5jordyn's+webquest+page

= Jordyn's WebQuest Page = = Navigation Bar = 5jordyn's Home Page 5jordyn's Blog Page 5jordyn's Animal Farm Page 5jordyn's Perfect Classroom Page 5jordyn's WebQuest Page

What is a catalyst?

What is a ramification?

How were important events changed so that their historical accuracy was incorrect? Who would know the truth about those events?

In the Ancient History section, where does the War in Iraq come in?

Was Australia hit with any Al-Qaeda attacks?

How many Al Qaeda members do we estimate there are?

Schedule-WebQuest
 * Friday (9/16) || Monday || Tuesday || Wednesday ||
 * Read through Webquest- understand project || Plan project- begin work || Continue Work || Continue Work ||
 * || Step1

Part 1: Types of Media: Podcasts,Newspaper, Television, Radio, Social Media, Advertisement, and Internet

Part 2: Purpose of Media is to inform, entertain, persuade, explain.

Part 3: Media is affected by social, political and economic factors by trying to make people hear what they want to hear. It also scares/tricks people into doing/thinking things. Another way media is affected is by personal opinion.

Part 4: People who are not represented by these media stories are effected by feeling angry, or wronged. It can also make certain people look bad or guilty.

Step 2 Part 1: Both the American side and the Iraqis side are shown in this video by having locals also tear the statue down, but it was false because the "locals" were mostly international journalists, not Iraqis.

Part 2: Iraqi culture- major cities: Baghdad, Mosul, and Basrah. Religions: 97% Muslim,3% Christian/ Other Government: Republic Social Structures: Many Iraqis first define themselves according to their tribes (Over 150 identifiable tribes,with 30 of them being the most powerful.)

Part 3: In the RMN picture, it shows Muslim women gathered to celebrate the end of Ashura in public, something they haven't been able to do since Hussein was in charge. In the SMH, it shows the head of Hussein's statue. It focuses on his rise to power and his tyranny. Both pictures are depicting the same event, but one focuses on Hussein, whereas the other focuses on the impact of the event.

Part 4: One showed the head of the statue, so they knew that they wanted to show people what a bad person Hussein was and his tyranny, emphasizing on what a good thing it was that the symbol of that was taken down. The other showed Muslim women that celebrated Ashura, an event that they weren't allowed to celebrate publicly in Hussein's reign.They also tried to appeal to certain audiences by doing things one way, then changing and doing them another way. (The flags in the video.) || Part 5: It affected my understanding of the event by making me think that the United States was conquering Iraq. When they changed the flags, it made it seem more like Iraq was being run by its people, and that they had control. Everything was staged, and the Americans were the ones in charge of this.

Part 6: The flags were switched from American to Iraqi. They took a close up of soldiers and International journalists cheering. They wanted to appeal to different parts of the world so that they were on their side.

Part 7: The newspaper pictures were doctored to show their points of specific sides of the story.

Part 8: The papers wanted people who read it to feel sympathetic towards the Iraqis because of the things they had to do, or couldn't do.

Part 9: The people who work for that newspaper may become more popular, earning them more money. More people that benefit from changing the image are the people people feel more sympathetic towards.

Part 10: An altered image can distort historical accuracy, making that event incorrect, and we won't be able to learn from our mistakes. Ignorance isn't always bliss. It could also make us harbor hard feelings against others, which could one day jeopardize us. || Step 3: Part 1a: Image size of RMN- "Big Battles Over" conquers most of the paper. It draws our attention to it. The image size of SMH is large, but the articles are easily seen on all sides of the paper.

Part 1b: The RMN headline is very, very large and bold. There is a bright red bullet underneath that reads: Major combat zone. It is intended to catch people's eyes as a moneymaking tactic. The SMH uses large font size, but it is not bold. That is the only thing we see from afar.

Part 1c: The RMN article cannot be seen on the cover, but the picture takes up 95% of the cover. The SMH article can be seen under the picture, but there are articles related to other things on the sides. The RMN is so easily noticeable, It is definitely more prominent, and the SMH picture/article can kind-of be noticed.

Part 2: The RMN's audience is Americans- specifically those in the Rocky Mountain area. Even though it's American, if the articles are online, anyone can read it. But the RMN's audience is mainly Americans. The SMH's audience is mainly Australians, specifically those in Sydney Australia.

Part 3:I think that the Iraqis aren't having their side of the story told very much. What do they think of the major battles being over? (in this setting). Or what about the Syrians? What do they think about their lives being risked for the sakes of a few others? The newspapers make us think that all Syrians are the cause of this. That they //**deserve**// it.

Step 4:

Part 1: Iraqis and Muslim's were suddenly subject to cruelty and hate. Some were killed because of their geneology or religion. They lost friends, jobs, their whole lives because of media and the war.

Part 2: Yes, I believe media coverage contributed to this sudden onslought of hate. They were very one-sided and willing to blame someone at a moments notice. Rather than blaming the specific group, the whole country and religion was blamed.

Part 3: Australia is still multicultural. It may be very unfair to certain religions because of 9/11, and may not welcome them with open arms, but they are still a place with more than one culture.

