Bill Di Nome | Burney 181 | 962-7138 | dinomew@uncw.edu
Fall 2003 | Class Hours: Tuesday & Thursday 6:30 – 7:45 p.m. | Morton Hall 104
Office Hours: Tuesday & Thursday 2 – 3 p.m. and by appointment
English 201-030
College Writing & Reading II
Essay Assignments in Detail | Class Schedule
Appendices*
* Appendices One through Five derive from Donald Lazere’s “Teaching the Political Conflicts: A Rhetorical Schema” (College Composition and Communication 43.2 [May 1992]: 194–209).
Go to:
Appendix One: American Media & Commentators from Left to Right
Appendix Two: Political Orientations of Publishers and Foundations
Appendix Three: Current General Periodicals
Appendix Four: A Semantic Assessment of Bias in Rhetoric
Appendix Five: Predictable Patterns of Political Rhetoric
Appendix Six: Grading Rubric
Appendix One
American Media & Commentators from Left to Right
(to be developed in class)
Political Orientations of Publishers & Foundations
Book Publishers
Liberal or Socialist
Conservative or Libertarian
Pantheon
Arlington House
Monthly Review Press
Freedom House
South End Press
Brandon Books
Praeger
Reader’s Digest Books
Beacon Press
Greenhill Publishers
Seabury/Continuum Books
Laissez-Faire Books (Libertarian)
International Publishers
Paragon House
Pathfinder Press
Routledge
Methuen
Schocken
Bergin & Garvey
Research Institutes Foundations
Liberal or Socialist
Conservative or Libertarian
Institute for Policy Studies
American Enterprise Institute (Journal: Public Opinion — not Public Opinion Quarterly)
Center for Responsive Law (Journal: Public Citizen)
Center for Strategic and International Studies
Public Interest Research Groups
Hoover Institution (Stanford)
Common Cause (Journal: Common Cause)
The Media Institute
Brookings Institute
Hudson Institute
Institute for Democratic Socialism (Journals: Democratic Left, Socialist Forum)
Heritage Foundation (Journal: Policy Review)
Center for the Study of Democratic Institutions (Journal: New Perspectives Quarterly)
Olin Foundation
Scaife Foundation
Cato Foundation (Libertarian: Cato Journal)
Current General Periodicals
This is a partial list intended to supplement, not replace, the more accessible, mass circulation newspapers and magazines, most of which have a centrist orientation.
Title
Frequency
Orientation
American Scholar
Quarterly
Left-conservative
American Spectator
Monthly
Center-to-left conservative
Atlantic Monthly
Monthly
Center-liberal
Chronicle of Culture
Monthly
Left-conservative
Commentary
Monthly
Center-conservative
Commonweal
Bi-weekly
Left-liberal Catholic
Conservative Digest
Monthly
Center-to-right conservative
Dissent
Bi-monthly
Socialist to Center-liberal
Foreign Affairs
Quarterly
Center-conservative to right-liberal
The Guardian
Weekly
Socialist
Harper’s
Monthly
Center-liberal to left-conservative
Human Events
Weekly
Center-to-right conservative
Insight On the News
Weekly
Center-to-right conservative
In These Times
Weekly
Socialist
Modern Age
Quarterly
Center-conservative
Mother Jones
Monthly
Socialist to left-liberal
Ms.
Monthly
Center to left-liberal
The Nation
Weekly
Socialist to left-liberal
National Review
Bi-weekly
Center-conservative
New American Review
Bi-weekly
Right-conservative (formerly American Opinion, to 1985)
New Republic
Weekly
Right-liberal to left-conservative
New York Review of Books
Bi-weekly
Center-liberal
New York Sunday Times
Weekly
Center-liberal to left-conservative
New Yorker
Weekly
Left-to-center liberal
Progressive
Monthly
Socialist to left-liberal
Public Interest
Quarterly
Left-to-center conservative
Public Opinion Quarterly
Quarterly
Center-conservative
Public Opinion (Washington 1978)
Monthly
Center-conservative
Reason
Monthly
Conservative libertarian
Rolling Stone
Bi-weekly
Center-liberal
Social Policy
Bi- monthly
Left-liberal
Socialist Review
Quarterly
Socialist
Tikkun
Bi-monthly
Left-liberal
Utne Reader
Bi-monthly
Digest of liberal journals
Village Voice
Weekly
Left-liberal
Washington Monthly
Monthly
Center-liberal to left-conservative
World Press Review
Monthly
Digest of diverse foreign viewpoints
Z Magazine
Monthly
Socialist
A Semantic Assessment of Bias in Rhetoric
1. What is the author’s vantage point, in terms of social class, occupation, ethnic group, political ideology, educational level, age, gender, etc.? Is that vantage point apt to color her/his attitudes on the issue under discussion? Does s/he have anything personally to gain from the position s/he is arguing for, any conflicts of interest or other reasons for special pleading?
2. What organized financial, political, ethnic, or other interests are backing the advocated position? Who stands to profit from it?
3. Once you have determined the author’s vantage point and/or the special interests being favored, look for signs of ethnocentrism, rationalization or wishful thinking, sentimentality, and other blocks to clear thinking, as well as the rhetorical fallacies of one-sidedness, selective vision, or double standard.
