302-H10 Course Blog Spring 2008

Discussion about Final paper- Shawn W.

swickham — Tue, 29 Apr 2008 02:20:26 +0000

My discussion with Joel was very helpful. He read my paper and gave me some insights on how to change my ideas to make it more influential. He wrote some comments on the revising sheet to help me focus on the weaknesses in my paper. He also encouraged me on my topic. I thank Joel for his input. I have tried to change my paper around to make it more persuasive and interesting. I hope my reader will agree with my view on television violence for young children.

Second Peer Discussion – Christopher Robinson, Jr.

crobinsb — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:29:29 +0000

The discussion between Christine and I regarding my final paper was very productive. I explained to Christine that I included more information about the origins of the Hays Office and the Lord-Quigley Proposal in paper. She commented that the additional information worked well with the overall format of the paper. However, Christine, as well as Professor Thompson, advised me to use more quotes that are not found in Hollywood Censored. Scholarly journals and Internet sources will be used in order to create a more diverse set of references for my paper. Overall, Christine said that my paper was very well written, and that I just had to correct simple spelling errors. Our discussion time was used very wisely and effectively.

Disscusion of final paper Diana T.

dtillery — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:46:36 +0000

Going over my paper with Dustin, he helped me make changes on how to clear up my thesis. I need transitions to my next topic when I go from paragraph to paragraph. A lot of editing was done to clean up my sentence structure. I should use quotes as supportive material only.

4 Page Draft Discussion – Christine S.

cstansel — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 23:08:52 +0000

Chris and I discussed my new and improved paper on the Internet and children. Since the last revised proposal was due, I have removed a section and revised my outline. Not all of my sections have been written yet, so Chris was only able to comment on the paragraphs that have been written so far. He again gave me suggestions on how to develop my thesis so it ties in the ideas which I am covering in the paper. Also, I was able to get some feedback on a paragraph pertaining to the Communications Decency Act and the Child Online Protection Act. I wasn’t sure if it was a section that ought to be expanded, or if it played enough of a role the way I have it now. Chris thought it was well used the way it is presently written. Overall, a productive discussion that gave me some good guidance on fleshing out the remainder of the sections.

Paper workshop-Lisa O

lomara1 — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:28:33 +0000

Bhavna and I looked over our first few pages of our rough drafts for our final paper today in class. It was very helpful to see another persons point of view about my writing and ideas. Bhavna pointed out some key points in my paper so far that will guide me through my progression: the facts and information is useful, quotes and paraphrasing is good,sources are relevant,some tricky sentences,the info paragraph lacks structure of where the paper is going,parts of the paper lack organization and needs structure as well,all my points should relate back to the thesis. Bhavna’s paper is an argument closely related to mine and I think she has a good start so far. She needs to expand further on her information and relate all her paragraphs back to the thesis. For both of us the focus now is to develop our papers and support our arguments making sure all of our information is relating back to our thesis. Both of us have editing and expanding to do in some areas as to ensure that our papers are easily understood and are arguments are clear. For next week, we hope to have a final rough draft and get feedback on our progress so far.

Bhavna B.-Peer editing paper workshop

bbhatia — Wed, 23 Apr 2008 22:17:40 +0000

For our peer editing session, Lisa O’mara and I discussed our thesis’, the organziational structures of our paper, and the appropriateness of supporting evidence. Lisa judgef whether or not the information I presented was clear and concise, along with whether it is useful and relevant.

We focused a lot on transitions, maintaining the focus on our thesis, and making sure our writing doesn’t drift from the main.arguement. Lisa critiqued that I should explore my thoughts even further which could possibly open doors to new points. She also states that I should tie in my sources to the main point more often, to solidify and reinforce it.

This peer editing session was very helpful. Now I know exactly what to work on for next week!

Peer Discussion

mtahir2 — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 08:53:02 +0000

After discussing my paper topic with a couple of people in class including Professor Thompson,

I looked into a couple movies in the Jc Library that I could watch about the media’s affect on adolescents and children. I got a hold of a couple articles online at JSTOR that proved to be quite helpful when it came to videogames and the detrimental effects they can have on impressionable children. I will be incorporating these findings in my paper draft for Wednesday.

peer discussion of paper (Lisa)

lomara1 — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 15:47:40 +0000

Bhavna and I read over each others outlines and plans. We are doing similar topics so I thought her ideas were well thought out and relevant to her topic. I suggested some rearranging of word choice and to connect her thoughts more thoroughly but she is definitely on the right track. Bhavna read over my introduction paragraph and suggested some grammar changes and to narrow down my thesis to better clarify the argument. She helped me understand what I am trying to argue in the paper and helped me to see what I want the reader to able to get out of my paper. I need to clearly identify how the rest of my outline relates back to my thesis. Because my thesis needs some adjustment, I might have to again change my outline and plan a bit to clearly define what it is I am trying to accomplish in this paper.

