Writers benefit from models to work from... read, then write

This week one of my writing classes is writing reviews, one of the most common forms of persuasive writing.

Below is a quick review by Brittany Witherspoon, one of the regular reviewers from https://popculturereviews.com/  This reviewer is a fan of the remake of West Side Story and isn't too interested in exploring what does not work or what might be improved, instead choosing to focus on four specific things she likes about the movie. I chose this review to highlight because it tends to much more difficult to rave about a movie or TV show or restaurant than to pan them, to find fault and to quibble.

This tendency can be seen in the halls of any school, by the way, as kids gather at lockers and gossip and share stories. The largest clumps of listeners gather around the student sharing the most scandalous tales. A student extolling the virtues of a friend or particular teacher soon loses audience share. 

Never forget: most news is "bad news," and that applies to school gossip as well as the front page of the Post. This truth is not a great advertisement for human nature.

Every so often, a film gets released at a certain time of year and generates little to no buzz. One of 2021’s prime examples of that is West Side Story. There could be several reasons for this. Maybe fans of the original just didn’t care to see Spielberg’s take on the beloved classic. Or, considering we’re still in a pandemic, film fans might not have thought it was worth it to press their luck. Whatever the case, the film bombed at the box office, bringing in a total of 70.7 million dollars against a 100-million-dollar budget.

Now that it is awards season, film fans are revisiting features they might have missed during the cold winter. And lately, West Side Story has been the talk around town. The American musical drama, which follows the forbidden love between Tony (Ansel Elgort) and Maria (Rachel Zegler) hits HBO Max today (March 2, 2022). Here are four reasons to watch Spielberg’s latest.

I will interrupt to mention that it would not be timely in March to review a film released in December, but the recency factor is found in the film being finally available on cable, allowing for more potential viewers. The first question readers always have is: "Why am I reading this right now?"

The opening graf also contains the "concession" in this argument, about the relative lack of box office success and about some consumers not feeling the need to revisit a classic musical. 

4) A five… six… a five, six, seven, eight!

As a musical theater nerd, I cannot express how important choreography is to a feature musical. Dance is a way to capture and express emotions through intricate movements and fluidic bodily poetry. And this statement remains true when it’s in film. Luckily for dance fans, choreographer Justin Peck knew exactly what to do. Blending movements and dance sets from American choreographer Jerome Robbins’s original numbers and choreography of his own, Peck delivers fantastic dance numbers. He captures the intensity, vibrancy, and beauty like the original while adding his own flair. What could be better than mixing a little old with the new?

3) Now THAT’s cinematography!

If you’re on Twitter, you might have noticed that this film has been generating quite the online buzz. Specifically, West Side Story’s “puddle shot” has become the standout scene of conversation. After learning that this was a last-minute suggestion made by cinematographer Janus Kamiński, I could not believe it. In fact, the team filmed it on the final day of principal photography. Talk about movie-making magic! Scenes like these are prevalent throughout Spielberg’s musical. And it’s exactly why it’s deserving of all the attention. Bravo Kamiński!

2) Ariana DeBose… need I say more?

On Sunday, Feb. 27, Ariana DeBose took home the SAG (Screen Actors Guild) award for an outstanding performance by a female actor in a supporting role. I cannot shout from the roof-top enough how well-deserved her nomination/win was. Ariana is a scene-stealer. I could not take my eyes off her, as she delivered THEE performance of this film. There are no limitations to what Madame DeBose will accomplish next. I know it!

1) Not his first rodeo…

I always get a chuckle out of commentary like “so-and-so has still got it.” This usually comes after said filmmaker has made a couple of films that are outside of their normal quality releases. Spielberg has definitely been in these conversations recently to which my reply is… he never lost it! That’s right folks… Steven Spielberg is one of the best filmmakers living today, and he even shows no signs of slowing down. And if his contributions to cinema keep going in this direction, I will continue to be a champion of his work!

I also note a few too many exclamation marks in this review. Yes, we can be enthusiastic about something but when we need to add superfluous punctuation to be more clear, that should be a clue that we need to go back and supply the details and anecdotes that allow the READER to feel enthusiasm without us forcing them.

