Project #34872 - Source Analysis Proposal & Paper

Lesson 7 Assignment: Source Analysis Proposal

Before you submit your final draft of your Source Analysis (which is due at the end of Lesson 9), you must first submit a Proposal for your topic, which is due at the end of Lesson 7. You should consult the detailed description of the Source Analysis (located below in the Assignment List), before you compose and submit this Proposal.

The purpose of submitting this proposal of your analysis is for you to get some basic feedback from the instructor, to make sure that you have chosen an appropriate source, and that your approach sounds reasonable. This proposal will NOT be graded, but it will give you a chance to run your paper topic by the instructor for comment and guidance.

At minimum, your proposal should state what source you intend to analyze, along with a brief explanation of why you chose this source.

You are allowed and encouraged to be more detailed if you would like; you may indeed submit a short “sketch” of your paper for comment. This abstract or précis should be less than a page in length (no more than 200-250 words), wherein you may summarize the main points of your analysis. Anticipate and summarize your own argument: clearly state your basic claim and give an outline of the main supporting statements and evidence that back this claim up. You might not have finalized all your ideas or research yet – that is alright – but you are encouraged to try to give a coherent summary of what you plan to say, and why.

At the end of your précis, you may also choose to give a short bibliography of the sources of information you are consulting in your research: what issues or editions of the source have you consulted, and what other “secondary” sources of information have you found on this source? List them in an approved bibliographical format (any standard academic bibliographic format is acceptable – pick one and stick with it).

The responses students receive to their proposals will vary. Your instructor may simply give an “all okay” response, and thereby give you the go ahead to complete your paper; or your instructor might offer some extra guidance as to your approach to the source, or offer some ideas for research, etc.; or (and hopefully this will not happen often) perhaps your instructor will help put you back on the right track, if your proposal shows to you to be missing the mark for the assignment. Again, please note that the Proposal will not be graded, but you must submit it before your final version of the assignment will be accepted. You will submit your final, full version of this Source Analysis paper at the end of Lesson 9.



Lesson 9 Assignment: Source Analysis

Outline of Assignment:

After Lesson 3, you are also ready to begin work on another graded assignment for this course, the Source Analysis.

You should start your research by consulting the assignment description that immediately follows. Then review the appendices on “The Political Spectrum” on e-reserve. Updated versions of the list and tables first presented in a 1992 article by Donald Lazere, “Teaching the Political Conflicts: A Rhetorical Schema” (College Composition and Communication, 43.2, pp. 194-213), these appendices are meant to provide you with an overview of the standpoints that currently define our political landscape and with an introduction to some of the commentators who now occupy them. While somewhat subjective, these schemata should help you get your initial bearings; but the final judgment, of a particular source on particular issue, should be your own.

Note: The appendices are available in the e-reserves for the course under the title Political Spectrum Based on "Teaching the Political Conflicts: A Rhetorical Schema" by Donald Lazere by Svoboda, Michael.

Basic Description of Assignment: In a short paper, written in a standard essay format and of 4-5 pages in length, you will analyze a source of news and opinion that you have not read or followed before, a source that challenges your own viewpoint. Several other lessons will be relevant to your work on this assignment, so feel free to read ahead.


Detailed Description:

First, you have to decide on the source you will analyze. I think your best choice is a periodical, something you can buy from one of the larger magazine racks in your area. A periodical is self-contained; it has multiple pieces to consider, and its pages are easily copied. Your instructor will consider an on-line or on-air (radio or TV) source, however, if you can present a reasonable plan of attack.

Your analysis should focus on four major elements of your source: its editorial direction, its network of authors, its range of topics and modes, and its semantic profile (or “the lay of its language”). Even if your source does not appear on the lists of commentators or periodicals, you will still want to consult the “The Political Spectrum” appendices for commentators, periodicals, publishers, or research institutes that are mentioned or cited in your source.