4. Look for the following semantic patterns reflecting the biases in No. 3:
a. Playing up: (1) argument favorable to his/her side,
(2) arguments unfavorable to the other side.
b. Playing down, or suppressing altogether:
(1) argument favorable to his/her side,
(2) arguments unfavorable to the other side.
c. Applying “clean” words, ones with positive connotations, to her/his side.
Applying “dirty” words, ones with negative connotations, to the other.
d. Assuming that the representatives of his/her side are trustworthy, truthful, and have no selfish motives, while assuming the opposite of the other side.
Predictable Patterns of Political Rhetoric
|
Leftists will play up ... |
Rightists will play up ... |
|
Conservative ethnocentrism, wishful thinking, and sentimentality rationalizing the selfish interests of the middle and upper classes and America abroad |
Leftist “negative thinking,” “sour grapes,” anti-Americanism, and sentimentalizing the lower classes |
|
Right-wing bias in media and education |
Left-wing bias in media and education |
|
Conservative rationalization of right-wing extremism and perversion of American values and ideals |
Liberal rationalization of leftist radicalism and wishful thinking in leftists’ denial of anti-American influences. |
|
Right-wing scare tactics about crime, terror, or numerous adversaries; erosion of personal and constitutional liberties |
Left-wing scare tactics about loss of constitutional freedoms; real threat of crime, terror as justification for counter-measures |
|
Rip-offs of taxpayers’ money by the rich; luxury and waste in private industry and the military; selfish interests and greed of globalized corporate interests. |
Rip-off’s of taxpayers’ money by the poor; luxury and waste by government bureaucrats; selfish interests and inefficiency of labor, teachers, students, etc. |
|
Reactionism, rigidity, paternalism, authoritarianism |
Liberal permissiveness, immorality, irrationality |
|
Grade –> |
A |
B |
C |
D |
F |
|
General Comments |
Outstanding and distinctive. |
Goes beyond typical responses to the assignment. |
Covers all or most of the bases; possibly diminished by a lack of interest or time on the part of its author. |
Begins to meet the requirements of the assignment but generally weak. |
Failing papers usually have several interrelated flaws that render them ineffective. |
|
Focus |
Fresh, insightful thesis supporting an original, tightly focused viewpoint; clear sense of purpose and awareness of audience. |
Promising topic, which engages the reader; strong sense of audience and purpose. |
Generally limited subject, though not as sharply focused as the A or B paper; reasonable thesis but not particularly original, perceptive, or clearly stated. |
Thesis and viewpoint not limited enough or clear enough; content is derivative or shows misunderstanding; loses focus or viewpoint. |
Lack of a controlling viewpoint. |
|
Development & Support |
Exceptional support of thesis using concise, lively language; generous use of concrete details; varied, relevant sources; highly effective rhetorical strategies. |
Insightful development but ideas presented unevenly, or less adequate development than in an A paper; general statements are supported. |
Fairly good support of thesis, though more development needed for some subpoints; some use of concrete details, though a few unsupported generalizations remain or supporting detail not explicated enough; may derive too much from sources; appropriate rhetorical strategies in evidence. |
Support may not be accurate, wholly relevant, or concrete, and therefore insufficient; sources lack credibility and are insufficiently evaluated. |
Unacceptably weak. No sense of development for any single idea; no use of details or examples to explain generalizations; nonexistent or irrelevant sources; rhetorical strategies inappropriate or lacking. |
|
Organization |
Fluid, logical sequencing of ideas and effective, coherent paragraphing; confident, clear transitions. |
Well organized, showing coherence within and between paragraphs; |
Introduction and conclusion of moderate interest or originality; adequate sequencing of ideas and functional paragraphing, but some gaps in logic or uniformity; some unclear transitions. |
Loosely organized, perhaps confusing; illogical, unclear. |
Unacceptably weak. Inappropriate, unpurposeful or clichéd introduction and conclusion; confusing or illogical paragraphing; few or no necessary transitions. |
|
Style |
Lively, precise language; varied, coherent sentences displaying appropriate use of coordination and subordination; minimal wordiness; fresh, idiomatic style. |
Lively language; consistent sense of voice; words are well chosen and sentences varied; |
Readable; generally effective word choice though occasional inexact, trite or bland phrasing; more sentence variety or coherence needed; some wordiness or redundancy; some use of idiomatic language. |
Voice and tone inconsistent or inappropriate; awkward word choice, weak sentence structures; diction is vague or ambiguous; wordiness, redundancies. |
Unacceptably weak. Word-choice lacking precision and effectiveness; lack of sentence variety and coherence; excessive wordiness, redundancy, triteness; non-idiomatic language. |
|
Technical Control |
No major errors in grammar or mechanics; when present, errors are not distracting enough to undermine the paper’s effectiveness; consistent, clear documentation; strong visual impact. |
Few grammatical, mechanical, or documentation errors that might impair the writer’s authority; strong documentation, visually appealing. |
Some errors in grammar or distracting errors in mechanics, diction and/or sentence structure; documentation inconsistent or imprecise; adequate manuscript preparation. |
Grammar, mechanics and documentation incorrect enough to be seriously distracting; substandard manuscript format. |
Frequent major errors in grammar, mechanics and documentation, resulting in frequent confusion or incoherence; sloppy, or incomplete manuscript. |