From a structural standpoint, breaking the review into four distinct sections, each with a subhead, is smart and fits modern reader expectations, particularly for online readers. Focused "chunks" are a great choice for many writing projects.

We finally watched the latest James Bond movie (No Time to Die) and I was thoroughly unimpressed. Lots of action to no clear effect, among other criticisms. I wanted write about it, but where would I find the timely angle? Perhaps when it finally gets to Amazon Prime... since Amazon has bought the studio and film rights for most of the franchise?

Still, sometimes it's nice to read a review that is quite positive. And, for what it's worth, I enjoyed the remake of WSS so I felt affirmed by this review.

 

"Free speech for me, but not for thee"

I used to teach my journalism students that censorship could not ultimately prevail due to the Internet and the fact that people could circumvent specific instances of censorship because the Internet cannot be fully controlled.

Turns out I was sort of right while also being incredibly naïve. 

Free speech is one of those core American values that we are enthusiastic about in the abstract but that we are not so sure about in specific instances.

Right now the country (the world?) is engaged in arguments that boil down to "free speech for me, but you? not so sure about you." 

It wasn't long ago where we were deluged with all sorts of calls for "freedom of speech" on college campuses, and those calls came from right wing groups and individuals. Poorly written university policies that were too vague and too paternal have been under fire for some time.

Now the right wing is busy condemning the other end of the educational spectrum, trying to limit what can be discussed in elementary school.

Russia is engaged in a very successful censoring of all honest reporting on the war in Ukraine, with a tight rein on TV and newspapers. Still, some "truth" is getting through because tech savvy people will always find a way to provide some options for users. At this point, the only real Russian strategy would have to shutting down the Internet across the entire country.

The U.S. still provides almost unlimited choices in what media we consume, a crucial difference between this country and a dictatorship.

I am not a free speech "fanatic," as I do support reasonable standards as to age of those receiving the speech. I don't have a firm age cutoff for, say, discussing sexuality but the question is worth some conversation. But I assume we could come to some agreement on when certain books or movies best fit with brain development and society's interest in providing protections for the young. It wouldn't satisfy everyone, of course.

Lately it seems that many Republicans have decided that some speech is just so dangerous that laws need to be created to control it. I'm sure many would point out that Democrats have the same opinion about free speech, particularly when that speech violently disagrees with progressive values.

Free speech is more attractive when most of the country can agree on basic facts and values and can support the basic rights and humanity of those who hold differing views.

We are now to the point that we are questioning other people's basic thinking skills, morality, and ability to make informed judgments. 

Ideas are powerful and when we are not sure we can "win" an argument through rational debate and evidence, it's very human to want to simply shut down other voices.

Today's challenge for student media is to find ways to keep the conversations going, to keep asking readers to think about alternatives and injustices and traditions and compromise.

We don't need textbooks for examples of great rhetoric

Once again, thanks to Frank Bruni and his weekly blog for highlighting some great recent writing. I picked out four samples on varied topics to take a closer look at today.

Here is Robin Givhan’s take on Smith vs. Rock at the Oscars in The Washington Post, which a bit ironically bemoans the obsession with the slap: “The culture has little patience for the damaged thug in a T-shirt and jeans who’s lucky if his power extends the length of a neighborhood block, but it has the stamina to dissect the psychic pain of a mogul in a made-to-measure Dolce & Gabbana tuxedo.”

I would often use quotes from newspapers in AP Lang classes as a way to explore diction, syntax, figures of speech, and tone -- the four key categories of rhetorical choices. The only (maybe) challenging diction here might be "mogul," though there would likely be some students unable to quite place what "Dolce & Gabbanna" might mean. Of course, may readers can at least approximate meaning from context and that "made-to-measure" adjective would help.

If we were discussing this sentence in class today, I would ask about that simple change in direction achieved by "but" that leads from one claim to a second claim and immediately sets up a conflict. Students would benefit from seeing the rest of the story (or maybe just reading the link online) to see whether the writer did a solid job of supporting those two claims.

Also in The Post, David Von Drehle noted that for all President Biden’s considerable virtues, “when big issues are on the line, he remains the oratorical equivalent of a kid learning to ride a bike in a room full of Ming vases.”

