THE LAST ONE!!!

Do blogs deserve the same amount of respect and attention as “regular” news sources? With the ever-expanding quantity of bloggers in the world, it seems as though the blogosphere does indeed warrant some sort of credibility. That has been, probably, the greatest impact on my thoughts about the news in the course of these past ten weeks. Prior to this class I was skeptical of these mysterious “blogs” that were popping up incessantly. I discovered that these blogs represent more than just the (potentially) biased opinions of authors. Blogs also forward valid information, and readers hold bloggers accountable because the Internet provides a convenient way to authorize claims. I apply this knowledge as I move forward in my academic life because I will utilize the blogosphere more often when in need of looking at a particular approach during an assignment. In others words, blogs are no longer “off limits” for me.

Extended Essay 2-Wandering the Keystone XL Pipeline

Wandering With the Keystone XL Pipeline

            Four and a half years ago, on September 19^th of 2008, the U.S. Department of State received an important Presidential Permit application. The application came from a company called TransCanada and it asked for permission to construct a seventeen hundred mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas. This pipeline, named the Keystone XL pipeline, would transport at least seven hundred thousand barrels of oil per day into the U.S. and create many domestic jobs. TransCanada, the company spearheading the project, needed approval from the U.S. Department of State prior to starting construction because the proposed pipeline would cross international borders. The U.S. Department of State announced it would begin forming an Environmental Impact Statement in January of 2009 to address the effects of the proposed pipeline. Throughout a six-month period the Department of State conducted interviews and meetings with both federal and state agencies as well as local landowners. After more than a year of investigations the Environmental Impact Statement concluded in April of 2010 that the Keystone XL pipeline posed “limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation” (“Timeline”).

For the next year and a half public opinion of the Keystone XL pipeline caused political headache for lawmakers and policy advocates alike. Environmental groups staunchly opposed construction of the pipeline, while others insisted the benefits of the project far outweighed the costs. The Department of State opened a comment period for the Keystone XL pipeline and received two hundred and eighty thousand online remarks from opinionated citizens. One commentor, Raphael Blesi, called on the department to reject the pipeline application because “global warming is REAL.” Some supporters of the pipeline, such as Guy Black, strongly urged the commencement of the pipeline in order for the country to gain the “significant economic benefits this project stands to deliver” (Long).  In November of 2011 President Obama, on behalf of the Department of State, decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not receive his potential approval until after the 2012 election. President Obama’s announcement did not stop politicians from arguing about the pipeline and it certainly did not stop the media from reporting on the political drama surrounding the issue.

            Between November of 2011, when Obama decided to delay his decision, and February of 2013, stories about the Keystone XL pipeline frequently appeared in the news. In this paper I explore the ways in which these stories have changed over time as well as the ways in which these stories change between different news sources. I choose to analyze how three different media websites, The Los Angeles Times, The Foundry, and The Daily Beast, portray the Keystone XL pipeline story in light of two specific episodes of political drama, the payroll tax controversy and Obama’s inauguration.

            The first event examined in this paper occurred in December 2011, when Republicans required the president to either approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline within sixty days by attaching the requirement to the payroll tax bill. The Los Angeles Times immediately reported on this story with little bias: they presented facts in a straightforward manner and included direct quotes from a wide range of political actors, including the Democratic Campaign Committee and republican House Speaker John Boehner. The purpose of the article was simply to inform citizens of their government’s activity. The Los Angeles Times targets a diverse audience, and they seek to make their news stories accessible to the general public (Mascaro).

 A full week after the Los Angeles Times published their story The Foundry reported on this issue, but it was presented much differently. As a conservative blog of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, The Foundry strongly supports the Keystone XL pipeline. Passionate, fiery conservatives constitute the majority of its readers. The Foundry’s article simply recycled the news from the Los Angeles Times and then added their opinion. Joseph Harris refers to this process as forwarding, because forwarding takes an original idea or concept and elaborates on it (Harris 37). The article recycles the fact that “the Keystone XL pipeline would bring 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries in Texas” and then biasedly adds that the pipeline would “give a major boost to the U.S. economy” (“Mr. President”). The Foundry gives no evidence of how the pipeline would “give a major boost to the U.S. economy,” and thus the statement has little validity. 

