AP Lang

Reader’s Journal (the main bit)

Over the summer, collect 3 columns each from 3 different columnists from reputable major publications such as the New York Times, the Seattle Times, the LA Times, or the Washington Post. Keep a reader’s journal noting your reflections on the various columnists’ styles and approaches to their material, as well as their personal response to the content. Look for patterns and tendencies. Please include copies of the articles you choose to discuss. This journal should be maintained over the course of the summer.

So, not many papers have pages like the Washington Post page linked above that list their columnists anymore. Basically, you're looking for writers who write regular articles. Many of them write once or twice a week or maybe once every other week. If you click on their name at the top of an article, most sites will take you to a page that lists all of that writer's articles. Yes, you can use columnists who specialize in opinion, features, sports, etc.

Please look over the media bias chart. As of this writing, they were up to version 4 (the public beta of version 5 is now up). They have information on their methodology if you are interested in understanding how the chart is created. Please note the bias and reliability of the media outlets your columnists write for in your journal.

UPDATE to the Reader's Journal in response to an email question

If I were to write this assignment (I’ve done similar things), I would likely keep some notes on what I’m seeing about the writer’s tone and writing habits. One kind of obvious question is how often do they produce a column? Do they write with matter of fact reporting? Do they inject opinion? Do they use anecdotes? Figurative language? Simple diction and syntax? Complex? Do they mix these? Why and how? Who is their audience (try to move past “people who read X publication”)? How do their choices serve to interact with that audience in a way that helps foster the writer’s purpose? I hope that addresses your question on depth. Obviously how much you can see and figure out will affect how much you write.

Organizationally, you might choose to write about each piece individually with a culminating bit tying them all together. I think I would likely write down as many observations as I could about each piece, being careful to observe the potential changes in audience and purpose, even between columns that appear only one week apart. Then I would likely write one piece that reflected on the issues noted above.

Regardless of the form you choose, be sure to cite where each example comes from. Citing of course reminds us of the need for a works cited page so those citations make sense. I know citing will make this feel super formal to you, but this is reflective writing supported by evidence. Let your writing be guided by what you notice in at least what is noted above. This doesn’t have to be a formal essay (it can be if that makes you feel more comfortable), but even in informal communication, we provide evidence (why our vacation was awesome, why we should wear a mask in public, what made it a bad day, etc).

If you’re freaking out about the works cited page reference made in the previous paragraph, good for you for noticing detail. The rest of you, stop skimming instructions! That will get you in trouble. That said, here’s a good example that also has a link to citation machine to help you automatically create your works cited entries. It looks hard, but the internet has made it sooo easy. Do a quick help query in Google Docs or Word on how to make a hanging indent (that’s the weird indent you see in the example on the website).

Lastly, concerning the media bias chart. I just want you to use that chart to place your writer’s publication on the continuum of type of writing and bias. Use the X and Y axis as well as the colored box labels to determine where that publication generally falls. Please look at this on your Chromebook or a proper computer. It will be quite difficult to view with perspective on your phone. So, if you find that you’ve picked someone from InfoWars or Patribotics (the lowest rated sources on each side of the American political spectrum), you’ll likely want to note their extreme partisan bias and that they consistently publish inaccurate and fabricated information. Just because they are horrible journalists, doesn’t mean you can’t use their work in your analysis, but it will greatly affect your analysis. For anyone that falls below the “Opinion: Fair Persuasion” line, you’ll want to find a story about the same topic from a neutral, more fact and or analysis based source to provide context so you can determine the writer’s purpose beyond “deceive the gullible and reinforce the fears or the ultra partisan”. Essentially the media bias chart helps provide the necessary context to think clearly and analytically about sources.

Remember that all writing is done in context: context of deadlines, working environment (what your editor thinks), political environment, proximity in time to events that may impact their emotions as humans as well as their topic, tone, and purpose (for example when Trump told several US Congresspersons to go back where they came from, this article was published in The New Yorker, which is a -9 on the left so 3 points into skews left from neutral and a 47 on the y axis meaning they are at the top on the complex analysis or fact reporting mixed with analysis -- Having taken the New Yorker in the past, I would say in their case that "or" should be an "and" as they had both high fact reliability and consistent complex analysis).

