Anda di halaman 1dari 2


Overall in this paper one of the things that I am proud of is the flow of the text
throughout the writing. I think I did a good job incorporating the aspects of my paper together to
make it flow together very well and set up each section for the next. For example in the
introduction I said This paper explores the roles that crime shows take in shaping our society
today, specifically in altering our perspectives of the judicial system that we have setup which
led straight to the literature review, which was next. An example that relates to this is One study
indicated that 66 percent of people thought that crime was higher than it actually was in October
of 2011 (Saeler 2011). In relation to that another study from New Orleans media found that
police statistics indicated that .04 percent of all crimes were homicides but about 50 percent of
all crime stories on local television were about homicides (Lowry, Nio, and Leitner, 2003). This
proves my literature did a good job in setting it up because it shows how people thought crime
was higher than it really was and that this is because crime shows put the statistics of things such
as homicides higher than they are. This alters peoples perceptions and make them believe the
television is correct. One thing that I wouldve worked on more is the Entering the
Conversation. There was a lot of sentences that could get confusing for people when explaining
the study, and the study was changed last minute so the question is a little vague. Also im not
sure if the purpose for the study relates to the actual study well enough. An example of this is
how I said I would like to conduct a series of interviews and surveys that compares crime
television shows to reveal why people like crime shows., but I never talked about how the
results would show why people like crime shows, it would look more at which shows they liked.
I said this instead I would ask these questions to try to figure out the differences between shows,
and what is a similar in the shows. I incorporated all of my comments that Torri gave to me
because they came from the perspective of someone who knew nothing about the research and
would be confused if the sentences we not clear enough. She gave good advice on changing
some of the sentences like in my entering the conversation. Also she gave advice on just
explaining some of the elements I talked about more, such as qualitative and quantitative
information. Before her comments I just said I would use qualitative and quantitative research,
but after she said to expand on that for someone who doesnt know what that is I said
Qualitative studies involve measuring things with value such as an interview. Number based
research such as surveys, and rating would be quantitative. This is a brief description but would
help readers to become less confused. She also said I should create a border, or more visual
aspect when I list out how the ranking of shows would look, just so readers understand the
purpose. I almost didnt do this but I think it adds a good visual and shows where you would put
the rankings. I think Ive gone above and beyond because I thoroughly talked about my subject,
since my paper was actual about 2700 words originally and the minimum was 2000. I tried to
create as much detail as possible. I talked about multiple different ways for further research and
how to use the information I had. I said Other research can be done to further enhance these
shows, by finding the balance between fiction and fact. More research can be done to figure out
the specific areas that people lack knowledge in, specifically certain areas that are commonly not
well known. As well as saying Based on research I have done I think that it would be easy, and
more effective to transition shows such as Criminal Minds, CSI, etc., to be more authentic. In
my assignment two I used rhetorical knowledge because I had to adapt my writing during the

entering the conversation, to make the conversation change from the problem to a solution to it.
You were supposed to add to the conversation through your own voice which is something I
typically dont do. My original writing for this didnt include any details on how the study would
be conducted. After I adapted this I included information such as I will be looking for 30 people
to interview because I want at least 25 people, and I understand that some may drop out. 150
random students at UNCC will be asked if they watch crime television shows, if the answer is
yes then I will randomly pick 30 people to conduct my interviews. I also used composing
processes to edit my paper and take comments from my peers. Something that I edited was the
first sentence of my entering the conversation. I made it into two sentences to make it less
confusing. People turn on their televisions to be entertained, while television shows purpose is
to keep their viewers focus long enough stay tuned for the duration of the program. Most viewers
want something that will have them on the edge of their seat my other sentence was too
long and I tried to add too much information at once.