In what Harris refers to as countering, The Daily Beast presents this same story in a much different light than both the Los Angeles Times and The Foundry. The Daily Beast argues against the pipeline by showing the “negatives of a championed idea” (Harris 56). In this case they show the negative environmental impacts of the conservatively championed pipeline idea. The Daily Beast article, published nine days after the original Los Angeles Times article and two days after The Foundry’s article, gives a basic account of what had happened on Capital Hill. It then counters The Foundry’s claim that the pipeline would benefit the U.S. economy. McKinnon does this by saying Republicans actually hurt the economy by attaching the presidential decision requirement to the payroll tax bill because the Republican-revised bill risked overall congressional rejection. In the event the bill had been rejected, millions of middle class Americans would see their taxes rise. McKinnon states, “the victim was clear— the middle class. The villain is also clear: those e-e-e-vil Republicans” (McKinnon).

Analyzing three versions of the same news story reveals how a particular story changes from source to source. The original article from the Los Angeles Times gave the most reasonable account of the recent political maneuvers in Congress. In the course of a week the story appeared on The Foundry, but this time included facts forwarded from the original article and extended upon. The Daily Beast came out with an article two days after The Foundry, but this article included charged rhetoric countering the conservative view represented by The Foundry.

            The story recently resurfaced after Obama’s second inauguration, but with a new spin. The Los Angeles Times ran an article titled “Obama Signals New Focus on Climate Change,” summarizing the energy policies highlighted in Obama’s speech the following morning. Clearly the Los Angeles Times seeks to appeal to the general public with this article because it presents both the conservative and liberal views of Obama’s second-term energy priorities. The Los Angeles Time is not hoarding any political opinion here, as is evident with this quote taken from the article: “the administration has also said that it could make a decision by March about approving the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast” (Banerjee and Parsons). The above sentence represents a generic statement included in the article for the sole purpose of informing, not persuading, readers.

The same story changes when it appears on The Foundry’s blog on January 24^th of 2013, two days after the Los Angeles Times published their article. In “Keystone XL- A Matter of First Importance,” The Foundry seeks to negatively portray the Obama Administration regarding their delay to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by forwarding information from the Los Angeles Times’ article and then countering the information with additional facts. The Los Angeles Times took the direct statement by the Obama Administration that it “could make a decision by March about…the Keystone XL pipeline,” while the Foundry took that statement and expanded on it. Although the administration claimed it could make a decision by March, the Department of State announced that they would “not meet its promised March deadline to complete the review of the entire project,” and the Foundry quickly emphasizes this new announcement (“Nebraska Governor”). Unlike the Los Angeles Times’ informative article, this article encourages supporters to continue their fight for presidential approval of the pipeline. On February 19^th The Daily Beast chose to report on the Keystone XL pipeline. Their article sought to show the “heroic” efforts of environmental activists in their fight against pipeline approval. “Braving frigid cold, at least 35,000 demonstrators gathered in Washington on Sunday” to protest the Keystone XL pipeline, according to The Daily Beast. This article pushes the pipeline argument in a new direction. Instead of urging others to support the pipeline, the Daily Beast tells readers they “must avert catastrophic climate disruption” by protesting the pipeline (Hertsgaard). The Foundry seeks to encourage supporters of the pipeline, but the Daily Beast encourages protestors of the pipeline.

The media reports of early 2013 undertook similar transformations from source to source as the media reports did in December of 2011. The original stories first appeared on a neutral news source, in this case the Los Angeles Times. In the weeks following the first publications of the stories, The Foundry and The Daily Beast sought to forward and counter the original information presented by the neutral news source. They successfully forwarded and countered by elaborating on particular facts, adding personal opinions, and pushing the argument into new directions. Further, both The Foundry and The Daily Beast forwarded and countered the Los Angeles Times articles so that their news stories fit the conservative and liberal agenda respectively. Although this is simply one case of how liberal and conservative media spin the news, many other examples exist. The prevalence of such stories and news sites shines light on the fact that American political views seem to be growing increasingly polarized.