Some of you astute readers have just thought, "Wait, above it says they should be reputable publications!" That is the main instruction. It will be easier to do something from the Washington Post or Seattle Times. It will be less work. You might have fun doing something from the hyper partisan regions, but that will be more work. If you are fairly partisan yourself, you'll have to manage your own bias as well, which is not easy.

Rhetorical Vocabulary

Familiarize yourself with the rhetorical vocabulary list below the remaining instructions. There will be a quiz during the first week or so of school depending on how much the schedule is messed up that first week.

Contact Me

Send me an email (agiddings@fifeschools.com) that contains the following:

• Your name

• Your experience in English classes

That email should include

o your objectives for English for your junior year and beyond

o your experiences including past classes and teachers

o your proudest accomplishment related to English related classes or skills

o your strengths, especially in reading, writing, and analytical and critical thinking.

o what you hope to improve this year

Please don't submit a formal resume (some people do). Just tell me about these things.

If you have questions. Don’t be the student that tells me the third week of school that you were confused and scared all summer, but were afraid to ask a question. Just ask. It’s okay. Really.

Parting Thoughts

I look forward to working with you in the coming year. This class will not be easy, but we try to have a fair bit of fun as well. I will ask you to do a great deal of close reading and quite a bit of writing. It is in this detailed work that thinkers and writers are born. The benefit of such work to the individual and society goes beyond the possibility of earning a couple of college credits, though I hope you earn those as well. The AP test this past spring was $94. Though it is not required by Fife High School, it is considered part of the class by colleges and by the College Board. Additionally, we are able to offer college credit through CWU for this class next year. Tuition will be much reduced over what it is on campus and details will follow. Taking the class for CWU college credit is optional as well, but highly recommended.

Have a wonderful summer!

Mr. Andrew Giddings

agiddings@fifeschools.com

Allusion: An indirect reference, often to another text or historical event

Anecdote: A short account of an interesting story

Colloquialism: An informal or conversational use of language

Connotation: That which is implied by a word, as opposed to the word’s literal meaning (denotation – literal meaning or dictionary meaning)

Diction: word choice

Ethos: A Greek term referring to the character of a person; the appeal of a text to the credibility and character of the speaker, writer, or narrator

Figurative Language: The use of tropes or figures of speech; going beyond literal meaning to achieve literary effect

Hyperbole: Exaggeration for the purpose of emphasis

Imagery: Vivid use of language that evokes a reader’s senses (sight, smell, taste, touch, hearing)

Irony: A contradiction between what is said and what is meant; in congruity between action and result

Juxtaposition: Placement of two things side by side for emphasis

Logos: A Greek term that means “word”; the appeal of a text based on the logical structure of its argument or central idea

Metaphor: A figure of speech or trope through which one thing is spoken of as though it were something else, thus making an implicit comparison

Pathos: A Greek term that refers to suffering but has come to be associated with broader appeals to emotion; the appeal of a text to the emotions or interests of the audience.

Persona: The speaker, voice, or character assumed by the author of a piece of writing

Point of View: The perspective or source of a piece of writing. First person has a narrator who refers to him or herself as I and a third person narrator does not use I at all.

Satire: An ironic, sarcastic, or witty composition that claims to argue for something, but actually argues against it

Syntax: Sentence structure

Tone: The speaker’s attitude toward the subject or audience

Understatement: Lack of emphasis in a statement or point; restraint in language often used for ironic effect

Works Cited

Roskelly, Hephzibah, and David A. Jolliffe. Everyday Use : Rhetoric at Work in Reading and Writing: College Version. New York: Addison-Wesley Longman, Incorporated, 2007.

Shea, Renee H., Lawrence Scanlon, and Robin Dissin Aufses. The Language of Composition : Reading, Writing, Rhetoric. Boston: Bedford/Saint Martin's, 2007