can be seen as a form of curiosity.

The image and caption both prepped my mindset when reading these two articles. Every time I looked back at each picture corresponding with the article I become more confused as to whether she is forgetting because he is being so hostile or if she is simply lying. An image has the ability to skew one’s understand of what they are reading and the caption only adds on emphasis.

NY Daily 

CBS News

Not So Fast

To a degree Morris is absolutely right. But I must disagree; who said that is the case for every photo you see. I mean seriously you cannot caption everything. There are photos that speak a thousand words, and then there are some that you need a thousand words to explain them. I feel like simply looking at a black and white photograph or a couple of articles, and making the definitive statement of “true” or “false” should not be the meaning of a photograph. If you are speaking in terms of articles or questioning photos then that is well and fine, but you cannot generalize every photo.

            In contrast I agree with Morris that if a caption is not available for some photographs, one can simply interoperate it as they please. The image below can be taken out of context, and when it occurred or where it occurred would be unidentifiable without background knowledge or a caption of what it happening.

*

The photo is an excavation to search for survivors after a Syrian army rocket attacked in Aleppo on Feb. 19 2013. Now without a caption one might think that people were gather to watch a building get tore down or something along those lines. Now for background information we find out that “the attack killed at least 20 people and another 25 were missing”. This bit of information adds sadness and a new image to the photograph that what was originally perceived. So in this case Morris is absolutely right, but then again this is not a photo that can be easily identified.

*http://news.yahoo.com/syrian-rocket-attack-aleppo-kills-20-activists-113957231.html

Shall We Approach

           The way I understand Harris’s explanation of taking an approach is a little more complex then just rewriting ideas. Instead I see it as, working with the style of others, not necessarily taking their style and writing, but instead using it to create your own writing. He states, “draw on and make use of not just a particular phrase or idea from a text but the intellectual style or sensibility of its writer” which I think is the best way to explain it.

I think between the New York Times and blogs I see taking an approach when it comes to opinion articles or even articles that are bouncing off of some thing that has been previously written. In the New York Times most of the articles take the structure and style, but create their own story out of the original idea of the story. In the blogs I think the way they are written is more of an approach to the idea and hinting at the idea.
           I think the one thing that would be lost is the originality of the first piece; I mean nothing can really be the same. There are some things that might be missed. I think a new perspective or approach is definitely gained. Each person looks at things differently and when you take someone's style and idea and morph them into your own, you end up giving input that may show the information in a new light. I guess in taking an approach nothing would really be altered because you are trying to keep it all the same. I would hope the stance or the style at least stays the same considering you are only taking an approach, unlike countering.