Outline with Tammy (Shawn W.)

swickham — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:13:36 +0000

I talked with tammy about my outline and what I will be discussing in my paper. My argument is the violent scenes shown on television is acted out in real life situation by children who watch it. She broke down my outline and asked me specific questions on what I should be answering in my paper. She let me know that I need to be specific and either tie it all into harmful effects with children or just talk about four specific effects causing children to behave violently. Tammy helped me break down my overall plan into a more simple and straightforward paper instead of scattered ideas. Thanks Tammy!

Revised Plan, Outline, and Bibliography – Barbara

bmoorman — Thu, 17 Apr 2008 00:12:25 +0000

Final Research Paper Outline

This is my revised plan about my final research paper. I am writing about the history of censorship and how it has changed over time. We now have the ratings system and my argument is that censorship is necessary and it is time once again to alter the system a little bit.

I. Part of the intro:

On January 20, 2007 Dan Glickman, chairman of the MPAA, spoke to the Associated Press about changing the ratings system. He compared the ratings system to the United States Constitution by exclaiming that

“Like the U.S. Constitution _ and I’m not saying we’re the U.S. Constitution, of course _ the basic framework, the basic document has lasted for over 200 years. It’s been changed periodically but the fundamentals have remained. I personally see no need for what I call revolutionary change.” (Germain).

This makes sense because people cannot get used to a “revolutionary change” just like that, but the system needs some altering in order to go along with the society of today.

II. History of Censorship:

a. Hays office and the Production Code

b. The 1950s-60s: The need to transition (PCA-Joseph Breen retired in 1954 and Geoffrey Shurlock took over).

c. Valenti and the start of the voluntary ratings system (explain what each means).

1. October 7, 1968-G, M, R, X

2. 1970-M to GP

3. 1972-GP to PG

4. 1984-PG and PG-13

5. 1990-NC-17

III. Censorship of today

a. Changes to the rating system since 1990-most important thing is education according to Glickman.

b. CARA and the rules of ratings.

IV. The ratings creep

a. What is happening to the boundaries that are used to rate movies?

1. Leone’s study of comparison between PG-13 and R from 2000-2003.

2. PG-13 most popular and makes most money so even PG movies putting in one word of profanity just to be PG-13.

3. Comparison between R and NC-17, cutting little blips to be considered R

i. Released R-rated movie on DVD as “unrated” with additional scenes.

V. Conclusion:

a. Are the ratings working, and what can be done?

b. Times change, so does censorship.

1. Compare to times changing in the 50s (Lewis,114) and so on.

Peer reviewed articles:

Found in the Communication and Mass Media Complete Database:

Leone, Ron. Rated Sex: An Analysis of the MPAA’s Use of the R and NC-17 Ratings. Communication Research Reports, Winter 2004, Vol. 21 Issue 1, p68-74, 7p

Leone, Ron; Houle, Nicole. 21st Century Ratings Creep: PG-13 and R. Communication Research Reports, Jan2006, Vol. 23 Issue 1, p53-61, 9p, 1 chart

Leone, Ron; Osborn, Lynn. Hollywood’s Triumph and Parents’ Loss: An Examination of the PG-13 Rating. Popular Communication, 2004, Vol. 2 Issue 2, p85-101, 17p

Found from ProQuest:

Mariea Grubbs Hoy, J Craig Andrews. Entertainment Industry Ratings Disclosures and the Clear and Conspicuous Standard. The Journal of Consumer Affairs. Madison: Summer 2006. Vol. 40, Iss. 1, p. 117-143 (27 pp.)

Found in the George Mason University Fenwick Government Documents:

Rating entertainment ratings : how well are they working for parents and what can be done to improve them? : hearing before the Committee on Governmental Affairs, United States Senate, One Hundred Seventh Congress, first session, July 25, 2001. Washington : U.S. G.P.O. : For sale by the Supt. of Docs., U.S. G.P.O., [Congressional Sales Office], 2002.

Found on Medscape.com:

Books:

Black, Gregory D. Hollywood Censored: Morality Codes, Catholics, and the Movies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1994.

Lewis, Jon. Hollywood v. hard core: how the struggle over censorship saved the modern film industry. New York: New York University, 2000.

Sandler, Kevin S. The naked truth : why Hollywood doesn’t make X-rated movies. New Brunswick, N.J. : Rutgers University Press, 2007.

Vaughn, Stephen. Freedom and Entertainment: rating the movies in an age of new media. New York : Cambridge University Press, 2006.

Websites:

http://www.filmratings.com/

www.mpaa.org/filmratings.asp/

http://www.natoonline.org/ratingslinks.htm