Log in

Fri, Feb. 24th, 2012, 10:02 am
mozartzbitch: Critiques are always welcome and in fact, encouraged.

So first off the bat, I've been working for months on the CSET to get a certification in English to add to my credential. I have studied a lot for it and have put in some pretty dedicated hours. I merely however, have no idea if I have studied the right way at all. So Im just going about it the best and seeing what happens. So Im just posting my practice essays here. For this practice essay, I responded to a sample question on the characeristic of good journalism. I don't know if this essay is the right idea, but it seems consistent with the practice book asked for. Any critiques on my views would be most appreciated. Please also note that I only put an hour into this particular draft because that's all the time I'll get on the test:

Good journalism should educate audiences on important issues and develop insight on the multiple perspectives to those issues. Journalists may have their own personal opinions for or the topics, but must be mindful of all arguments are both sides. Journalists attempting to sway audience's opinions need to be especially mindful of their all potential arguments against their particular opinions. Journalists open to all arguments toward issues can emphasize the reasons to support them and rectify any argument against them.

Good journalism is directly demonstrated through Monroe's motivational sequence; attention, need, satisfaction, visualization, and solution. An effective journalist gains the audience's attention by immediately alerting them of an issue. The journalist then efficiently convey appropriate rationale to investing attention to this issue. By understanding thier audience's value, the journalist effectively conveys to the audiene positives or negative impacts have resulted or could due to the topic. Journalists also keep all opinions in perspective to show open-mindedness to their audience's contrasting opinions.

Poor journalism is bias and one-sided. Explaining issues from an overly positive or negative viewpoint without acknowledging each counter-argument is propoganda, not journalism. Such journalists do a disservice to their audiences by not allowing ample opportunities to evalute each side to an issue. This causes a loss in credibility to the journalist. A spectator who is educated not decided on issue and witnesses such a bias description of it will lack respect and therefore sympathy as well in favor of that jorunalist. Audiences not educated on this issue except for a bias account on it may unfairly sympathize with the journalist.

Fri, Feb. 24th, 2012 01:40 am (UTC)

I think the thing that will help this most right off the bat is to try any combination of the following:

A) Read it very carefully aloud, exactly as you have written it. When you find anything that sounds unnatural, say it again how you would say it if you were just talking to someone, and write down exactly what you say.

B) Read it aloud to someone else, and have them note the parts that sound unnatural.

C) Have someone else cold-read it aloud to you. Mark the points where they hesitate, or where it doesn't sound right to you.

I think the content is fine, it's just the way it's written that is unclear sometimes.

Sat, Feb. 25th, 2012 04:36 am (UTC)

Your comments are always most appreciate so I will honor that by explaining exactly how I have approached your remarks thus far.

Your general assessment as is freqently the case when I write assigned pieces alerted me of a very specific writing error I constantly fall victim to. When I have a concept of how I will respond to an assigned piece, I become so obsessed with impressing the adjudacators, that I lose sight of fundamental issues. Reading it through, I mainly realized that I was too dedicated to making sure that that my comments addressed basic areas the CSET evaluators want to know about. Well soon enough, I reread it again and thought, "Yup, it seems very forced." So thank you very much, because you actually identified my greatest error I need to pay attention to.

Fri, Feb. 24th, 2012 10:21 pm (UTC)

First sentence: "...develop insight on the multiple perspectives to those issues" I'd say ON those issues,not TO those issues
Second sentence: "Journalists may have their own personal opinions for or the topics" Personal opinions ON the topics, not "for or" the topics, "but must be mindful of all arguments are both sides" ON both sides, not ARE both sides. That's three times you didn't use the word "ON".... did someone hypnotize you so you're not able to say it?

Sat, Feb. 25th, 2012 04:42 am (UTC)

"That's three times you didn't use the word "ON".... did someone hypnotize you so you're not able to say it?" I'd love to use the excuse that someone hynotized me, but that would be giving me too much credit. Rather, more basic choices of wording were not my top priority when I invested my hour in for practice. My next step would appear that I need to just write and forget about time limits. I'll be timed on the test, but I'm still prepping. This was the first time I wrote in which I wrote out a CSET Section IV practice essay within the time commitments I'll have in two weeks. I now have developed greater insight thanks to you and twirlynoodle on some more central areas to make sure I also pay attention to in a hour period of writing.