Using the strategies that we’ve developed in class so far, write a 300 word WordPress post that reflects on how both pieces use research—not only the types of sources, but their methodology, the expertise they bring, and the breath of research—to make a case for their respective audiences (considering voice, publication & genre). How do their different media (print on the web vs audio podcast) encourage them to present research in a different way?

In the Rebecca Onion article, she is leaning heavy on the information she refers to throughout the article she wrote. But states that she does not know the true origins of the sources she used to prove her points. But makes some attempt to find at least part of a citation to majority of her sources. Her sources do seem like primary sources from the 1920-1940’s.

In the Podcast, “Stuff Your another Never Told You”, the two women, Anney and Samantha, seem to just be talking with some partial nonsense? They make some points about clothes being made over seas and they even state that, “it’s not secret that most of clothes worn in america is made from over seas.” But then they don’t say where they heard that from. It kind of seems like they quickly googled most of there information without actually seeing the source or where the source was used and what context it was in. They complain about fast-fashion, but you can argue that they are fast-sourcing their information as well.

Knowing that these two different mediums were presented differently kind of shows there reliability. It seems that within an article posted online needs to really show there sources in a factual way to be taken seriously, whereas, the podcast it’s not really seen as necessary. I do not mean to discredit all podcasts, it just seems like this podcast show is more for entertainment purposes then actual facts to be proven more.

For this assignment, I don’t want you to watch this as a viewer. I want you to watch it like a researcher. In a 300-word post on WordPress, consider the following questions: What’s the myth of suburban life that Adam Conover is responding to? What are the specific ways in which Conover’s research punctures that myth?  What do you make of this form of research writing that’s focused on undercutting commonly held assumptions? What role does humor play in this form of research writing? What’s one new concept you learned from this episode and what kind of evidence does Conover offer for it?

Adam Conover is going against the myths of the “perfect life” in the suburbs. Where people say it is “safer” in these suburbs and that life is not any better if you do or don’t live in these places. He proves this myth wrong multiple times but starts with saying that the suburbs consume about 9 billion gallons of water to upkeep with the imported grass that the lawns all have. It’s also very nice that while Adam is proving his points, he gives you the citations to where the show finds the data to back his words up. And that these articles are “the every day person” can read articles too. The humor is to play upon the fact that the common person can easily know all this information and has probably heard this information before whether it be in a history class or in the news prior to this episode. A new concept I learned from the video is that factual numbers and percentages of how bad the suburbs are and how the black communities are still being affected by the actions taken by suburbs.

Post a 200-300 word summary and summary of the Dunning article to your new WordPress site. As Michael Newman describes in the reading assignment, spend about 50 words describing the background of the source (the author, publication, date, intended reader, genre or field). Then spend 100 words describing the topic and general argument of the piece. Finally, spend your final 50 words describing what kind of research it uses (or maybe what kind it doesn’t) and why the source is useful or relevant in the context of this course.

David Dunning is an American social psychologist and a professor at the University of Michigan. He also taught psychology at Cornell University but retired. In his article, “We are all Confident Idiots” which was originally posted in October 27, 2014, seems to have been written for people who may or may not feel socially aware. The Social Justice Foundation is the articles publication and given off that I would feel the genre and/or field that this article would be placed in is social work. Dunning says that people are given a false confidence most times in front of a camera. Meaning, that so they do not look dumb by saying they don’t know the answer to the question, they conjure the first thing they can think of, even it is completely wrong. The power lies in how confidently they say these answers and even backing it up making it sound factual. He also blames politicians for also doing this. “To a great degree, we fail to recognize the frequency and scope of our ignorance.” He calls this the “Dunning-Kruger effect. People lacking the ability to see the competence in order to sound good. The sources the articles uses seem to really help explain the articles words. Such as the Jimmy Kimmel video, proving the point at the very end of the video that even when the interviewee saying that everything was fictional the woman being interviewed was acting like she knew that and that she was just playing along. The Boston University psychologist Deborah Kelemen and the research her colleagues used in the article also shows that it happens to people in society that are deemed “smart”. I find this relevant to CM213 course is that reading the article “How to Read a Book” by Michael Newman helps me to understand the path to becoming a better reader and note-taker. Also the David Dunning article that I spoke about helps to understand saying “I don’t know” would be better for me then saying anything off the top of my head pretending I know. Saying “I don’t know” helps me to then go out and find out and learn what it is that I don’t know.