Works Cited

Banerjee, Neela, and Christi Parsons. “Obama Signals New Focus on Climate Change.” Los

Angeles Times 22 Jan. 2013. LA Times. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How to do Things with Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press,

2006. Print.

Hertsgaard, Mark. “Welcome to the Politics of Climate Change: Adapt and Avert.” The Daily

Beast. 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Long, Lisa. "Public Comments on Keystone Pipeline." Truth Out. Inside Climate News, 1 Nov.

2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Mascaro, Lisa. “Boehner Predicts Bipartisan Support for House Payroll Tax Plan.” Los Angeles

Times 12 Dec. 2011. LA Times. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

McKinnon, Mark. “The Republicans’ Payroll Tax Gift to Obama.” The Daily Beast. 22 Dec.

2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Mr. President, There’s Bipartisan Support for Keystone XL - The Foundry: Conservative Policy

News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News

Blog from The Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman Approves New Keystone XL Route.” The Foundry:

Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Timeline: Keystone’s Three Years in Limbo - The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog

from The Heritage Foundation.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The

Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Extended Essay 2

Wandering With the Keystone XL Pipeline

            Four and a half years ago, on September 19^th of 2008, the U.S. Department of State received an important Presidential Permit application. The application came from a company called TransCanada and it asked for permission to construct a seventeen hundred mile pipeline from Alberta, Canada to refineries in Texas. This pipeline, named the Keystone XL pipeline, would transport at least seven hundred thousand barrels of oil per day into the U.S. and create many domestic jobs. TransCanada, the company spearheading the project, needed approval from the U.S. Department of State prior to starting construction because the proposed pipeline would cross international borders. The U.S. Department of State announced it would begin forming an Environmental Impact Statement in January of 2009 to address the effects of the proposed pipeline. Throughout a six-month period the Department of State conducted interviews and meetings with both federal and state agencies as well as local landowners. After more than a year of investigations the Environmental Impact Statement concluded in April of 2010 that the Keystone XL pipeline posed “limited adverse environmental impacts during both construction and operation” (“Timeline”).

For the next year and a half public opinion of the Keystone XL pipeline caused political headache for lawmakers and policy advocates alike. Environmental groups staunchly opposed construction of the pipeline, while others insisted the benefits of the project far outweighed the costs. The Department of State opened a comment period for the Keystone XL pipeline and received two hundred and eighty thousand online remarks from opinionated citizens. One commentor, Raphael Blesi, called on the department to reject the pipeline application because “global warming is REAL.” Some supporters of the pipeline, such as Guy Black, strongly urged the commencement of the pipeline in order for the country to gain the “significant economic benefits this project stands to deliver” (Long). Finally in November of 2011 President Obama, on behalf of the Department of State, decided that the Keystone XL pipeline would not receive his potential approval until after the 2012 election. President Obama’s announcement did not stop politicians from arguing about the pipeline and it certainly did not stop the media from reporting on the political drama surrounding the issue.

            Between November of 2011, when Obama decided to delay his decision, and February of 2013 stories about the Keystone XL pipeline frequently appeared in the news. In this paper I explore the ways in which these stories have changed over time as well as the ways in which these stories change between different news sources. I choose to analyze how three different media websites, The Los Angeles Times, The Foundry, and The Daily Beast, portray the Keystone XL pipeline story in light of two specific episodes of political drama, the payroll tax controversy and Obama’s inauguration.

            The first event examined in this paper occurred in December 2011, when Republicans required the president to either approve or deny the Keystone XL pipeline within sixty days by attaching the requirement to the payroll tax bill. The Los Angeles Times immediately reported on this story with little bias: they presented facts in a straightforward manner and included direct quotes from a wide range of political actors, including the Democratic Campaign Committee and republican House Speaker John Boehner. The purpose of the article was simply to inform citizens of their government’s activity. The Los Angeles Times targets a diverse audience, and they seek to make their news stories accessible to the general public (Mascaro).

