Concerns:
1. I may not have narrowed my topic down enough, I might need to focus on a particular aspect to make this paper as good as possible
2. The sources seem to have very similar ideas and opinions on both sides of the topic
Primary Sources:
-First is an interview with Alex Rodriguez. I chose this source because it shows the emotion and his apologetic comments to the public and his fans. The interview consists of Peter Gammons, a reporter for ESPN asking questions about the time line of the drug tests as well as the most recent events of the truth being exposed. He admits to using and seems to regret it completely. By showing his emotions in an interview he exploits the use of 'pathos' to get the public back on his side and try to gain their forgiveness.
-Second was an article written by Bill Madden in the 'Daily News'. I chose this article because it gives the negative side of this event the many Americans see it. Madden basically bashes Rodriguez and discredits him for what he did. He uses the term 'A-Fraud' instead of 'A-Rod'. By stating his opinion so strongly, Madden is able to get the reader to really feel the way he does and maybe even sway their views about Rodriguez.
-Third is an article written by a sportswriter for the 'Kansas City Star', Joe Posnanski, that was published in 'Sports Illustrated'. This article is basically the opposite of the second source, which helps in comparing the different reactions of the event. Posnanski writes about how he feels Rodriguez was only doing what most guys in the MLB, whether they own up to it or not, are doing. This appeals to those who feel he didnt really do anything wrong. There are alot of people that feel drug testing doesn't deserve a place in the MLB and those people would really appreciate this article.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Inclass work February 25, 2009.
ReplyDeleteAt first as Cameron and I were going over each other's topics I was afraid that his topic was not quiet narrow enough. BUT we talked it out and figured out something that he can narrow it down to. I also had a concern for one of his sources being "primary" but once again we figured out a way to make his sources primary by narrowing down his topics.
His main concerns were about narrowing the topic down and making sure his sources were credible. We fixed this problem. Another concern that we both experienced though is figuring out how we are going to write eight pages on this topic. We both chose a topic that is pretty narrow and are hoping to provide enough information to fulfill the requirements.
The controlling idea is an argument as to whether Alex Rodriquez should still be inducted into the Baseball Hall of Fame considering his steroid use. His sources connect with this in a sense that 1. AROD is being apologetic and wanting people to still condsider inducting him into the hall of fame. 2. His second source is totally against someone that did drugs to be inducted. 3. The third source believes that he should still be able to be inducted. Overall, each and every source is connected to the controlling idea.
I would like to suggest to Cameron to make sure he stays on the track of his topic of AROD being inducted into the Hall of Fame. With these articles, there could be many more arguments involved but as long as he focuses on this one specific argument I think he is good to go!