Aha! That Makes more sense...

Why are Bloggers still sitting at the kids table? Andrew Moshirnia addresses this question through the use of the Federal Shield Law and the popularity of online media. He says how online media is growing in terms of online news, such as an online newspaper, and social news through social networking. The Federal Shield Law is what Moshirnia uses to make his argument that online media outlets, such as Bloggers, should gain the same rights that paid journalists have when it pertains to the confidentiality of their sources. Moshirnia is a second year student at Harvard Law and targets his audience as he would himself, or to others who are educated in the field of social and online media. The author states the claim that Bloggers are still considered kids when it comes to their creditability and their standing with in the Federal Shield Act, in comparison to the standing that professional journalists have. He uses: logical fallacies regarding the Shield Act to promote Bloggers, claims which he intended would add creditably to his work, logical appeals by stating facts to strengthen his argument, quotes to support his claims, and diction by targeting a small group of people as his audience. Logical fallacies are used through out the article to make claims about what the author thinks to be true, when in fact these claims are not supported with clear evidence.
In the author’s effort to appeal to the logic of the audience, some points in his argument show characteristics of logical fallacies. Near the beginning of the article, it is stated that we have not become a nation of journalists. However, one of the most direct points of his article is that Bloggers should have the same rights as professional journalists, since their media is so widely read. There is also a claim that many professional journalists, who have blogs, are not protected by the Federal Shield Law when it deals with their blog. Yet, many professional journalists are not allowed by contract to have a blog in addition to what their job is outlined in their job description. (Reference: is social media now mass media?) Logically, this does not make sense that since most professional journalists are not allowed to have blogs in addition to their careers, so they do not need to worry about not being included in the Federal Shield Law. With this logic in mind, the author doesn’t have evidence to support his claim.
The author tries to make his claims creditable by offering many references to other articles, yet many of his references are not of a creditable nature. He offers much support articles which help the reader gain believe that his claim is more truthful; however, many of these articles are from the Citizen Media Law Project which is the same site that this article is from. Since the information is coming from the same group of editors, this information can be bias towards the author’s opinion. Some of the sources also include wikipedia, a site where anyone can post anything about a topic, which is filled with unaccredited information. These references also offer appeals to the audiences’ logic.
The author uses statistics and references to articles to appeal to the logic of the reader by making the information seem more creditable. Sourcing other resources to back up the claims of the author make the reading want to go and learn more about the situation since the sources are included. The reasoning for the author’s claims is not timely after they are stated, and it is not of his own reasoning but that of others. The logical appeals were used to state his claim and back his claim, yet some where not done in a creditable way. Another way that the author appeals to the logic is through the use of quotes, which seem to decorate his article.
The authors expansive use of quotes through out his article, are used to support the creditably of his work. Through the usage, the author also commits emotional fallacies to engage his readers. The author talks about how the Bloggers blogs are used through out the world by many people as a source of mass media, but the Bloggers are still unprotected by the Federal Shield Law. The pull at the readers’ emotions is in fact an emotional fallacy. The author however also includes many statistics as quotes in his article that most definitely appeal to the reader in a way that an emotional fallacy is not committed. The use of quotes also increases the author’s creditability, and makes the reader more inclined to value the claims that the author creates. In addition to the usage of quotes, the author also uses diction to state his argument.
The use of diction through out the article is constantly showing who the author thinks he is appealing to with in his audience. The author assumes that the reader knows what the Federal Shield law is and how it works by linking to articles that support his point and not articles that provide a definition. With the way he has phrased or structured his argument, it is tailored to those with in the journalism field, or to those who at least are educated on the manor. As well as making these assumptions about his audience, the author also uses qualifiers to keep the audience size smaller by being as specific as possible. A smaller audience means that the author was very specific and concise with his arguments due to the word choice or diction that he used.
The author used tools such as: logical fallacies, claims with evidence, logical appeals, quotes and diction to appeal to the reader by making his argument as strong as possible. The author however may have placed certain things sooner as to add to the strength of his article. The quote at the end about who uses the internet and how it is distributed among sources on the internet, could have been moved to earlier in the story so that the reader would understand that mass media is moving to the internet. This would help his argument at the beginning instead of his reference to the quote about trends in technology over the last decade, so that the reader could really understand that many people look at blogs, and that it is relevant for them to have protection. He also says near the beginning that the nation isn’t becoming a bunch of little journalists, and then goes to say that many people blog and that most people go online to these things for answers instead of mass media. The contradiction of these two arguments is undermining his who point in his article, which makes it seem unclear and thus less creditable. Overall, the author uses such literary tools to prove his point, whether he uses them in the right way or not is the question.

