The author of the report, "#1 Party School," takes an interesting approach to explaining the drinking 'issue' at Penn State. The author defines drinking in a way for the audience to understand easily by doing the sort of 'in-cognito' approach to both define the issue and make the audience understand what the problem actually is. The reasons are also defined in the undercover work in which it shows the investigative necessity of the alcoholism in State College. The way the report describes the different viewpoints of multiple different types of people such as the home owners, business owners, and police all give the best way the issue affects multiple groups of people. The author is using a radio talk show, so to be quoting someone is irrelevant when the majority of the show is the audio interview of the multiple different perspectives. However, one quote with Graham Spanier when he tried to say that drinking isn't for Penn State and the reactions thereof really showed how serious drinking is for Penn State. The students are interviewed in the beginning, so their opinions are included. However, only those students who are in the worst case scenarios are interviewed and so only a part of the population is considered in the report. I hate to say it, but this is obviously only a negative light on the drinking here at Penn State, with the only positive light being placed on what the business owners say in that they actually enjoy to see the students have fun. Obviously the author wants to get across the message of how intense drinking is at Penn State. The negative light on Penn State drinking is obviously inherent in the entire report with every situation being the greatest negative possible. Overall, I think this report is too widely biased to only one side of the issue and, as a result, seems almost unfair for a report of this length. As in the cases with the pizza man, there's obviously a reason why he STILL works the job he does. He never once really said he hated the job, he just stated that, yes, absolutely crazy things happen when you're a pizza driver. Not to mention the inability to be tipped if you deliver wings. I felt that this was strangely and funnily realistic. The only house owners interviewed seemed to be the most drastic of people, who clearly dislike the place they live in. I highly doubt that most people can't choose where they live if they bought a house in one of the biggest party areas in State College. It seems to me that it would be their fault if they didn't have any idea of where they were buying a house, which is not a light decision to make. All in all, there's a reason why Penn State has the biggest alumni association in the world. People loved what they did in Penn State, and most people drank, even from ages past. That being said, I can personally say I don't drink, but I love to see how lively my college is. The fact that people can have so much fun here is a great thing that other colleges don't offer. Penn State IS unlike any other school, but I wouldn't say it's in a bad way in the slightest.
"The author is using a radio talk show, so to be quoting someone is irrelevant when the majority of the show is the audio interview of the multiple different perspectives."
ReplyDeleteI pulled this specific quote out of your piece because I found it interesting. I think you are suggesting that the form of the piece (audio) negates the question of how quotes are incorporated. You suggest that the whole show is structured off interviews. But this is a fallacy to assume that this piece -- simply because its audio -- is really any different from a written report.
First, listen again and you'll notice that the entire piece isn't just intervews -- there are monologues read by the authors throughout the piece. These monologues are much like the commentary you'd provide in your own work -- moments when you'll process the information and quotes you are providing your reader.
Second, the piece isn't simply one long interview from start to finish. It is a piece that was structured out of a handful of interviews with a myriad of sources. From those interviews, the authors picked and chose what would make it into the piece and where each interview/comment would go. This is exactly the same way you'd structure a written piece. First, you do the research. Then, based on the research, you create the structure for your paper. Then, you fill in the structure with parts of your research, choosing to put in only some things, while leaving others out.
Do you see what I mean? In that case, there isn't much of a difference from format to format and the CHOICE of quotes is very much relevant in both cases.
Thanks!
-Denise