Forrest Gump; Catherine, Jay, Sina ,Zhou

Our first website we used was;

1. http://blogs.widescreenjournal.org/?p=245

1 1) 1) It analyzes the film Forrest Gump and how the history in the movie and the innocence of the main character contribute to the meaning of it as a whole.

2. 2)The audience of the website article is people who are interested in the history of America and those who want to analyze the film Forrest Gump on a deeper level. The tone of the article would be critical, the voice would be of a experience critic. An example that contritbutes to the crtical tone of the article is, “Most importantly, we don’t see any Vietnamese people in Vietnam.” The language used by the writer is very straightforward and simple so that it is understood by a wider audience.

3. 3)There is one graphic on the webpage, but it doesn’t relate at all to the subject of the article. In our opinion, there should be a graphic of the movie being analyzed and also a graphic that would contribute to the article. Because the graphic presented doesn’t really contribute at all to the article, we cannot deduce more information from the visual aspect of the webpage.

4. 4)We looked up the organization “Wide Screen Journal”, and learned that they are a peer review and open access film and video studies journal. This would mean that this journal is probably an expert in its field and should be considered a very credible source. From the sources they use to write their critique, four out of the five are credible sources from other journals and factsheets. One source on the other hand, is Wikipedia, which is not such a good one because of its inaccuracies. The journal doesn’t have a distinct bias presented and instead just provides an objective view of the movie.

5. 5)We feel that collecting sources from Internet was very effective because of the simplicity to find these sources. These sources will be very useful to us in the long run because it is very pertaining to our argument.

6. 6)We believe that looking at sources with a critical eye definitely helps in identifying the differences between popular and professional sites.

Our second website was;

http://www.fanpop.com/spots/forrest-gump

The audience is Forrest Gump fans. Clues are the name of website. It explicitly tells us the audience is fans of Forrest Gump. It also serves as a forum for Forrest Gump fans. The assumed knowledge is that the audience has seen and is a fan of the movie. The graphics mainly consist of pictures from the film and interviews with the actors. The graphics relate to the topic because they are almost all from the movie. They help to explain the content of the movie,and mostly stand alone. They did not overuse graphics to the point of distraction. The information on the site is very biased, but it’s not a advertisement trying to sell a product. It has credibility because it uses primary sources. The site Fanpop also hosts fan sites for many other movies. The website has lots of information for other movies as well. The organization is not involved in research and does not provide documentation. The website is up-front about its purpose. We learned that the movie’s popularity extends into different forms of media, such as the internet. The fans of this movie show support in many ways. The information is useful, but not as useful as the movie itself. If you acknowledge the bias in a document, you can remove yourself from the bias and remain objective.

Marsal, Jimmie, Tony, Sneha

     1. http://www.referenceforbusiness.com/businesses/G-L/Levi-Strauss-Company.html#b

    The site is an overview of the history of Levi Strauss and Company.

    www.levistrauss.com. The website talks about their different brands such as Dockers and Levi jeans, their history, and their workers.

   2. The audience of this website is someone looking for information about businesses. The language is not too technical, so I think it is meant for a wide audience. The website is also meant to be used as an encyclopedia, so it doesn't provide an opinion just the facts.

    The audiences are people who are interesting at working at Levi, interested what the  company’s products, and interested in the company’s history and involvement in the world.

    3.   The site has very plain graphics. They have pictures that relate to the topic but the graphics do not. The site overall is very plain and boring, like an encyclopedia. The  site also has no advertisements. I think this adds to its credibility since they are not trying to attract users they are just trying to provide information. 

    It is a .com site. The background is gray/blackish with white text and sliding colored pictures with stating information about Levi and what makes the company different. The gray background coupled with white text makes information easier to read, and the sliding pictures let audiences know why Levi is good.

4.     The site is very plain and it states that its mission is just to provide information about businesses. It is meant to be used as an encyclopedia. It has no advertisements or sponsors. It seems to just be an encyclopedia on the internet. I think this adds to its credibility since it is not trying to attract attention or more users, it is simply providing information.

     The .com site is credible because the website is the company’s website, which is all the creditability needed for a project since the data and news comes from a primary source.

5.  I learned that it is important to be critical of a website. It is important to consider who wrote it, why it was written, and its sponsors. This provides an insight into wether the information is biased. Information on the web will be very important to our project since we are going to analyze advertisements. These advertisements are readily available on the web. 

6.  A professional site uses little to now rhetorical devices to attract the user, its sole purpose is to provide info. A popular site tries to attract users to gain money so it uses many rhetorical devices.