Here we have a simile of sorts, asking readers to picture delicate pottery threatened by an unsteady young bike rider. The writer's comment referred to the president's speech that seemed to call for Putin to be removed from power. As I mentioned in an earlier post: he accidentally spoke the truth and we can't have that. 

One thing to discuss with students is that we all need to make thoughtful choices, in rhetoric and in many other areas of life, rather than stumble around, not being precise and perhaps clouding up our claims.

The theater critic Peter Marks, appraising the costume design in the Broadway revival of “Plaza Suite,” noted “a mother-of-the-bride dress so redolent of springtime it might have to be mulched.”

It's not easy to write descriptions that rival those of photographs, but writers can actually create far more than visual impressions. Here we have a comparison of a dress to spring, and students would benefit from defining "redolent," a term most high school students have never heard or read. It primarily means "fragrant," but here it also means "evocative." The dress probably has no particular odor, but I can imagine a floral arrangement and vivid greens and yellows and pinks. 

Finally, one more interesting sentence, this from George Will, who wrote this on Ginni Thomas (wife of Supreme Court Justice Thomas), after news broke of her stolen-election text messages to Mark Meadows: “The shelves in her mental pantry groan beneath the weight of Trumpian hysterics about the 2020 presidential election having been stolen and the republic’s certain ruination under Joe Biden.”

That metaphor of the mind consisting of storage space that may not be strong enough to support some ideas is not brand new but students benefit from the image created. 

Journalists are usually advised to not push vocabulary and readability indexes much beyond 8th grade level, insuring the widest range of readers for their work. I would argue that one educational contribution student media can make to the community is to push reading levels a bit higher.

The key is to avoid being "boring" and to always include some sort of context clues for unusual diction choices. Don't jam complex vocabulary into every sentence or every story, but sometimes the more advanced diction choice is the more precise one. Sometimes readers need more than basic facts and can better understand a simile or metaphor.

What if one goal were for student media to function as a living textbook?

What happens when all actions and facts are up for debate?

Disinformation is making everyone a bit crazy, and certainly tapping into the craziness that was always there in mankind, even before social media.

Many of us have been appalled by the videos and photos coming out of Ukraine, showing dead and mutilated bodies, and by the reports of rape and indiscriminate bombings and shootings. Much of the Western World is stunned and angry.

But most Russians believe (or profess to believe) that all the videos and photos and reports are fake, meant to damage their country's reputation. They have been fed a constant stream of coverage by the Russian media about fighting Nazis in Ukraine and about Russia being unfairly attacked.

But the Big Lie is not limited to Ukraine, of course. Last week, Michigan Rep. Lisa McClain, a first-term member of Congress, credited Donald Trump with having "caught Osama bin Laden," among other terrorists. 

bin Laden was taken out in 2011, long before Trump was elected, but would anyone be surprised to see this bizarre claim be repeated endlessly on right wing social media and TV? After all, a congressperson said it.

Here in Colorado, we have multiple Republicans running for state and national office who still cling to the fiction that Biden is not our elected president and that a giant conspiracy led to a coup. 

Ministers are praying for the persecuted insurrectionists who stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, and their zealot followers chant "amen!" Congregations pray for the "baby-eating Democrats" to be destroyed by a loving God.

Disinformation is a nicer way of saying "lies." Misinformation is how we describe mere mistakes. 

Journalists, researchers, and scientists make their share of mistakes, sometimes falling victim to pressures to publish and proclaim before all the facts are in. There is a reason journalism is often termed "the rough draft of history."

Less than two months ago, the common wisdom was that Ukraine would fall to the Russians in a few days. Now every media outlet is exploring how they could have been so wrong and what they didn't understand about, well, a lot of things.

But at least most reputable media outlets are trying to correct earlier errors. Less reputable media continue to lie, often out of knee-jerk reaction to anything claimed by political rivals.

The reality of disinformation causing so much confusion, anger, and hatred has to be addressed in the high school journalism classroom -- in every classroom -- and you couldn't blame students for doubting the accuracy of their own school media.

But building credibility with the audience is our only option, and the more localized and verifiable the coverage, the more trust is regained by the public for the media, for government, for the police, for churches and schools.

There isn't much a student media program can do to combat the disinformation on social media and state propaganda channels. But the coverage of our own campuses is the foundation of trust that we can try to build. And it is comforting to know that most students really do trust their teachers and their school. 

