Sorry for the tardiness on my response, I have to say that I had a bit too much fun over this weekend and laid it off for Sunday.
In regards to what we covered in class on Thursday, the argument that Lauren Zalaznick proposed about television really captivated me. The style that Zalaznick used to portray the information to her audience was perfect. We had discussed in class how she may have not been as specific as she could with her data and that she may have not had a bias standpoint on the data and this may have altered some of the facts. Whatever the case may be for any of the two flaws, the information she did know was stated by way of facts and her own schema, which helped display a strong argument for me.
When I mentioned Zalaznick's style, I may have used the word style out of context. The way in which Zalaznick presented the information is better term. She was confident with what she was saying. The entire presentation was well rehearsed and she made sure that the audience got exactly the information they needed to know. She didn't veer off topic and start blabbering about t.v in her day or judge t.v as a government tool of destruction. The information was presented in an articulate and structured presentation. This is such a stand out for me because not all speakers can present information in this manner. I have myself been an example of poor presentation. It wasn't because my information was flawed or that I couldn't reach a time requirement. I just am not so confident in presenting information to a broad audience. Though my data may make my presentations strong, I may say a phrase incorrectly, which leaves my audience confused and wanting further information. In these cases, are start to panic and say whatever comes to mind. This can sometimes be bad and lead me away from my main focus.
The strongest argument to me doesn't bash your opposition. The argument that can make your audience as well as your opposition with your point of view is the best argument. This is the type of argument that Zalaznick presented.
Yes, I agree that she presented her argument very well. She came off as very professional, and the information she brought to our attention seemed relevant and honest. I think she persuaded us well to support her claim that TV has a consciousness. One of the only complaints I would have is what we brought up before, that it would be nice to have seen even more information.
ReplyDeleteZalaznick used clean and easy to understand stats as her support for the main idea that television has a conscience. Her information was organized and ready to be presented to an audience of common knowledge. She had strong points with many changed in the states and explained them clearly while other were left unclear. This was a minor problem with a few people, but I think it was unnecessary. I state that because she was giving detail to each chart and didn’t want to bore us with the same details multiple times within one example. Although she had good points and data to support them I think it was her introductory to her speech to allow us to believe them. She was creditable for the information released because she had a career in television. I liked her intro because she stated that clearly and also gave person references from her family to relate to the audience. I think her speech over was full of interesting facts allowing use to relate to our personal lives as an audience.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree that her argument was presented in an effective manner. She presented the audience with good reasoning, great examples and a confidence that makes you feel like she really is a professional. Not all speakers can accomplish all of that when presenting to a large group of people an important argument. She has to be confident if she wants to persuade the people that are on the other side of the argument or else they will just keep looking at her as "wrong." Obviously, she knew what she was talking about and was very organized in her speaking. Something that is a talent she was meant to have.
ReplyDeleteShe was a great speaker. It looked like she knew what she was speaking about and was well prepared. She was ready for what she was planning for. Still, personally she went a little too fast. I was a little confused but she probably had to because of the time limit. Still I caught what she tried to convey and was well organized.
ReplyDeleteI do agree that the information she presented really did reflect what was going on in the world at that time. She really got my attention when she pulled the charts up. I am more of a visual/hands on learner and the charts were the missing pieces to the puzzle she was explaining to everyone. One chart that kind of surprised me was the Unemployment vs Fantasy/Sci-Fi movies popularity. As unemployment goes up, one would think that watching movies altogether would decrease because people should be looking for jobs. It then clicked in my head, people want to escape reality when we are upset/depressed. We want something to "take us away" from all of our hardships. All in all, I believe that TV is a good thing if you watch it in moderation.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the best argument is one that presents the hard facts like she did. I also think that the way she presented it with the charts was amazing. However, I also think that she could've done a better job, but overall it was a good presentation. I think that T.V. is good in moderation. I don't really watch T.V. at all. also, I think it depends on what you watch. If you're watching a lot of reality television you're not going to learn much, but if you watch things like the history channel it could be very beneficial.
ReplyDeleteMelo, you mentioned style and confidence as two important components of presenting an argument in this setting. Certainly she presents this information well, and relates to the audience. If it had been an academic audience, or an audience of TV insiders, the presentation would not have been as effective. She may have presented the information in more depth as a result.
ReplyDeleteYour observations about presentation style relate to our ongoing discussion about audience. It's so important in written work as well. If we write everything the same way (say, as an academic research argument) we will lose the point in many contexts. For example, in this class students are writing in an informal, discussion-based format (the blog), a formal, exploratory/analytical format (which directs to a specified audience of your choosing), and a formal, academic research essay format (the most relevant form of writing for future college work, but not as relevant for future writing in a profession). All formats require different modes.
Luckily Zalaznick knows the differences in style, and her confidence in the subject matter allows the speech to relate to the audience as well as those watching online.