 A full week after the Los Angeles Times published their story The Foundry reported on this issue, but it was presented much differently. As a conservative blog of the right-leaning Heritage Foundation, The Foundry strongly supports the Keystone XL pipeline. Passionate, fiery conservatives constitute the majority of its readers. The Foundry’s article simply recycled the news of the Los Angeles Times and then added their opinion. Joseph Harris refers to this process as forwarding, because forwarding takes an original idea or concept and elaborates on it (Harris 37). The article recycles the fact that “the Keystone XL pipeline would bring 700,000 barrels of oil per day from Canada to refineries in Texas” and then biasedly adds that the pipeline would “give a major boost to the U.S. economy” (“Mr. President”).

In what Harris refers to as countering, The Daily Beast presents this same story in a much different light than both the Los Angeles Times and The Foundry. The Daily Beast argues against the pipeline by showing the “negatives of a championed idea” (Harris 56). In this case they show the negative environmental impacts of the conservatively championed pipeline idea. The Daily Beast article, published nine days after the original Los Angeles Times article and two days after The Foundry article, gives a basic account of what had happened on Capital Hill. It then counters The Foundry’s claim that the pipeline would benefit the U.S. economy. McKinnon does this by saying Republicans actually hurt the economy by attaching the presidential decision requirement to the payroll tax bill because the Republican-revised bill risked overall congressional rejection. In the event the bill had been rejected, millions of middle class Americans would see their taxes rise. McKinnon states, “the victim was clear— the middle class. The villain is also clear: those e-e-e-vil Republicans” (McKinnon).

Analyzing three versions of the same news story reveals how a particular story changes from source to source. The original article from the Los Angeles Times gave the most reasonable account of the recent political maneuvers in Congress. In the course of a week the story appeared on The Foundry, but this time included facts forwarded from the original article and extended upon. The Daily Beast came out with an article two days after The Foundry, but this article included charged rhetoric countering the conservative view represented by The Foundry.

            When examining recent news for the Keystone XL pipeline after Obama’s second inauguration, the story resurfaces with a new spin. The Los Angeles Times ran an article titled “Obama Signals New Focus on Climate Change,” summarizing the energy policies highlighted in Obama’s speech the following morning. Clearly the Los Angeles Times seeks to appeal to the general public with this article because it presents both the conservative and liberal views of Obama’s second-term energy priorities. The Los Angeles Time is not hoarding any political opinion here, as is evident with this quote taken from the article: “the administration has also said that it could make a decision by March about approving the controversial Keystone XL pipeline from Canada to the U.S. Gulf Coast” (Banerjee and Parsons). The above sentence represents a generic statement included for the sole purpose of informing, not persuading, readers.

The same story changes when it appears on The Foundry’s blog on January 24^th of 2013, two days after the Los Angeles Times published their article. In “Keystone XL- A Matter of First Importance,” The Foundry seeks to negatively portray the Obama Administration regarding their delay to approve the Keystone XL pipeline by forwarding information from the Los Angeles Times’ article and then countering the information with additional facts. The Los Angeles Times took the direct statement by the Obama Administration that it “could make a decision by March about…the Keystone XL pipeline,” while the Foundry took that statement and expanded on it. Although the administration claimed it could make a decision by March, the Department of State announced that they would “not meet its promised March deadline to complete the review of the entire project,” and the Foundry quickly emphasizes this new announcement (“Nebraska Governor”). Unlike the Los Angeles Times’ informative article, this article encourages supporters to continue their fight for presidential approval of the pipeline. On February 19^th The Daily Beast chose to report on the Keystone XL pipeline. Their article sought to show the “heroic” efforts of environmental activists in their fight against pipeline approval. “Braving frigid cold, at least 35,000 demonstrators gathered in Washington on Sunday” to protest the Keystone XL pipeline, according to The Daily Beast. This article pushes the pipeline argument in a new direction. Instead of urging others to support the pipeline, the Daily Beast tells readers they “must avert catastrophic climate disruption” by protesting the pipeline (Hertsgaard). The Foundry seeks to encourage supporters of the pipeline, but the Daily Beast encourages protestors of the pipeline.

The media reports of early 2013 undertook similar transformations from source to source as the media reports did in December of 2011. The original stories both appeared on a neutral news source, in this case the Los Angeles Times. In the weeks following the first publications of the stories, The Foundry and The Daily Beast sought to forward and counter the original information presented by a neutral news source. They successfully forwarded and countered by elaborating on particular facts, adding personal opinions, and by pushing the argument into new directions. Further, both The Foundry and The Daily Beast forwarded and countered the Los Angeles Times articles so that their news stories fit the conservative and liberal agenda respectively. Although this is simply one case of how liberal and conservative media spin the news, many other examples exist. The prevalence of such stories and news sites shines light on the fact that American political views seem to be growing increasingly polarized.