This is not new, but today our dedication to accuracy MUST be goal #1. We need to "get it right," to spell the names correctly and get the right scores of games. 

Local media can be where we all begin reclaiming the truth.

When everything starts to feel like a catastrophe...

A blogger I have followed for years is Seth Godin, and he posts some sort of item every day, 365 days a year. That volume of posts means that only some of them really connect with me, meaning I can apply his general thoughts to teaching or advising or just organizing my life. Some don't apply to me, at least that day.

But they tend to be short and it only takes a few moments to read them... and then there is that handy "delete" key.

Today's post caught my eye with this catchy "headline"/title: Catastrophization

That is not an English word, though it is related to "catastrophize," a verb meaning predicting the worst, no matter what the event or fact. Despite spell check rejecting the word, it made sense. I even had to say it (quietly) out loud to get the feel of the term. 

Here are the first two grafs of Godin's post:

Life’s a tragedy. It always surprises us, and eventually, we all die.

But tragedies don’t have to lead to catastrophes. A catastrophe is a shared emergency that overwhelms our interactions and narratives.

Social media has amplified a tendency of some people to make more of some situation or event or misstep than is deserved. "OMG! My car wouldn't start this morning and I missed the meeting" would be a fictional but possible "cry to the universe" that we have all seen in some form.

Our response might be to remind the poster that this is NOT going to change the course of the poster's life. It is hyperbole for the sake of grabbing attention and (maybe) faux sympathy. We rarely send that response, of course, opting for discretion and rightly assuming that pointing out the reality of the complaint not being that big a deal will lead to defensiveness and anger.

Godin goes on to note that "catastrophization is a sure way to grab some attention." It's part of the social media business model. And spending much time watching cable news begins to warp our sense of reality.

Here are the final three grafs of his post: 

...it’s exhausting. Catastrophe fatigue sets in, and we end up losing interest and drifting away, until the next emergency arrives.

Catastrophization ends up distracting us from the long-term systemic work we signed up to do. It’s a signal that we care about what’s happening right now, but it also keeps us from focusing on what’s going to happen soon.

The best way to care is to persist in bending the culture and our systems to improve things over time.

I would never argue that there are NO catastrophes in life, for individuals, for communities, for nations, for the world.

Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a catastrophe for Ukrainians, and perhaps for Russia itself, and could lead to a nuclear war that would involve the entire planet.

A health emergency might be catastrophic for a person and an entire family. 

The trick in life is to resist the urge to blow everything out of proportion, and we spend a lot of time civilizing children so that they don't continue to react to something like dropping their ice cream cone on the sidewalk as something that is worth wailing about, beyond consolation.

A student missing a deadline is not a catastrophe -- it's not even a tragedy. It's not a shared emergency and there are multiple solutions to the emergency.

An important part of learning to educate is finding strategies to distinguish between a simple problem and a true catastrophe. 

Unlike most areas of study, journalism is not developed with a textbook

Should our goal as teachers be to help students focus deeply on a limited range of topics? That is the "depth over breadth" argument.

Or are there more benefits from wider learning that doesn't go into much depth but that at least acquaints students with a wider world and more varied options? That would be the argument of E.D. Hirschs' Cultural Literacy. It was published in 1987 but seems as relevant as ever.

I was thinking about this basic argument as I watched the Grammy Awards Sunday night. I had a passing familiarity with a few of the artists and no knowledge at all of others, but found myself enjoying the performances while adding to my "cultural inventory." I could at least engage superficially in any conversations where some of those award winners are mentioned... or just not sit there glassy-eyed and unresponsive. I am no expert on Olivia Rodrigo, and wouldn't even recognize her music beyond one tune, but I would at least know she is a singer and not a basketball player. That's something.

One of the benefits of wide knowledge is that we can at least follow along in many conversations, though we are not "experts" and aren't able to go into the depths of analysis that some can offer. Those "experts" are often called upon by journalists to provide the deeper background that readers may want.

Journalism is not something you study so much as "do." Journalism is a series of practices and professional standards and procedures, but the idea of a journalism student spending hours poring over a dense textbook seems unnecessary and even irrelevant.