Roughly fifty percent of teens think that free downloading and file sharing of copyrighted content with out permission, is acceptable according to the Pew Internet & Life Project’s study on Teen Content Creators and Consumers. Quite frankly, this fact shows that something needs to be done about teen’s usage of copyrighted materials. Teens today who engage in these activities are part of the C-generation. The C in C-generation stands for: content, create, communicate, and co-modification. So basically, the C-generation is a group of people, who take in new content found on multimedia sources, rework the content and redistribute it. Copyright infringement and plagiarism took off soon after the internet became an everyday staple in households; leading to the creation of the C-generation. The C-generation has also evolved through the use of Peer to Peer networks and YouTube, which provided new content to modify and distribute, no matter if it falls under copyright or not. Peer to Peer networks allowed for the transfer of media among people on the internet, where as YouTube allows for interactive video posting on the internet. Teens in the C-generation do not care whether they are engaging in copyright infringement therefore we should make a greater effort to catch offenders, as well as educating teens about the nature of copyright infringement and plagiarism.

The general public needs to make a greater effort to catch teens who are openly taking materials that fall under copyright. There are many current efforts being made by professors and the government to decrease copyright infringement and plagiarism, but more efforts need to be made to stop teen offenders. One form of copyright infringement is plagiarism, which is the practice of using someone else’s writing or research and claiming as one’s original work (Silvester 22). Currently many students have to run their essays and research papers through websites such as turnitin.com and plagairsim.com, to check if they are plagiarizing from the internet or books sources. Silvester (23) suggests that, “more than 30 percent of students in undergraduate colleges today are guilty of plagiarism.” Teachers aren’t the only ones who have been recently monitoring teens who use plagiarized material; the federal government has also been watching for copyright infringement on Peer to Peer networks and YouTube.

Teens in the C-generation have relayed on Peer to Peer networks and YouTube, to gain access to new media and redistribute it. However, most of the material found on Peer to Peer networks and YouTube are under copyright, and the distributors may not necessarily have a license to circulate the new material. The federal government draws the line between what requires a license to distribute and what does not. The line is considered crossed when anyone who owns a copy of the material and distributes it for profit, or exceeds the boundaries of a transfer license (U.S. Copyright Office). Many lawsuits have been filed since the government has had to step in and enforce copyright restrictions with in Peer to Peer networks and YouTube. The rise in lawsuits is partially due to the use of a government created ‘malware’ used to catch teen offenders. The government has taken certain precautions due to copyright infringement, and now sometimes the FBI may become involved in catching reoccurring teen offenders. Although the government was successful in creating new malware to monitor Peer to Peer sites, some things still may go unnoticed due to the constant revising with in copyright laws. Many teachers and professors are making efforts to stop plagiarism, and the Federal Government is also cracking down on Peer to Peer networks and YouTube. However, some of these efforts seem to be falling short, since many teens can find loopholes and ways to work around the line that has been set in place.