Works Cited

Banerjee, Neela, and Christi Parsons. “Obama Signals New Focus on Climate Change.” Los

Angeles Times 22 Jan. 2013. LA Times. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Harris, Joseph. Rewriting: How to do Things with Texts. Logan, UT: Utah State University Press,

2006. Print.

Hertsgaard, Mark. “Welcome to the Politics of Climate Change: Adapt and Avert.” The Daily

Beast. 19 Feb. 2013. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Long, Lisa. "Public Comments on Keystone Pipeline." Truth Out. Inside Climate News, 1 Nov.

2011. Web. 27 Feb. 2013.

Mascaro, Lisa. “Boehner Predicts Bipartisan Support for House Payroll Tax Plan.” Los Angeles

Times 12 Dec. 2011. LA Times. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

McKinnon, Mark. “The Republicans’ Payroll Tax Gift to Obama.” The Daily Beast. 22 Dec.

2011. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Mr. President, There’s Bipartisan Support for Keystone XL - The Foundry: Conservative Policy

News Blog from The Heritage Foundation.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News

Blog from The Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman Approves New Keystone XL Route.” The Foundry:

Conservative Policy News Blog from The Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

“Timeline: Keystone’s Three Years in Limbo - The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog

from The Heritage Foundation.” The Foundry: Conservative Policy News Blog from The

Heritage Foundation. Web. 28 Feb. 2013.

Short Essay 2

Photography and Media

Public opinion toward the recent Jesse Jackson scandal can expectedly be summarized with a simple look of disgust. Amidst a climate of record-low Congressional approval ratings and disappointing economic figures, former Representative Jesse Jackson Jr. recently pleaded guilty to illegally using around $750, 000 in campaign funds for personal pleasure. Prosecutors charged Jackson with using campaign money to purchase, amongst other luxuries, items including a $43,000 Rolex watch, a $4,600 fedora from Michael Jackson’s collection, and a pair of mounted elk heads from a Montana taxidermist priced at $8,000 (CNN). Media outlets reported on Jackson’s fraudulent behavior in a manner that portrays the former Congressman as apologetic and sympathetic, despite the fact that it seems reasonable to label Jackson as greedy and malicious. This bizarre characterization of Jackson works, however, with the help of photography.

Multiple news sites, including CNN, NBC, and BBC News, released stories regarding Jackson’s guilty pleading along with a single picture of him. All of the news sites place their picture of Jackson at the beginning of the articles. The pictures act as a sort of first impression for readers. The first thing they see before reading the article is Jackson’s troubled face. All the news sites use a similar picture of Jackson: his face full of sorrow with a regretful sigh forming from his brow. The emotions represented on Jackson’s face clearly show the former Congressman’s personal shame for his behavior. From the look on his face it is evident Jackson knows his actions have compromised his dignity, and for this he is greatly distressed. His regretful expression relays a message to the article’s reader, or viewer, that evokes an emotional response. The response from the picture likely includes feelings of sympathy for Jackson, because as human beings we notice and can relate to the raw emotions exposed by the picture. We see the agony in Jackson’s expression and find it difficult to avoid even the smallest bit of pity. To some extent it is like walking by a hungry beggar and refusing him food.

The emotional response from the picture, however, evokes a different emotional response than that of the articles’ text. Absent of a picture, the reader simply sees Jackson’s apology in black and white letters: “Tell everybody back at home I’m sorry I let ‘em down,” (NBC). The statement released by Jackson seems very stale when written in a news article. There are no feelings accompanying the text, and therefore as a reader we do not know what sort of connotation came with the statement. We only know that Jackson apologized. His apology could very well have been insincere or sarcastic. With the addition of a photograph depicting the painful emotions on Jackson’s face readers grasp a fuller sense of Jackson’s apology.

