Order ID:89JHGSJE83839 | Style:APA/MLA/Harvard/Chicago | Pages:5-10 |
Instructions:
Justine Sacco’s Life Was Ruined by One Stupid Tweet
Note# Do not use any outside sources; instead, use the articles and lecture ppts that have been uploaded. Thank you so much!!
So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed, a book about digital media and public shaming by journalist Jon Ronson, was published in 2015. In the New York Times Magazine, he published a brief excerpt from the book. He wrote a column for The Guardian about his experiences after the excerpt was published.
Please read the following two articles:
1. Justine Sacco’s Life Was Ruined by One Stupid Tweet
2. How the online trolls decided to target me
PLEASE NOTE: Several of the quotations in these articles are taken from tweets directed at Ronson and the people about whom he writes; many of the quotations contain offensive and demeaning language.
Please respond to the following inquiries:
Please summarize the two articles in a few words. What happened to Justine Sacco and Lindsey Stone, in Ronson’s opinion? What happened to him after the New York Times Magazine article was published?
Is Ronson optimistic or pessimistic about the future of digital media? Please provide more detail in your response by citing specific examples from the articles.
Compare and contrast Ronson’s perspective on digital media/the Internet with at least one of the perspectives discussed in the course lecture.
Should we see this phenomenon as a continuation of the culture wars of the 1980s and 1990s, as Ronson suggests? Why do you think that is?
For this primary source assignment, please follow the formatting guidelines below:
Students are strongly discouraged from seeking information from sources other than the course materials. If you use an external source, you must cite it and include a bibliographic citation at the end of your paper. Academic dishonesty occurs when this is not done.
Use the Times New Roman font in 12 point size.
Make certain your paper is double-spaced.
Other formats will not be accepted or graded; submit your assignment as a word document or a PDF, or type your response directly into the assignment.
The following criteria will be used to grade this assignment:
Is the assignment complete and answers all of the questions?
Is there evidence of a close, careful, and thoughtful reading of the primary sources in the assignment?
Does the assignment show a thorough understanding of the course’s topics and themes?
Are all of the assertions made in the assignment true?
Is it clear what you’re supposed to do? Is it clear how the ideas within it are communicated?
1 of 4 slides
Justine Sacco’s Life Was Ruined by One Stupid Tweet
RUBRIC |
||||||
Excellent Quality 95-100%
|
Introduction
45-41 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Literature Support 91-84 points The background and significance of the problem and a clear statement of the research purpose is provided. The search history is mentioned. |
Methodology 58-53 points Content is well-organized with headings for each slide and bulleted lists to group related material as needed. Use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. to enhance readability and presentation content is excellent. Length requirements of 10 slides/pages or less is met. |
|||
Average Score 50-85% |
40-38 points More depth/detail for the background and significance is needed, or the research detail is not clear. No search history information is provided. |
83-76 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is little integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are included. Summary of information presented is included. Conclusion may not contain a biblical integration. |
52-49 points Content is somewhat organized, but no structure is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects, etc. is occasionally detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met. |
|||
Poor Quality 0-45% |
37-1 points The background and/or significance are missing. No search history information is provided. |
75-1 points Review of relevant theoretical literature is evident, but there is no integration of studies into concepts related to problem. Review is partially focused and organized. Supporting and opposing research are not included in the summary of information presented. Conclusion does not contain a biblical integration. |
48-1 points There is no clear or logical organizational structure. No logical sequence is apparent. The use of font, color, graphics, effects etc. is often detracting to the presentation content. Length requirements may not be met |
|||
You Can Also Place the Order at www.collegepaper.us/orders/ordernow or www.crucialessay.com/orders/ordernow
Justine Sacco’s Life Was Ruined by One Stupid Tweet |
Justine Sacco’s Life Was Ruined by One Stupid Tweet