Journalists need to learn by doing, though it is nice to have a teacher/adviser who can provide guidance and share some best practices. That's why many introductory journalism classes begin with some quick instruction on how to interview sources, how to structure questions, and how to take notes (or properly record interviews). 

But discussing and practicing on classmates quickly becomes boring. Time to go out and visit a classroom or a club meeting or a sporting event and then interview a few people. If students come back with little to write about, that is a crystal clear indication that more work needs to be done on reporting skills. And sometimes students just need to get over a natural shyness or uncertainty.

Here's what most young reporters quickly realize: people LOVE to be interviewed, particularly if they are accustomed to obscurity -- and that would be most students. Think of how few times in school when a teacher truly wants to know a student's opinion. Most questions asked in school are designed to produce predetermined answers, just as a standardized test would do.

But a student journalist is seeking to learn something that could be of interest to readers when sitting down to talk with a source. Journalists tend to be "cyclical experts," digging deep for specific reasons and in focused periods of time. Then comes the next assignment to cover and the journalist becomes an "instant expert" in THAT topic or issue.

The philosophy of reporting that works best begins with curiosity. It begins with an acceptance that the reporter does not know everything already and seeks new insights, details or anecdotes. This philosophy does not resemble the "talking heads" on TV or podcasts, many of whom are playing more off their own personalities and experiences, and then creating arguments that don't have much support in terms of facts.

A kid who reports on the sophomore baseball game seeks to become somewhat expert on that particular sport, team, and game... certainly learning far more than a reader who was not able to attend the game. 

For any new adviser trying to help students become better reporters, here's an open secret: Get them out of the classroom talking to people they don't know all that well, and do it as early as possible.

The first few times will be hit and miss, but they are like rough drafts. We can't improve a piece of writing until there is a piece of writing, however flawed.

Hey, where is everybody?

The pandemic, combined with the skyrocketing number of open jobs and low unemployment rates, has left many colleges struggling to find students.

The country is down at least one million students since pre-pandemic days, with many potential students choosing the immediate rewards of decent full-time jobs over spending time on campus. It's hard to blame them.

Education is under attack from many sources, including those saying campuses "cancel" speech that doesn't meet "woke" requirements. For years, the media has focused on the debts students have accumulated and now struggle to pay off.

Pull back a bit and things may not look all that bad. In 1950, there were about 2.8 million students enrolled in college, and half of them attended private institutions. Today there are an estimated 19.8 million students enrolled, and almost 75 percent in public schools. 

Estimates are that there are about 31 million Americans age 18-25, traditional college age. Yes, it's quite a blur of statistics, but no matter how you look at it, at least 12 million people who might be enrolled in a college of some sort are not. 

But female and minority representation are way up and economists still can show the long-term benefits of a college degree.

And in 2020, about 37 percent of all Americans had some sort of degree, opposed to under 6 percent in 1950. So good news abounds.

But college administrators are in a panic, perhaps due to overly optimistic projections about enrollment in the recent past which led to expanding campus facilities and hiring more professors and support staff.

Employers are being forced by staffing shortages to bump up minimum pay and add bonuses and all sorts of incentives at the same time as college enrollment is declining. It's a heated competition and a good reminder that improvements and progress rarely are enjoyed by everyone. There are bound to be ebbs and flows.

Some states are devising ways to encourage more college education, with New Mexico, of all places, leading the way. Starting this summer, the state will cover all tuition at any public college in the state, no matter the family income of the student. No matter the immigration status. And the legislation enjoys bipartisan support. 

There are some minor conditions, such as maintaining a 2.5 GPA and having lived in the state for at least 12 consecutive months before enrolling, and some worry that the funding may dry up if energy prices fall and as pandemic relief money from the federal government ends.

A welcome bonus is that the "free college" program applies money for tuition and required fees BEFORE room and board and all sorts of supplementals (often more expensive than the tuition itself). So various scholarships can be used to fund those living expenses.

And get this: the $75 million cost per year of the program amounts to about one percent of the state's annual budget. 

Of course, even good news comes with some caveats. Much of New Mexico's current state income is derived from taxes on oil and other energy production -- the state is now #2 in the country in energy production. Environmentalists see some bad tradeoffs there.

But if New Mexico can find a way to make college available for all, other states are sure to follow.