If you recall the purpose of revisiting your paper is to think about how your paper is organized, and how you would re-do your paper if were writing a second draft. Working from this, you are asked to revisit your thinking paper #2.
There are two steps for this revisit, which are due November 15:
First create an outline of your paper as it was written and submitted. This can be as simple as going through the paper and using the main point of each paragraph and converting that into your outline. Basically I want you to look at the skeleton of your paper; how you organized it. This is outline #1.
Second, working from the comments I provided (“Revisit” at the end of everyone’s paper) or some others that you've been thinking about, create an outline for what would be the next version of your paper. This should be a more clear and focused version of your paper. This outline, let’s call it outline #2, is to be more detailed than outline #1.
(Importantly this is also some of the information that I’m looking for in the outline for your Analytic Paper)
The example from the board:
I. Definition of news: write it out the news is “x, y and z”
II. “X” (we used “informative”), X means….
a. Specific example from website or article that demonstrates X
b. Specific example from website / article #2 that demonstrates X (or refutes X)
c. Specific example from website / article #3 that demonstrates X (or refutes X)
d. Sociological importance of X, in other words why news is X
III. “Y” (we used biased), Y means …
a. Specific example from website or article that demonstrates Y
b. Specific example from website / article #2 that demonstrates Y (or refutes Y)
c. Specific example from website / article #3 that demonstrates Y (or refutes Y)
d. Sociological importance of Y, in other words why news is Y
IV. “Z” (perhaps you had three points to consider, i.e. historical context, ownership, etc.)
a. ...
b. …
c. …
d. …
V. Conclusion, my definition of the news is supported/refuted/needs further consideration
Another example, would be the outline for the "Commander in Chic" by Jennifer Pozner
I. How does the News contribute to an environment where “women are still stuck with token representation” Media contributes by perpetuating “outmoded attitudes” toward women that consist of gender specific coverage (i.e. appearance, family relationships, and other “feminizing” details such as cooking)
II. Feminizing details such as baking, activities, and thoughtfulness / manners
a. Example of feminizing details, Harriet Miers, AP says bakes a mean sweet potato pie
b. Example of feminizing details, quotes from relatives and colleagues that she likes to play tennis…; doesn’t gossip, remembers everybody’s birthday…
c. No one has commented on nominee Samuel Alita might bring to a potluck (sociological speculation as to how gender alters news presentation)
d. Example of feminizing details, LA times referred to Miers as Bush’s “work wife”…who embodies meek
III. Physical Appearance and attractiveness
a. Example of appearance, Miers needs a “makeover” according to the VA Times Dispatch
b. Example of appearance /and appeal, San Diego Union Tribune, … “would I wish to marry her”
c. If she were Harry, (sociological speculation as to how gender alters consideration of the candidate)
d. Context of her own boss refers to her shoe size “pitbull in size 6 shoes”
e. National Security advisor Rice is also reduced to shoes and sex appeal as “dominatrix”; Senator Clinton’s “bad fashion sense”; or Congresswomen Sanchez and Sanchez hairstyles and “hootchy shoes”
IV. The Media neglects to see how their actions contribute to the climate, marginalizing women as more emotional, less knowledgeable, and less qualified by their male counterparts.
a. This also a result of persistent economic inequality
b. Women as responsible for family and care work
c. Gender socialization where men are encouraged to lead, and women to support
V. Suggestions for change; it doesn’t have to be this way!