The photography incorporated into these media stories transforms the overall impact of the message. The articles successfully describe Jackson’s recent infamous claim to fame while the pictures attached to each article emphasize Jackson’s apologetic face. These pictures serve an important role in the way the public reacts to the news. Viewing the particular image accompanied with the news stories allows the reader to understand the sincerity of Jackson’s apology in a way that words cannot. Because viewers can more fully comprehend the authenticity of the apology they are more likely to judge Jackson less harshly. Therefore the lasting impact of the media story becomes transformed with the help of photography.

Former Congressman Jesse Jackson enters the U.S. District Federal Courthouse. Photo taken from NBC News. Note: NBC, CNN, and BBC News used the same photo of Jackson and included similar captions.

Works Cited

“‘I’m Sorry I Let ‘Em down’: Jesse Jackson Jr. and Wife Plead Guilty to Fraud.” NBC News.

Web. 22 Feb. 2013.

“Jesse Jackson Jr Guilty of Fraud.” BBC 20 Feb. 2013. Web. 22 Feb. 2013.

“Jesse Jackson Jr., Wife Plead Guilty to Charges Involving Campaign Funds.” CNN. Web. 22

Feb. 2013.

SE2 review questions

Review by: Dina Grossman

1)   Is the image analyzed in relationship to a larger story, and what is that story?

Yes, the larger story is about the congressman using all the money for personal pleasure. The article gives the reader negative feelings towards the man while the image shows him as an apologetic man evoking a more emotional feeling sorry for him response.

2)   How is the image analyzed

The image is analyzed by giving the background story so readers understand what the articles about. It then goes into detail about the emotional response that the story evokes then goes to the emotional response that the image evokes showing both in different ways. The story getting a more hateful response with the image getting a more empathetic response.

3)   What do you find most interesting about the analysis?

I found it most interesting that you put the image at the end. In the article you talk about almost all articles putting the image at the beginning so they lead with the reader only reading the caption knowing he’s apologizing for something. You putting it at the end gave a whole different appearance. I didn’t know the story so reading it I was like “wow this guys kind of a jerk” and then seeing the image I did get a little bit of a less strong response.

4)   What is most confusing or in need of greater attention

I don’t think any of it was all that confusing, it was pretty straight forward. In terms of revision I think it might be helpful for you to maybe show the captions on the image from other news sources to see what kind of response they go for because you touch on other stories using images, you could show an example to make this claim more credible. Also at the end you say “The articles successfully describe….” But only talk about one article

5)   Other comments and suggestions for revision?

Some of the sentences were a little confusing like the last sentence in your intro “This bizarre characterization of Jackson works, however, with the help of photography.” Another confusing sentences is, “Viewing the image allows the reader to understanding the sincerity of Jackson’s apology in a way that words cannot.” Do you mean understand not understanding? Also your metaphor about comparing him to a cute puppy needing a home might be a little strong. I think it’s a really good place for you to include a metaphor and this one gets the point across for sure but I don’t know if that’s the exact emotion it evokes. Also you could include a link to the original story that you got the image from.

Short Essay 2 Workshop

Review questions

Reviewer name: Eunha So  

1. Is the image analyzed in relationship to a larger story, and what is that story?

- The story is about Jesse Jackson Jr (former Illinoi (I believe) Representative) illegally spending the campaign funds for his own luxury, and how most of the article related to this story used a image of Jackson’s guilty/sad/regretful face.

2. How is the image analyzed?

At first I thought he was just frowning his face to some paparazzi, because that is what happens to famous people. However, I was completely wrong. I did not even think that there could be a huge issue behind it, but you analyze it as a pity and guilty face. After reading the behind story of the story I agree with you.

3. What do you ding most interesting about the analysis?

- I thought it was really interesting how a casual picture like this can contain a huge social/political issue. 

4. What is most confusing or in need of greater attention or explanation?

There was not a lot, but I had to look at the picture many times to really feel sympathy that the you are feeling. For some reason, even after I read your story, the picture still seemed like saying “what?” or “what is this smell?”. Maybe it is just a funny picture. Do you have any other picture of him? Since you mention that a lot of articles used similar picture of Jackson.

5. Other comments and suggestions for revision?

It was a good essay overall, and easy to understand what idea you are trying to deliver.