COMMENTARY FOR LILY

Your overall policy is to develop something called media literacy which involves educating young people. In your other essay, the first paragraph, you do talk about the problem and that it can be solved. However, I might would take out the parts about the counterargument or state it a different way. Someone might actually think it is impossible to do since you yourself think there are holes in it. Maybe you can talk about it being a class kids can take in school? The first amendment is a barrier so maybe you could say that media literacy wouldn’t go against it to elaborate a little more? In the second paragraph where you say “possibly” and then continue talking about other classes, I think would benefit from a transition. At the end of that paragraph I thought you did a really good job at transitioning to the next paragraph though! 

Typically, the media would not care who watches. I think they also believe that their audience does not include children. I never watched the news when I was younger. The paragraph at the end of page two that goes into page three might need a little more elaboration. The last few sentences also do not make much sense. You could benefit from rereading this paragraph and trying to explain and reword the information a little better. 

I think a skeptic would doubt the policy because of the way you say it has holes. I agree that teaching awareness is hard to do and hard to force on to people, but maybe you could say that that does not matter. We should at least try to get children to be aware so maybe you could put those thoughts in. A skeptic could point out that negative consequences could be how much it would cost to get the public to have this knowledge or the amount of time. The way you would gain this information about the media is to start children off at a young age which would make people think: well what about the generation that is already grown up? They might would also bring up the fact that the violence from the stories could end up on the internet. That being said, I do not think that a counterproposal is available. Media violence is obviously going to be around so just teaching people to be more aware is probably the only way to solve the problem.

COMMENTARY THREE FOR LILY

I thought that you bring up some good points for increasing censorship in the media and the evidence is well thought out. I feel that you could make your thesis more specific to the paragraphs that follow. I think it should include: something about the families to tell about the first paragraph, something about pictures remaining in history for the second paragraph, and something about the type of audience which includes children in the next paragraph. Your thesis only states that media publishings only do more harm than good so I believe you can definitely benefit from making it more elaborate. This would bring the paper together and make it flow better. All your criteria would then fit with the thesis. 

In one part of your essay I would suggest to avoid using the second person. I know it seems like a good idea to use the second person, but maybe it was just really ingrained in my brain not to use the second person. Maybe you could ask the teacher if it would or would not be appropriate. I actually like how you use “you.” It makes me really think of how I would feel if a loved one of mine had died and was all over the news. I think you could also benefit from saying what kinds of photos of loved ones are shown because if it was a nice picture, maybe taken during school, I wouldn’t have the same reaction as that of a picture where they may have been tortured or of them in their moment of death. 

In the second paragraph I thought you would talk about grief because of the quote you used. However, I think you are relying on the principle of invasion of privacy so I think you should connect the two in way, if possible or even use a different quote or place it somewhere else. Your third paragraph gives a lot of detail and elaboration of the principle used although I think you could benefit from elaborating more on how the pictures dehumanize the people other than what ancestors will think of them. I like the way you compare it to pigs though! Your third criteria, that of the children, is a good principle I think you would benefit from say something like how it is immoral to corrupt the children of the future (obviously not that way because it sounds weird). I think many people would accept this view especially if they have their own children. Your counter argument seems to be well thought out and you are very fair to the other side. However, I might would raise the question of can the media really show both sides fairly during wartime? I mean if the United State was in fact doing something wrong I don’t think the government would allow that to be shown.

Vivisection

1. Since vivisection is practiced, what kind of experimentation will cross the line? When humans are experimented on?
2. Should one species suffer so that humans don't have to?
3. Do animals have souls?

Before reading the chapter, it's sad to say I didn't even know what vivisection was. I looked it up online. I wouldn't suggest doing so if one is squeamish because the Internet offers some graphic photographs. The author of Vivisection, C.S. Lewis, doesn't seem to have a particular stance on the subject of vivisection. However, the author brings up interesting views of it. He believes that advocates or non-advocates are typically on both sides without knowing it. One point he makes is that if vivisection is allowed, then when will we cross the line? He states it like this, "If a mere sentiment justifies cruelty, why stop at a sentiment for the whole human race" (227)? When we start experimenting on animals it is only a matter of time that experimentation on humans begins. It may even have been done already which Lewis brings up with the evidence of Nazi scientists.

Many times I think that the scientists performing the experimentation actually believe that the animal should be used for our benefit. I personally believe that it is wrong, but how else can we get the information we need and get from these experiments? I know the animals would feel it and feel pain the same way we do the only thing is that they cannot say anything about it. Lewis states, "If we cut up beasts simply because they cannot prevent us and because we are backing our own side in the struggle for existence, it is only logical to cut up imbeciles, criminals, enemies, or capitalists for the same reasons" (227). When done to humans, it would be defined as torture which is illegal. Therefore using the same logic is it not torture for them too? Although, I don't know if I would be particularly against it if done to child molesters and other criminals who do heinous crimes.

Shooting an Elephant

1. What will people be pushed to do when their reputation is on the line?
2. Should we always do what others expect of us?
3. Are we more apt to do things when others are watching?

In "Shooting and Elephant" the author, George Orwell, is a police officer in a country where he is the minority. He lived or still does live in public scrutiny. One day an normally tame elephant gets loose and causes chaos which ends up with a man being killed. Now Orwell had to deal with the elephant by either killing it or having it's owner go capture it. As he was finding the elephant a crowd gathered, the same crowds of people that laugh and make fun of him and other Europeans, and waited for him to shoot the animal down. He states, "But I did not want to shoot the elephant" (5). In the end Orwell does shoot the animal down and the crowd is filled with joy, but he doesn't stay to watch the elephant die.

