Final Paper theories

I am going to write about STFU Conservative's picture "Still Not Asking For It" and relate it to ideograph and public sphere/ public screen

Theories For Final Paper

I am using the anti-bullying cause I referred to you earlier, and I am going to examine it using invitational rhetoric and public spheres as my main concepts.

Monsanto and GMO foods and their correlation with gluten intolerance and other various health issues.  I will be relating this to the public sphere.

World class blogger

House of cards to the tragic frame or political cynicism, most likely the tragic frame

blog post 4/12

The political artifact I will discuss for my topic is artist Bansky and his artwork in opposition of government practices, politics, and institutions. I will use to theories from class to discuss this. First I will focus on how Bansky impacts the millennials. As we discusses in class this group is vital to campaigns and candidates. Secondly, I will connect it to juxtaposition from the Guerrilla girls reading.

Theories for Paper

For my paper I will be incorporating the theories of Foss and Griffin's "Invitational Rhetoric" and Habermas "Public Sphere" I will be touching on how the media shapes campaigns as well.

Possible End of Several Judicial Ideographs

In a recent article on the news anthology website "The Week" entitled "The death of the presumption of innocence" by Andrew Cohen some current practices in the process of voir dire (jury selection) are examined. Mainly he points out what may be called "rehabilitating" a prospective juror that has expressed a bias. This involves discovering such a bias, often through direct admission by the prospective juror, then continuing to pose questions that illicit "commitments" from the prospect to be open minded in the light of their admitted bias. In a class I currently attend at CSUN the process of voir dire and jury dynamics are discussed and the idea that a human being can be impartial despite a preexisting bias is seen as nearly impossible, yet this article points out how our judicial system is being allowed to lapse into just such a false assumption. Cohen sees this as a dereliction of duty by judges and a shortcoming of a judicial system that requires an unbiased jury but struggles with the practical demands of filing such juries with persons that may not want to serve and/or have been influenced by pervasive media coverage of the crime or similar events. He notes several instances through the years that have benefited either prosecutor or defendant but have not upheld the standards of justice that our Constitution demands. These practices may make impotent several ideographs that are at the heart of the American judicial system, namely "impartial jury" and "innocent until proven guilty".