I chose to respond to topic 1. One Student
Upon the doing the reading for this week, I noticed the topic was those who try to make the press look illegitimate. I really liked how the play and the article dived deep into politics and how people in power try to shame the press for reporting what they find on them. It truly shows who those people are and what they are willing to do to smear a good personâ€™s name. Therefore, I believe that Hovstad, in the play â€œAn Enemy of the Peopleâ€ was trying to do his duty and enlighten people on what was truly going on by playing the educator and watchdog, while the mayor was seemingly trying to cover it up no matter what happened to his people.
Save your time - order a paper!
Get your paper written from scratch within the tight deadline. Our service is a reliable solution to all your troubles. Place an order on any task and we will take care of it. You won’t have to worry about the quality and deadlinesOrder Paper Now
I chose the following quote from the article to go along with the play because I feel it truly captures what Hovstad was trying to do for the people. The quote is, â€œMost significantly, enemy construction that diminishes the watchdog, educator, and proxy functions of the press opens the door to additional opportunities for the administration to construct other enemies.â€ (Page 59). This to me ties in perfectly with this quote from Hovstad in Act II, â€œYesâ€”and in my opinion a journalist incurs a heavy responsibility if he neglects a favourable opportunity of emancipating the masses â€“ the humble and oppressed.â€ Furthermore, he believed that no matter what happened to him, he couldnâ€™t let what was going on go unknown and had to do something about it. I think that this quote from Hovstad in Act II also captures my claim, â€œThat shall be recognized ungrudgingly, But a journalist of my democratic tendencies cannot let such an opportunity as this slip. The bubble of official infallibility must be pricked. This superstition must be destroyed, like any other.â€
In conclusion, Hovstad was trying to be an honest journalist and shed light to the truth that was going on behind closed doors and the coverups that the Mayor was trying to keep quiet. He chose to no matter what, be honest with the people and give them the story they needed to know. He was trying to rid them all of the corrupt people that were in charge. My final quote from the play proves that as well, â€œYes. When I took over the “People’s Messenger” my idea was to break up this ring of self-opinionated old fossils who had got hold of all the influence.â€ Hovstad (Act II). I think that the lesson to be learned here is that journalists face prosecution every day and are important to our society. We should be grateful for what they do and realize that they are trying to help out the American people. We never know what is going on that they catch wind about and are trying to bring light to for us.
Response Topic 1 Student 2
In the play, An Enemy of the People, the character of Hovstad is the editor of the “People’s Messenger”. In this play, there have been quite a few relations back to the article called Enemy Construction and the Press. Hovstad shows examples of engaging in “enemy construction”. In Act 2, he describes the backers of the Baths and the mayor, Peter Stockmann, as “self-opinionated old fossils” in the following quote. “Yes. When I took over the “People’s Messenger” my idea was to break up this ring of self-opinionated old fossils who had got hold of all the influence. Although Hovstad is a leader of the press in this play, his attitude compares to Trump’s in the article. The roles seem to be switched here. The press had a lot of influence in 2017 which follows into 2019. In the article, one of the first relevant quotes I see is the following from page 3, “when the president of the United States declared recently that the mainstream press is “the enemy,” it set off a firestorm of criticism from defenders of the institutional media and champions of the press’s role in the democracy.” In this case, the “self-opinionated old fossils” are Hovstad’s enemy. I make this comparison also because in the next line in the play in Act 2 after Hovstad says his line about the “self-opinionated old fossils”, Dr. Stockmann, who also is the brother of the mayor, says the following, “but you know you told me yourself what the result had been; you nearly ruined your paper.” I think this quote from the play is another great example of the effect that Trump had after he called the press an enemy because there were lasting consequences on the behalf of the Trump administration. Trump wrote tweets out of anger towards certain publications calling media the infamous words of “fake news”. His administration confirmed his statements saying that President Trump meant what he said, and just a few days later he “doubled down on the statement” according to the article. On page 7-8 of the article, this is described as an engagement of “enemy construction”. I think that this is a great comparison to the play as well since Hovstad makes that statement and then is reminded of the consequences that happened to his paper with the results that had happened. The next line from the play is said by Hovstad in act 2 with the line being “Yes, at the time we were obliged to climb down a peg or two”, which is a great example of the way the Trump administration doubled down after the consequences.
In this class, we will follow the 3 Cs + Q peer comment model developed by Jenn Stewart-Mitchell. This framework avoids the “hurray for you!” superficial model of peer comments. Also, keep in mind that you’ll have to collect and analyze all the comments you make as well as all the comments you receive from peers on your discussion posts for a reflection due the last week, so make sure they’re good ones.
Remember that for Discussions, you mustinclude 2 substantive peer comments for your post to qualify for an A range grade, and 1 substantive peer comment for your post to qualify for a B range grade. If you’d like to aim for a C range grade, you don’t need to post any peer comments. Also, if your discussion post does not include one or two peer comments that follow this rubric, the highest grade it can earn will be in the C range.
1. Compliment â€“ Start off positive. Compliment the person on something specific you have read or observed in the personâ€™s blog post.
2. Comment â€“ Comment on something relevant and meaningful about the person wrote. Be specific–include a direct quotation from their post! Remember your comment might not always be agreement. You can â€œpolitelyâ€ disagree.
o I agree with you about â€¦ For example, â€¦
o I respect your opinion, but I think â€¦ For example, â€¦
3. Connect â€“ Connect with something the person wrote (Text-to-Self,
Text-to-Text, Text-to-World). Explain your connection with details giving
your audience a clear idea of what youâ€™re talking about by using sensory
o I once read a story about â€¦ I had the same thing happen to meâ€¦
4. Question – Ask a specific question about something written or the writer. Keep the conversation going!