Discuss in what sense the focus article’s intended depiction of its phenomena
Discuss in what sense the focus article’s intended depiction of its phenomena
Introduction to Religion GS 399 02 & 03, Fall 2018 Instructor: Dr. Stephen Wilson; Office Hours: TR 9:05-10:35 & by appointment Office: Olin O 216; E-mail: email@example.com; Tel.: (812) 877-8554
PRESENTATION GUIDELINES DUE DATE. All students will give a 7-minute presentation to the class on the day they have been assigned between Nov. 1st an 6th. Because public speaking can be hard to time exactly, a 1- minute grace period is built in. Students will be reminded at the 7-minute deadline and then given a further minute to wrap up. At 8 minutes the student will be asked to yield the floor. The written portion of this assignment is due through the Moodle Presentation portal by 11:59 pm the day the spoken portion is given in class. If you have difficulties with the Moodle platform, email the paper to the instructor in a pdf document by the same deadline. It is the student’s responsibility to ensure that any submission errors are addressed. See syllabus for course policies on lateness. CLASS PRESENTATION COMPONENTS: Step 1: Choose an article in a more or less journalistically serious newspaper that either has as its focus something to do with a phenomenon widely taken to be religious (whether you do or not) or that in some fashion questions the boundaries of what constitutes religion. Help accessing different newspapers that fulfill this requirement will be available from the Logan Library staff during the in-class library tutorial on October 29th. Make your selection of article carefully. You will later have to highlight weaknesses and make improvements.
Step 2: Without at first letting your critical perspective shape that explanation, explain in “straight news” neutrality (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 61-2) the most salient elements of your focus article’s intent to depict a religious phenomenon you think needs to be re-depicted. (1 minute suggested) Step 3: Without yet letting your view that a different description of that religious phenomenon has more journalistic merit, analyze what theory, assumption, or set of assumptions about religion guides the intended description of your focus article. (1 minute suggested)
Step 4: Explain in what sense the focus article’s intended depiction of its phenomena is (a) misconceived by its guiding theory, assumption, or set of assumptions about religion and (b) how that theory/assumption consequently contributes news that is non-ideal (according to a criterion or criteria of journalistic merit developed by Kovach and Rosenstiel in Blur). (between 1 and ½ [1.5] minutes suggested)
Step 5: Explain the criterion/criteria of journalistic merit (see, e.g., Blur 63, 65, 68, 149-150, 164, 157-8, 158-9, 161-2, 165-9), your comments in Step 4 were relying upon (1 minute suggested)
Step 6: Explain a dimension of Eliade, Durkheim, Freud or Marx’s theory you feel would enhance the journalistic merit of your focus article had its author incorporated it. (½ minute suggested)
Step 7: Enact that incorporation. That is, clearly demonstrate how the religious phenomenon is both (a) better explained and (b) carries greater journalistic merit with additional perspective you add by means of Eliade, Durkheim, Freud, or Marx’s theory of religion. (2 minutes suggested)
PRESENTATION WRITE-UP COMPONENTS: Part 1: Write a 1-2 page analysis (double-spaced with standard font/margins) of at least one instance of “repetition of
loaded language” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 91) in an article within a more or less journalistically serious newspaper you
think might help you envision enhancements to your focus article (this article and your focus article may also be the
same). Make sure to explain (a) what impression the catchy phrase is meant to convey, (b) what debate that
impression expresses a one-sided position in, and (c) at least one or two more complex questions that will not be
asked by readers who allow their inquiry to end with the impression the catchy phrase seeks to create.
Part 2: Offer a bibliographic (e.g., works cited) entry for one (1) other article in a more or less journalistically serious
newspaper in which the same “repetition of loaded language” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 91) identified in Part I appears.
Part 3: With explicit reference to Kovach and Rosenstiel’s guidance on news that “really matters” (146; see also 149-
152, 156-169), write a 1-2 page explanation of a question (with sub-questions developed at your discretion) that
would have enhanced the journalistic merit of your focus article had it informed the approach rather than what did.
Part 4: Produce a 3-source annotated bibliography (in alphabetical order by author’s last name). The basis of the
research should be background information—e.g., on the beliefs of practices involved in the “religious” phenomenon,
on the movement or people in question, on the phenomenon’s history, or the phenomenon’s cultural/political
context—you feel would have enhanced the focus article’s journalistic merit. Each source should be article length
(10-40 pages) and scholarly in nature (in an academic journal not another newspaper or magazine). Each entry should
have (1) full bibliographic info. properly cited, (2) summary of content, and (3) brief explanation of how this content
would have helped to move your focus article closer in the direction of the question explored in Part 3’s 1-2 pages.