Ally, Mahdir, Wesley, Daniel

1. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/robinson/jr1957.html

http://www.jackierobinson.com/

The second website focuses exclusively on Robinson and his career with his stats. The first website focuses on Robinson’s impact on MLB as a whole, specifically in relation to the integration of players of other races.

2. For the .com site, the audience is mostly comprised on fans. The official Jackie Robinson foundation sells artifacts to fans off of the site. The site also fails to provide a lot of information about Robinson, which assumes that visitors to the site already know who Robinson is. For the .edu site, the tone and language are very formal and the information given is very detailed about how MLB was before, during and after Robinson played in it. The site is accessible through the library of congress, which adds to its credibility.

3. On the .com site, there are black and white pictures zoomed in on Robinson’s face, showing his emotion and depicting him as an idol without providing any relevant data. Other graphics include visuals of merchandise. The .edu site contains factual images with text underneath describing the relevance of the images. The site has a white background making the text easier to read. The graphics of the .edu site are made to inform while the graphics of the .com site are made to appeal to the eye.

4. The .gov site comes from the library of congress, a very credible, well-known source. The .com site gains credibility from being known as the “official Jackie Robinson site” and being owned by the company that reserves the protectable right to the Robinson estate and name.

5. The .com site provides a brief overview of Robinson’s career focusing on high points of joining teams and setting records. The .gov site provides more in depth information about the experiences he faced that were controversial or related to racial issues. The .com website, being owned by a business, is more biased and attempting to sell the brand and promote Robinson, while .gov website coming from a credible database attempts to inform in a less biased way.

6. Popular sites are more aimed at catching the eyes of their audience and being appealing while professional sites are focused on an audience who wants to gain a deeper understanding of the topic.

Sina, Kourtney, Jason, Peter

www.jstor.org/pss/3031463

www.press.uillinois.edu/books/catalog/52qmk7dt9780252034664.html

1.Both sources are discussing post WWII football in America.

2. The audience targeted is more professional, maybe those doing research on the topic.

3. There aren't any graphics which makes the sites seem more professional.

4. Both sources are published and the second source has been validated by the University of Illinois which makes it more credible.

5. Football is intertwined with American culture and expands with the country. The sport was a battle on and off the field when it came to issues such as racial integration.

6. The more popular sites tend to use more graphics and less words while the professional sites are more narratives and use citations. The popular sites use less difficult and are easier to read.

group 2

1.

Average score of the group is 10.75. This represents the lower level of apprehension in groups, which means we are comfortable in interacting each other.

2.

We will make sure that everyone has the same floor space so that each member’s views can be represented.

Take a break for a while, and rethink about the topic.

Reevaluate the pros and cons collectively.

3.

Take a break; bring the impartial third party immediately to resolve the conflict.

4.

No interruption. We take into account group member’s race and background. If you are going to be late, contact any member immediately. Otherwise, show up. Work around the meeting schedule.

5.

Benjamin-Scheduler/Agenda Setter

Sam-Note taker

Sarthak-Communication Organizer

Lauren-Leader

6.

Leader type: participative

Tony, Marsal, Sneha, Jimmie Group Response

1. Tony – 13

Marsal = 10

Sneha – 12

Jimmie – 9

Group average 11

In general, we are not scared to participate in a group discussion.

2. a) Get everyone in the group to participate

b) Being open to different points of view in the group

c) Don’t be overly critical

3. a) Weigh pros and cons of argument

b) Reach to a consensus decision

c) Cool down and talk things over

4. a) Everyone should be free to voice their opinion

b) Constructive criticism should be welcomed

c) Engage everyone into the group discussion

5. Tony – Information giver – gatekeeper

Sneha – Administrator – harmonizer

Marsal – Leader – elaborator -

Jimmie – sensor – information seeker

6. Participative

Group no. 4

1. The average score for the whole group on the checklist is 14. This shows that the group is moderate level of communication.

2. a) Purposely play Devil's advocate.
b) Research different view points
c) Ask other people about their interpretations to get their perspectives.

3. a) Peacefully resolution through talks
b) Address grievances and vote on problems.
c) Talk to professor Schiff

4. a) Every person gets to share his views uninterrupted by other members.
b) Mutual understanding that conversation is just for academic purposes without the intent of expressing sheltered view points.
c) Vote if we have disagreements.

5.
Ally - leader
Daniel - scheduler
MD - note taker
Wesley - agenda setter, organizer

6. Consultative