Copyright laws are changing more and more due to the advancement of Peer to Peer networks and YouTube, yet sometimes these advancements leave room for teen offenders to find loopholes with in the law. The push to advance the laws has left many looking for a way to work around them. Obviously these loopholes are working since Peer to Peer networks are still allowing teens downloading copyrighted materials; even to the extent that teens download copyrighted materials almost twice as often as adults do (Johnson 5). In these cases it seems that no matter how much the government works to prevent illegal downloading, some teens seem to get around the law and can easily access copyrighted materials. Also, Peer to Peer networks are using email portals to send data through the network since many internet service providers block Peer to Peer portals (Johnson 5). The blockage of these portals is another example of how teens find ways to get around the efforts made by the government. YouTube has also recently been involved with the law suits dealing with copyright infringement. Many companies are trying to blame YouTube for allowing their members to use copyrighted materials, even though there is no way for YouTube to monitor this. It was determined that as long as the offenders and YouTube agree to follow the copyright if asked by the company, then there should be no problem on YouTube; yet there are thousands of videos on YouTube that contain works that fall under copyright (Shields 4). The ability that teens in the C-generation have to work around copyright laws and not get caught shows just how much teens need to be educated in the legal consequences of copyright infringement and plagiarism.

Many teens engage in copyright infringement and plagiarism, and don’t necessarily know exactly what they are getting themselves into. Most teens in the C-generation are being educated in school about the consequence of plagiarism. However, the majority of teens who copy and paste from the internet, or download the newest hit on the billboard top 100 don’t seem to know what they are specifically in violation. Nearly half of all teenagers have no familiarity with copyright laws and don’t feel that the same type of punishment is necessary for illegally downloading media from the Internet as other types of theft. (Cheng 1) The fact that nearly half of teens feel that copyright infringement and plagiarism is not the same as committing petty theft illustrates that teens generally are not educated about the specifics. A survey on teens and copyright infringement said that teens relay on their parents as their main source of information when dealing with possible copyrighted materials (Cheng 1). But to get the message out about the risks that come with downloading copyrighted media, teens are going to have to get the education from somewhere else other than their homes. Before, it was stated that teachers and professors discuss plagiarism in schools, but plagiarism isn’t the same as copyright infringement. So it is up to the general public, the government, television ads and radio ads to educate the teenage population among the C-generation about copyright laws and plagiarism.

Teens don’t seem to mind whether they are engaging in copyright infringement or plagiarism, and people need to make a greater effort to catch offenders and to educate teens, since most don’t know what is legal verses illegal. Since copyright infringement has become an issue over the past few years, actions other than those made by professors and the federal government need to be made. Efforts also need to be made on the front of education for teens in the C-generation. The pew internet project also said that, “30% of teens admit to (their) current use of peer to peer networks for downloads,” (Lenhart 6) on the issue of teen content creators and consumers. This is enough evidence that copyright infringement among teens is a big issue and something needs to be done by everyone to help this crime come to an end.



Annotated Bibliography

Cheng, Jacqui. "Survey: Teens Rely on Parents to Teach Them about Copyright." Ars Technica. 13 Feb. 2008. Web. 18 July 2010. .

Lenhart, Amanda. "Most Teen Downloaders Think That Getting Free Music Is Easy and It’s Unrealistic to Expect People Not to Do It.” Pew Research Center's Internet & American Life Project. Nov. 2005. Web. 17 July 2010. http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2005/Teen-Content-Creators-and-Consumers.aspx

Shields, M.. "YouTube Suit Nixed: Open Season Afoot? " Mediaweek 28 Jun 2010: ABI/INFORM Global, ProQuest. Web. 28 Jul. 2010.

Silvester, Niko. “Before You Turn It In.” Writing 27.3 (2004): 22-23. Academic Search Complete. EBSCO. Web. 15 July 2010.

"Online Service Providers." U.S. Copyright Office. 16 Mar. 2010. Web. 28 July 2010. .