Part 5: Select and properly cite a roughly 150-word (continuous) portion of your focus article that you believe could
be improved if some dimension of the research you have done in this course were applied to it. Re-write that roughly
150-word section, placing in quotation marks all portions of the original that are not changed. Your revision can
exceed the length of the original if you wish. Your revision should encompass at least two types of changes: (1) by
means of engagement with (quoted or non-quoted citation) one of the sources your bibliography said would help the
focus article become news that “really matters” (Kovach and Rosenstiel 146) and (2) by engagement with a concept or
perspective from Eliade’s, Durkheim’s, Freud’s, or Marx’s theories of religion not represented in the original.
Quoting from Eliade, Durkheim, Freud, or Marx is not necessary in your revision; but if you do quote content about
them, it needs to be from Pals’s Nine Theories of Religion and cited properly. Student-edited newspaper articles that
cite the instructor’s lecture notes instead of Pals will be subject to a 10-point deduction beyond the graded rubric
criteria below. Note Bene: This guidance is not meant to empower you to quote or minimally paraphrase Pals without citation. The regular rules of citation and plagiarism still apply to this assignment.
Part 6: PROPER CITATION. When you include within your paper any written text exactly as it appears in another
text, each word, phrase, sentence and/or paragraph must be within quotation marks. Not to do so can constitute
plagiarism—a form of academic misconduct at Rose-Hulman—because the reader presumes that any words not
included in quotation marks are your own. THIS INCLUDES THE OVERHEAD LECTURE NOTES PRODUCED
BY THE INSTRUCTOR TO AID IN STUDENT COMPREHENSION OF THE READING ASSIGNMENTS. THIS
MANDATE WOULD ALSO HAVE INCLUDED WEBSITES IF THESE WERE ACCEPTABLE (THEY ARE
NOT). It is acceptable and sometimes very desirable, to summarize longer portions of text (including the instructor’s
overhead notes) in your own words. You should still offer a citation in this case, even though you are not quoting (and
so do not need quotation marks). This makes sure, as in the case of quotation, that the reader knows you are not
claiming the summarized ideas as wholly your own. It also helps the reader consult those sections of the text you have
commented upon and form interpretations different from yours. Students are presumed to be familiar with the general
parameters of what plagiarism is. Reminders may be found within the “Plagiarism” tab under the Research Guide bar’s
“Information Literacy” option of the Logan Library site. Either the MLA or Chicago style of citation is acceptable.
GRADING RUBRIC. You will be evaluated on how well you fulfill the above requirements (in the
specific break-down of points below) as well as proper citation. The class portion of the presentation
constitutes 10% of the final course grade and the write-up grade constitutes 15% of the final course grade.
CLASS PRESENTATION: ———- 10 points Conceptual productivity of article choice—it’s journalistic seriousness, amenability to journalistic improvement, and relevance to discussing religion ———- 10 points Neutrality and informativeness of focus article’s descriptive intent ———- 10 points Detail of analysis with respect to focus article’s implicit theory and/or assumptions about religion ———- 15 points Detail of analysis as to manner in which focus article’s guiding theory and/or assumptions about religion lead to a misdescription of religious phenomenon ———- 15 points Detail of analysis as to manner in which focus article’s misdescription of religious phenomenon leads to journalistically non-ideal news (ά lά Kovach and Rosenstiel).
———- 10 points Clarity of explanation about criterion or criteria of journalistic merit (from Blur) used to assess focus article ———- 15 points Clarity and detail of explanation of Eliade, Durkheim, Freud or Marx’s theory with the potential to enhance journalistic merit of focus article on religion
———- 15 points Enhancement of journalistic merit enacted by means of theory of religion addition PRESENTATION WRITE-UP: ———- 10 points Detail of analysis of “repetition of loaded language” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 91) in 1-2 page write-up (part 1) ———- 10 points Extent to which instance of “repetition of loaded language” (91) fulfills strategy profile description in Kovach & Rosenstiel ———- 10 points Extent to which 1-source bibliography entry (part 2) represents instance of “repetition of loaded language” (Kovach & Rosenstiel 91) commensurate with instance in 1-2 page write-up ———- 10 points Detail and clarity of newsworthy question explained (part 3)
———- 10 points Plausibility of the question proposed enhancing the journalistic merit of focus article (part 3) along the lines of news that “really matters” (Kovach & Rosenstiel, 146; see also 148-164). ———- 10 points Conceptual productivity of part 4 annotated bibliography (including scholarly quality of sources chosen, extent & quality of content summarized, and journalistic merit enhanced) ———- 10 points Conceptual productivity of 150-word section of focus article chosen for editing (part 5) ———- 10 points Journalistic productivity of editing done with respect to annotated bibliography sources ———- 10 points Journalistic productivity of editing done with respect to theory of religion ———- 10 points Proper citation in all write-up components