His incident with the elephant caused him to question why he actually did what he did. His reasons were simple: trying to impress the people who thought badly of him, the "natives," and to avoid looking like a fool.  He didn't want to pull the trigger, but he did. Had there not been a crowd would the outcome be the same? I don't think so. When thinking of other situations, when people are watching we are more likely to do things we wouldn't normally do. The whole time Orwell kept thinking of the crowd and their reactions. It is almost human nature. Think of how peer pressure can cause one to drink or do drugs or behave in a way they know is wrong, but makes their "friends" like them more. Having people around also gives people the courage to do things. Orwell states, "I was not afraid in the ordinary sense, as I would have been if I had been alone" (6). When people are watching we find a sort of courage.

COMMENTARY FOR LILY

I feel you could change the title. On the sheet our teacher gave us, it states that the title should reflect somehow that you are writing an analysis, but you do not have to outright say “I’m doing an analysis.” He said that it shouldn’t be similar to the title of the piece you were analyzing. On your thesis I like that it was two sentences. It was very clear on your position, but I feel that it could be stronger if you specifically mention which appeals he used i.e. pathos, logos, and ethos. In each of the paragraphs, if you would want to, I think it might benefit to give a short definition. For one it helps the audience know what you are talking about. However this is an English class and whoever reads it probably knows what they are. The structure of your essay is for the most part clear, although, I feel that the second paragraph on the second page could benefit elsewhere. It sounds mostly like ethos because it appeals to the author’s being knowledgeable so I think you could try to fit it in with the ethos, but obviously not in one big paragraph. You transition your paper well and it flows quite nicely. If you wanted it to flow even more then I would suggest more specific transitions on page three.  

Your paragraphs about the appeals specifically state how the audience reacts to each and I feel you could elaborate more if you wanted to. Looking closer at the logical appeal paragraph I think this might be the “hole” in his argument you were talking about. If it is or is not then I suggest stating in the topic sentence something along the lines of a hole or discrepancy to let readers know that this is the part the author was not completely successful on. I feel ethos is your strongest paragraph, but stated earlier that other paragraph should become part of it. The pathos paragraph might benefit from stating how your examples are pathos like with his use of narrative and how he uses the language appeals to the audience or something like that. In the second paragraph on page three I think you might want to reword that last sentence. I got a bit confused when reading it. Maybe show that these people are opposed to him and that he is showing fairness to their viewpoints especially since they are soldiers.

Tourists: The most hated people

1. Are tourists hated by natives?
2. Are tourists the most racist, ugly human beings or is everyone essentially the same in their self-centeredness?
3. How can someone or a government be so enriched in a culture, but not try to help it?

Jamaica Kincaid, an Antiguan, writes of the misgivings of being a tourist. I cannot help but agree with her when she makes the argument so convincing. Many people while on vacation go to get away from the reality and stress back home. Often times going to countries with people living in impoverished states with unfortunate circumstances. While there, the tourist can feel a sense of shame and anger towards how people are living, but it is a short lived feeling. These people are on vacation, looking to get away from problems, not to have more problems thrust on them by people they don't know or have any interest in. They don't have time in their itinerary to feel bad about other people nor how lucky they have been. They notice the injustice, but choose to enjoy the nature of the places they stay. Of course they are staying at the best places money can buy, too. Kincaid states, "A tourist is an ugly human being" (14).

I don't think it even has to be a tourist who does not care about their surroundings. Many "natives" do not even care where their clothes or food were made. No one really cares how or by what means their food gets on the table just that it is there. By this analysis, everyone is a self-centered, ugly human being, but is that not such a true statement.  There is always something that someone can do for someone else that has had fewer opportunities, but with so many people in the world that is a hard thing to do. No one can really put everyone before themselves, only people they truly, deeply care about. I guess it is a bit harsh, but a tourist is not the only one with those same characteristics.

Regarding the Pain of Others

1. Should the media censor what it publishes, especially pictures of atrocities?
2. What information should the public know and not know? And who is to decide what information should be known or not?
3. If we do show atrocities should the dead be covered or remain nameless?

Susan Sontag in Regarding the Pain of Others questions the topic of the media's publishing of war atrocities. "The scale of war's murderousness destroys what identifies people as individuals, even as human beings," states Sontag regarding the photographs of people so mangled they don't even look like people anymore. Sontag gives many graphic accounts of certain things that had been published and how it is upsetting that one could view others who were condemned to die.One example she gives is in New York's Daily News where they published a picture of a severed hand lying in the remains after the 9/11 attack. Since the Vietnam war, war photography came under scrutiny and a censorship has begun. Censorship indited by military and by the self. Now, there are much stricter rules towards photography on battle grounds, but "there is no war without photography" observed Ernst Junger. Sontag brings up that the dead, quite possibly, should be censored because family members: a mother, father, children, and wives or husbands, could come across a gruesome photograph if they hadn't already.

"Policies about what is to be seen and not seen by the public are still being worked out," states Sontag. She talks about "boundaries of public knowledge," but why should there be boundaries? It is people's right to know what is going on in the world, however gruesome it is. I wouldn't want to be kept in the dark about things. It would be hard if it was a victim that I knew, but I would want the world to know what happened to them. It would be some sort of justice to them, at least I think it would. Who is to decide what we can and cannot see? That should be one's own choice. Many media sources have these "self-policed constraints on what is 'proper' to air." In effect then, the media is choosing what the public should know and not know.