Does ‘The Federal Shield Act’ affect Bloggers?
Why are Bloggers still sitting at the kids table? Andrew Moshirnia addresses this question by mentioning The Federal Shield Law and the popularity of online media. He says that online media mass media is growing through newspapers, and social media is expanding with social networking sites. Moshirnia uses the terms of The Federal Shield Law to argue that online media outlets, including Bloggers, should gain the same rights as paid journalists are allowed when it comes to the ability to keep their sources confidential. The author is a second year Law student at Harvard and targets his audience as people educated in the field, as he would himself. When compared to the standing on The Federal Shield Law that professional journalists are allowed, the author says that Bloggers are mere kids in comparison. He uses: logical fallacies regarding the Shield Act to promote Bloggers, claims which he intended would add creditability to his work, logical appeals by stating facts to strengthen his argument, quotes to support his claims, and diction by targeting a small group of people as his audience. Logical fallacies are used throughout the article to make claims about what is ‘true’, when in fact these claims are not supported with clear evidence.

Logical fallacies can convince the reader.
In the author’s effort to appeal to the logic of the audience, some points in his argument show characteristics of logical fallacies. Near the beginning of the article, it is said that ‘we have not become a nation of journalists’. However, blogging is referred to the way everyone can be their own journalist. One of the main direct points of his article is that Bloggers should have the same rights as professional journalists, since their media is so widely read. He also includes a claim that many professional journalists who happen to have blogs, are not protected by The Federal Shield Law even though they are at work. Yet, many professional journalists are not allowed by contract to have a blog in addition to their job parameters. Logically, this does not make sense that since most professional journalists are not allowed to have blogs anyways, so these journalists do not have to worry about the realm of The Federal Shield Law. With this logic in mind, the author doesn’t include creditable evidence to support all of his claims.

Creditability. Creditability. Creditability.
The author makes his claims creditable by offering many references to gain the readers attention, yet many of his references are not of a creditable nature. The reader can gain information and reliability about the topic by the inclusion of sources used to make the author’s claims; however, many of these articles are from the Citizen Media Law Project, which is the same company that his article is from. Since the information is coming from the same group of editors, bias information may be used in favor of the author. Some of the sources also include wikipedia, a site where anyone can post anything about a given topic, which in turn could be filled with unaccredited information. These references can also appeal to the audiences’ logic.

Do Moshirnia’s resources help make his argument?
The author uses references in the article to appeal to the logic of the reader ‘seemingly’ enhancing the creditability. Citing other sources to backup claims allow the reader to go and learn more about the situation and check the creditability of the sources out for themselves. The reasoning for the author’s claims is not stated timely after the claims are made, which can cause confusion for the reader. Also, the references are used as all of his reasoning, and none of his own thoughts are given in some cases. The logical appeals were used to state his claim and backup his claim, however, some where not done in a creditable way. Another way that the author appeals to the logic is through the use of quotes, which seem to decorate his article.

Do quotes really help make the argument more affective?
The author’s extensive use of quotations as tools in his article, support the creditability of his work. Through the usage of quotes, the author also commits emotional fallacies to engage his readers. The author talks about how the Blogger’s blogs are used throughout the world by many people as a source of mass media, but the Bloggers are remain unprotected by The Federal Shield Law. By making the reader feel sympathy for the Bloggers, the author commits an emotional fallacy. However, the author also uses quotes from statistics in his article, these quotes appeal to the reader in a logical way. The use of quotes also increases the author’s creditability, and makes the reader more inclined to believe the claims of the author. In addition to the usage of quotes, the author also uses diction to form his argument.

Who is the target audience?
The use of diction throughout the article shows who the author wants to include in his audience. The author assumes that the reader knows what the Federal Shield law is and how it works by linking to articles that support his point, but not articles that provide a definition or an explanation for the Law. The way the author has phrased his argument shows that it is tailored to those with in the journalism field, or to those who are educated on the topic. As well as making these assumptions about his audience, the author also uses qualifiers to keep the audience size smaller by being as specific as possible. A smaller audience means that the author has very specific and concise arguments due to the diction that was used.