Part 4: I am not so cautious of Muslims, or more likely Sikh. They are simply a people that misfortune has fallen upon. I am more sympathetic towards them that wary. However, my opinion of Al Qaeda has not changed.

Part 5: This WebQuest has made me see different perspectives. I never thought about how the innocent Iraqis felt about the war. I didn't know so many harmless people were killed, not only in Iraq, but here too because of where they come from and what they believe.

Part 6: I think that media has changed the historical accuracy of some events by changing certain things in their favor. It almost always comes down to money- if it appeals to audiences, media will 9 times out of 10 do it. By altering images, or highlighting/ emphasizing different parts to make them seem a certain way, they change the accuracy. I belive the media has changed historical accuracy of certain events. ||

__**SEMINAR**__ The discussion cleared up a little haziness about why media does certain things. I realized that money was the main attraction, and that media can be **extremely** persuasive when they want to be.

Planning Essay
Start with the "question." Why is it important? What am I going to be talking about-specifically? (Body Intros) || Intro: How media changes pictures/ propos (What do they do to appeal to different people??) (Truth is always the first casualty of history...) Topic 1: Specifically, what do they do? (font, bold, pic size....) ex: ex: Topic 2: How many different sides can you show depicting the same event? ex: ex: Topic 3: Who gains from this? ex: ex: Conclusion: || Intro: Who is affected by the media changing things? Topic 1: Islamic/Sikh ex: ex: Topic 2: Americans/ Australians in general ex: ex: historical accuracy Topic 3: Religious people (IRAQ WAR- END OF WORLD?!?) ex: ex: Conclusion: || Intro: Whose side isn't getting shown? Topic 1: Iraqis ex: ex: Topic 2: Soldiers ex: Gifts to children ex: Conclusion: || Go over what you talked about. Why is it important again? Why is it bad that media distorts things? (ignor- ance in future gener- ations.- historical accur- acy) End with something you can think about. ||
 * Intro || Body 1 || Body 2 || Body 3: || Conclusion: ||
 * What is this essay about?

//“Truth is always the first casualty of history.”// I agree with this statement. In this WebQuest, I have been learning about how media affects the way we think by expressing their opinions, and even editing pictures to make us think certain things. Historical accuracy becomes faulty, and our information about events is wrong. In this essay, I will be touching on what exactly it is that media does, who is affected by these changes, and whose side isn’t getting shown. Media does things that draw our attention to things, like editing pictures, or actually filming things that look a certain way, but aren’t true at all (propagandas). As far as editing pictures goes, there are many different ways to do it. Pictures can be enlarged to draw attention, or there can be large fonts that cover most of the page. Some newspapers have their headlines take up the entire page as an eye drawing tactic, whereas others actually have the articles (and others not related to it) visible on the front. (For example- even though both these pictures are from Rocky Mountain News, one has part of the article visible on the page, and the other article cannot be seen on it.)
 * == Essay == ||
 * WebQuest Essay  By Jordyn Voss

You can show so many different sides of an event this way, but how many? Just by choosing a picture, you can appeal to different audiences. You can choose a side and attract certain audiences, make the article happy or sad, completely change some people’s opinions, or make some people seem guilty of things they didn’t do. A question I had when looking even deeper into this topic was who gains from this? Multiple people do- the newspaper does, obviously, but the people they are about do too. Others feel sympathetic about these people, and that can be considered a gain. Even the smallest choices can sway or enrage people. My second topic is who is affected by these changes that the media make to facts and pictures. One set of people is Muslim or Sikh. Because of the fact that those who orchestrated the attack on 9/11 were Muslim, anyone who wore a turban was instantly an enemy. So many Sikh’s that we mistook for Muslims lost their lives being victims of hate crimes.

Another group of people affected by these changes are Americans and Australians. We are duped into thinking certain things that aren’t true, like something of a propaganda that was set up when the statue of Saddam Hussein was brought down. Though the coverage showed many joyous people, pretty much everyone there was either a soldier or an international journalist- they made it seem like everyone was so thrilled that Americans were there, but when they took the statue down, they draped the American flag over the face for American audiences, then the flag was taken down and an Iraqi flag was placed on Hussein’s face for international use.

Finally, certain people were affected in a bit of a hysterical way. The war was taken to be some sign of the world ending to one man. Then, others began to believe as well, causing hysteria around the world. Many people are/were affected by these changes, some more than others, but either way it causes problems, huge or miniscule, that should never have come up in the first place.

Finally, my last question was whose side isn’t get told in these articles? Obviously, most Iraqis are not having their sides shown. Thousands upon thousands of innocent Iraqis were killed in the war. They didn’t need to have all their lives jeopardized for the sake of an organization’s faults. The other people I believed weren’t really getting their side of the story told was the soldiers. There are some heartwarming events that say that American soldiers would sometimes give their possessions to local Iraqi children. I believe any good thing that happened in Iraq should have been the topic of far more newspapers than there actually was. Those are some people whose sides, I believe, haven’t been shown.



I’ve told you about how media changes things, who is affected by this, and whose side hasn’t been told. Media twists facts to their liking, and 9 times out of 10 it’s for money. //“Truth is always the first casualty of history.”// Next time you read an article, think about what you’ve read about in this essay, and you decide whether or not they’re telling the truth- the **whole** truth. ||