Commentary on Previous Blog Postings

I feel that, as a reader, I have done a good job of avoiding summary in my blog posting. I try my best to assume that the reader of my blog knows what I am talking about and instead to analyze my own interpretations of the reading. One aspect of my blogging that I don’t feel I have done a good enough job of is incorporating the technical definitions that we talked about in the first few classes, such as the biases (commercial, bad news, temporal, narrative, etc.) and other terms such as syllogism, induction, and pathos, logos, and ethos. I feel that, in the future, I should utilize these terms in order to establish a more concrete analysis instead of simply commenting on what I see when I am reading.

I would like to delve a bit deeper into the broader issues that I am discussing in my blog postings. I feel that I often can point out interesting or intriguing pieces of writing or information and comment on them, but I don’t see too many instances in my own work where I tie together these little examples and point out a big theme out of it. For example, in my recent paper that I wrote, I illustrated that emotions did not play a role in the decision of the first Rodney King Trial. However, the Federal Trial took a different path. The Federal Trial and conviction of two of the four accused officers seemed to be decided based on some serious emotions and predispositions of the jurors. I feel this is a valid point, but I did not continue to go a layer further. In the future, I would like to discuss the broader, global impact and cultural implication of my own assessment. I feel that I can then comment on Cannon’s own thought process and the tone and argument that he is taking more ably.

I found it much easier to blog about Anna Deavere Smith’s Twilight: Los Angeles, 1992 than Lou Cannon’s work, Official Negligence because of the difference in genres. While Smith’s Twilight is an account of the context of the time surrounding the Rodney King beatings and riots in L.A., I feel that her writing is much more of a story and a narrative than Cannon’s. Cannon’s work is very dry to me, and I find it difficult to effectively extract his own personal ideas, interpretations, and argument in the midst of all of his facts and chronological details. Smith, on the other hand, exhibits her own view of the event much more clearly by allowing the reader to connect with each of the characters that she employs in her play. Each individual tells his or her own personal story, which forces the reader to step into the shoes of the speaker for five or ten minute intervals, before moving on to the next. By feeling more engaged with the writing, I find that I am able to connect more with Smith’s point in her book, and therefore blog more easily about it.