Editorial Direction: Who produces this source? Is it affiliated with another publisher or institute or enterprise?  Do the publisher, directors, or editors have any current or previous affiliations that would indicate the political standpoint of this source? Does this source have a mission statement that explicitly lays out its standpoint? Can you infer or confirm anything about this standpoint from the organizations or enterprises that advertise in this source? Do the advertisements tell you anything about the intended audience for this publication? Does that tell you anything about its political standpoint?

Network of Authors: Who writes for this source? (There may be a very high overlap between “contributing editors” and reappearing authors. It would be good if you could examine more than one issue in order to check this.) Do any of these authors have any recognizable affiliations with institutes, publishers, or other periodicals? Does this network include authors from opposing political viewpoints?

Range of Topics and Modes: Does this source address a clearly defined (whether implicitly or explicitly) set of topics? What are they? In what ways does it address these topics: editorials? feature articles? news analyses? regular columns? book, film, or art reviews? cartoons? photographs? diagrams?

Semantic Profile (or The Lay of the Language): After reading a cross-section of pieces from this source: Would you describe the language, generally, as impartial and objective (denotative)? Or as partisan and subjective (heavily connotative)? What are the honorifics commonly found in this source? What are the terms of dismissal? Are there key words that define the arguments made in this source? Are there recurring figures of speech or analogies? Do the pieces published in this source engage opposing sources/arguments fairly? Does the source present two or more pieces that argue on the different sides of an issue? How regularly does this occur? What else stands out for you after analyzing this source?

Note that these are just the bare essentials, and that there are other things that can and should go into a solid analysis of a source. For example, the history of the source (when it was founded, how it has changed over time, etc.) often has an important influence on the viewpoint it takes on current issues.

Furthermore, one could also give some thought to how the source views itself and its mission and purpose in relation to the rest of the media market, and the culture in general – What kind of source is it trying to be? What is it trying to accomplish in the marketplace of ideas and information? How does it compare and relate to other similar sources? Who are its competitors? Etc., etc.

It would also be a good idea, of course, to look at multiple issues or editions of the source in question, so that you can detect any patterns or variations in its output.

Lastly, keep in mind that this is a chance for you to show off your critical skills, so don’t just pick an “easy mark”: do not just look at the “political spectrum” supplement and agree with what the table tells you. For example, you will not receive great credit for showing your reader that Reader’s Digest is a conservative, right-leaning publication, or that the New York Times is politically centrist, or that it shows a slight “liberal” bias, because these things are obvious. You will receive credit for showing your reader what the nuances of a source’s biases are – for example, that the NYT’s biases are sometimes subtle and complex, or that they vary from topic to topic, or that its supposed liberal bias is really an inaccurate characterization, etc., etc. – these are the ways that you can really demonstrate your ability to think critically about a source!

This assignment is worth 15% of your final grade.


Suggestions for the Presentation of your Analysis:

Introduce the source, briefly, by noting how long it has been published and by reviewing the essential information you have collected regarding its editorial direction.

Select a few representative authors as a way to describe the source’s network and their affiliations with other publications, publishers, or institutes.

Describe the Range of Topics and Modes in a couple of paragraphs that list the typical features to be found in each issue of the source and that illustrate, with sample titles, its primary interests.

Use short quotations to illustrate your findings regarding the semantic profile of your source. But be fair. Note, in particular, any prominent or recurring terms or metaphors. Observe how this source treats other sources.

Conclude by locating your source in the political spectrum and by noting the topics/issues on which you find this source credible and those on which you don’t.

You will be making a claim; support it with reasons!

Include a copy of a page or two from a representative article.


Subject Philosophy
Due By (Pacific Time) 07/07/2014 12:00 am
Report DMCA

Chat Now!

out of 1971 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 1164 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 721 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 1600 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 770 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 766 reviews

Chat Now!

out of 680 reviews
All Rights Reserved. Copyright by - Copyright Policy