Thoughts on Presentations, Round 2

First, let me apologize for the lack of donuts - it was a crazy morning and, well - I owe you.

Let's talk presentations:

Matt and Manan: Where to begin? I dug the tone. I thought a few of your slides (especially the one that portrayed the African-American person on crack) were over the top. Still, I think humor is a good way to go here. It kept our attention, that's for sure. I also liked how you incorporated "institutional plagiarism" into the mix. Humor is a double-edged sword: it draws people in, but it can obscure your message. 12 points.

Kisha and Marcus: Solid presentation. I like the idea of an online tutorial, although I'm thinking that it should be part of a broader website. The trick is to get folks to use it once, then convince them to come back again and again. I also thought that the text in your examples could have been a bit easier to read - spaces between paragraphs, highlighting or bolding key terms - that sort of thing. 13 points.

Joby and Kurt: Great flow to your presentation. Using non-Glass examples, as it were, is a good idea, since not everyone who commits plagiarism, or who fabricates all or part of an article is a pathological liar like Glass. But is exposing someone as a liar enough of a punishment in our day and age, where we treat liars (Glass, Blair, Barnicle, etc.) like rock stars? Make sure you also clearly explain "trust" - I like to think of it as a contract between the reader (who plunks down 50 cents for the paper) and the journalist. 14 points.

Amanda, Kesun, and Andrew: The skit was a terrific idea. It raises the question, though: why do we have to be entertained all the time? I'm all for making learning painless, but at some point you have to bring folks back to earth and teach them the concepts. I don't think you need the movie at all - just a bit more prefatory material before the skit, and perhaps a section that involves the audience - "what would you do here?" - that kind of thing. 13 points.

All in all, a terrific batch of ideas. Thanks for sharing them with me. I have two final papers to hand back (Sarah/Jenna, and Amanda/Kesun/Andrew. I'll be happy to get them back to you next term. You can stop by my office, or email me.

I also have noticed that a few of you owe me some of the earlier (1-4) papers - please get them to me by Thursday, or else I'll be unable to grade them before I have to submit final grades.

Please stay in touch, and have a great holiday.

Thoughts on Presentations, Round 1

Just thought I'd share a few reactions to the first few presentations:

I thought everyone did a nice job of presenting the issues raised in the movie. You've presented a range of feasible, easy to understand teaching tools. I'm not so sure, though, that you accurately gauged the audience (in some cases), which is a little ironic, given that it was your environment until we invited you to attend Drexel University and Happy Home of Donuts. These are high school journalists - raised on the promised ease of internet research. Picking a few sites that are out and out shams might have been a nice addition to the presentations.

Keep in mind, too, that there are broader, more significant issues at work here than just being punished for doing something unethical - the trust we place in journalists is eroded each time plagiarism/fabrication occurs. Journalists have enough trouble maintaining the public's trust without reporters making stories up.

Also, I was a little troubled at the subtext of some of the presentations (both ours and Dr. Friedlander's) that suggested that these teaching tools would keep folks out of trouble. There's more to it than just avoiding career pitfalls - we're talking about our changing relationship with the truth. It's about how we view truth - and the nature of truth itself. It's not just about keeping your career on track.

I think that you've all been so hammered with anti-plagiarism messages in your life that the film, though troubling, is just another "After School Special," as it were. There's more to it than that - but that's for future journalism classes.

Let me take the presentations one by one - the grades for the presentation are out of 15 points:

Sarah and Jenna: the pamphlet is a terrific idea - it gives the journalist something to keep near the computer as he or she is writing. An online version of the pamphlet might be even more effective, although I'm a sucker for tangible things.

I would have added just a bit of information on each example of plagiarism - just a sentence or two on Blair, Cooke, etc.

As for the presentation itself - it was solid. I think you were both a little nervous, but that's totally normal. 13 points.

Elise and Selina: I liked the idea of bringing in "Craig the Ringer" to give a guest lecture on plagiarism/falsification, but I wasn't quite clear on how the actual classroom interaction part would happen.

Would he stick around to answer questions? Would he participate in some kind of in-class exercise? Still, it was a solid effort. 12 points.

Chris and Sean: My conviction for kickbacks aside, I thought you did a solid job of encapsulating the issues in the packet. But is the packet the best vehicle? Is it "user-friendly" - as I mentioned in discussing Sarah and Jenna's presentation, think more about how a high school journalist would actually use this information.

And make sure you send me some money for bail. 12 points.

Grace and Roma: The power-point presentation was certainly eye-catching, but I was concerned that it might have been too eye-catching, if that makes any sense. At times, it distracted me from the message you were trying so hard to get across.

A question for all you: do you actually believe Glass when he claims that he "only wanted to be a good journalist?" I'm not sure this is the case - or at least, I don't think this was a dominant motivation.

The flow of the presentation was good, but you need to be a bit more forceful - speak up! You had some great ideas. 11 points.

Ayah and Allie: I think the role play idea is a good one; I think it would be an effective means of reaching a younger audience. Still, I wonder if folks in high school don't already see enough of them - in lectures on drugs, AIDS, etc.

I also think that more could have been said - in all of the presentations - about how the message would be different for editors and for reporters. 11 points.

Finally, Jessica and Rachael: I want to apologize to you first for slotting you on the 9th - my mind has been a bit of sieve recently, and I simply forgot to log the date you originally requested.

With that in mind, I think you did a solid job. The color selection in the brochure is effective - I also appreciate that you cited all of your sources correctly - something missing in some of other presentations (how's that for irony?). 12 points.


Across the board, I would urge you to speak a little more clearly, a little more loudly, and to rehearse your presentations more than once. It really pays off. Watch out for those troubling "likes," "you knows," and "ums," otherwise known as dysfluencies.

I hope you can all make it on Tuesday for the final round of presentations - should be fun. Take care and have a good weekend. Again, we'll be in Matheson 306 beginning at 1 p.m.