I am in the middle of researching a paper that is, as of now, generally about how "fear of terrorism" is a force used to maitain a complacent population. My research has focused on arguments that help support my case, and now I'm more interested in fleshing out context. By providing the context I hope to show what has led the media and terrorism to be so mutually beneficial to one another. I have already found that there is a large body of work which supports the idea that a fear is a commodity manufactured by the media in order to influence populations. I think going into that argument would be too easy.
To problematize my prior topic, I've decided to look at the ongoing debate over the magnitude of media influence. It's generally understood that the mass media is an extremely pervasive force in giving the public a picture of the world. However, there are those who feel that thinking the public is some sort of unaware recepticle of media transmissions is elitist and does not reflect the ability for people to take information and process it in innovative, creative, and unpredictable ways. I think these debates need to be considered when talking about how much effect the media has on generating fear and having a captive (captivated) audience.
I am still processing information and doing, what I consider, to be first stage analysis. That consists of around two-three of my own responses per page of text that I'm reading. Once they are read that way, I am typing them up and going into more detail with a three column analysis of all the highlighting and commentary. The first column contains the quote that interested me; the second, my response; and the third, a rhetorical analysis of the language and tone of the original author. I'm at this stage with two of the journals, so I've much work to do. I'm working on a schedule to try and do one or two of the stages per source per day. I hope to then write 1-2 page summaries on each article so I can get all the data organized in my head and create the final paper from there.
So that's where I'm at. :)
To problematize my prior topic, I've decided to look at the ongoing debate over the magnitude of media influence. It's generally understood that the mass media is an extremely pervasive force in giving the public a picture of the world. However, there are those who feel that thinking the public is some sort of unaware recepticle of media transmissions is elitist and does not reflect the ability for people to take information and process it in innovative, creative, and unpredictable ways. I think these debates need to be considered when talking about how much effect the media has on generating fear and having a captive (captivated) audience.
I am still processing information and doing, what I consider, to be first stage analysis. That consists of around two-three of my own responses per page of text that I'm reading. Once they are read that way, I am typing them up and going into more detail with a three column analysis of all the highlighting and commentary. The first column contains the quote that interested me; the second, my response; and the third, a rhetorical analysis of the language and tone of the original author. I'm at this stage with two of the journals, so I've much work to do. I'm working on a schedule to try and do one or two of the stages per source per day. I hope to then write 1-2 page summaries on each article so I can get all the data organized in my head and create the final paper from there.
So that's where I'm at. :)