Is the author’s use of quotes and statistics effectively? Could it be made better?
The author used tools such as: logical fallacies, claims with evidence, logical appeals, quotes and diction to appeal to the reader by making his argument as strong as possible. The author however may have placed certain things sooner as to add to the strength of his article. The quote at the end, about who uses the internet and how it is distributed among sources on the internet, could have been moved to earlier in the article so that the reader would understand that it is mass media that is moving to the internet. This would help his argument at the beginning instead of using his reference to the quote about trends in technology over the last decade. Having said that, the reader would now understand that many people look to blogs for mass media, thus it is relevant for the Bloggers to have protection. He also says near the beginning that the nation isn’t becoming a bunch of little journalists, and then goes to say that many people blog and that most people go online to these such news stories or answers instead of mass media. The contradiction of these two arguments is undermines his whole point in his article, which makes it seem unclear and thus less creditable. Overall, the author uses such literary tools to prove his point, whether he uses them in the right way or not is the question.

“It has become appallingly obvious that our technology has exceeded our humanity.”
(Quote Garden, 2007 Oct 14) Albert Einstein couldn’t have put it more in context for the modern day; technology has superseded humanity especially when it comes to social networking as depicted in an editorial cartoon by Daryl Cagle. In this cartoon, there are two sections: the top one illustrates the cave man era where everyone gathered around a fire to converse for hours, whereas the bottom box shows the modern era where everyone is in the same circle but faced outward, all with their technology of choice in hand. In the modern era, the internet has allowed our interpersonal communication to dissolve into a mere tweet or text. Technological advancements allowed for the devolution of socialization, even to the extent that people do not have to make eye contact while conversing next to one another. Cagle uses pathos in the cartoon to show the isolation. This is illustrated by the bottom panel by the position of the people. The author also uses strong symbols with in the cartoon to show how a fire can directly parallel an interpersonal relationship.

The most prominent aspect of the cartoon is the fire pit directly in the center of both panels. This symbol, in the top panel aspect of the cartoon, the fire unites the people as they are all gathered around it and conversing; the bottom panel shows that the group has allowed the fire to die because they aren’t even looking at it, or even tending to it. Letting the fire die shows that the group is no longer interested in face to face interaction; they are also not drawn together as they were in the top panel of the cartoon. All could amount to the point that isolationism draws them apart, due to social networking.

Based on the position of the people, as shown in the bottom panel, illustrates isolation through the appeal to pathos. However, this cartoon shows isolation in purely an auditory sense, or void of physical or face to face interaction. In the modern era, people don’t think that anything is abnormal when one may comment on their friends status, while they make even been right next to one another. Cagle outlines in the cartoon that it is hard to fathom that people with their backs turned, like in the bottom panel, can still have a conversation with out looking at one another all due to their technology. While this separation is easily combated with the fact that all persons can be in physical isolation and still communicate, the people who are communicating don’t find it awkward that their interpersonal relationship has completely been dismantled. It is said by many psychologists that most humans need the physical interaction to keep on living, and that technology usually can not fill that need. The need that technology can not fill will most commonly lead to a change in personal connections and more commonly, face to face conversations.

The new social networks are very well received and almost everyone seems to be using them, yet they are significantly changing personal conversations. Many can easily jump online and shoot a wall post or an email to catch up with a friend. Cagle suggests that there is no need to make eye contact or gestures to effectively communicate, as shown in the bottom panel, based on their position of facing outward. All of this effective communication doesn’t need to be done in person, but anywhere one can access the internet. With this new streamlining of communication, the need for an essential common ground to unite has become obsolete for groups of people.

Social networking has allowed most people to pull people away from the warm personal sense of communication and has isolated them as well as changed the normal way of personal conversation. In the modern era, people have allowed themselves to let go of human connection and even be addicted to the internet. This cartoon has perfectly emulated what is happening in society in a fun sense with the caveman.