Truth Supplementary Question (1 Viewer)

[aussiechica]

Hi!
For English 'Telling the Truth' my class is doing Frontline.

However, I dont understand the criteria for supp. materials.
All my queries have been asked a bit hodgepodgely on other threads, but this would really clear things up for me and I'd muchly appreciate the help if someone could clarify a few points for me
Thanks.

1) What is the supp material supposed to be for? Ie. in question form, what are we supposed to be doing with it? Explaining what it says about truth? is that correct.

2) Does the text have to actually discuss truth directly ie. most ppl are doing Iraq articles, right? Well, are these articles supposed to say 'look how much bullshit theres been in this war...blahdy blah blah..abc misrepresenation etc" and atctuallly discuss truth and representation, or are we supposed to get articles saying, just say 'gee this way is ace" and were supposed to explain how they represent their version of the truth?"

In conclusion, what are we discussing? the concept of truth expressed in the text, what truth the text is perpetuating, etc


Did anyone get a sheet from their school about selecting supp material? If yes, pls share the info on it, bc I am at a loss


Thanks in advance

 

[imsooverskool]

cmon guys u gotta help us im with u aussie chicca im completely lost! but from what i can gather u have to collect supp material that exposes how truth is manipulated ie. satirical stuff like frontline and also supp material that exposes how much people can manipulate the truth. ie. the media's interpretation of the Iraq war! but hey im lost so dont listen 2 me

 

[anti]

Originally posted by aussiechica
1) What is the supp material supposed to be for? Ie. in question form, what are we supposed to be doing with it? Explaining what it says about truth? is that correct.

Not explaining what it says, but HOW it says it.

Originally posted by aussiechica
2) Does the text have to actually discuss truth directly ie. most ppl are doing Iraq articles, right? Well, are these articles supposed to say 'look how much bullshit theres been in this war...blahdy blah blah..abc misrepresenation etc" and atctuallly discuss truth and representation, or are we supposed to get articles saying, just say 'gee this way is ace" and were supposed to explain how they represent their version of the truth?"

More the latter. You may be lucky enough to find some text of the former variety, but you'll have to incorporate them in your argument differently; perhaps referring to them obliquely to prove that your point is valid.

Originally posted by aussiechica
In conclusion, what are we discussing? the concept of truth expressed in the text, what truth the text is perpetuating, etc

From the syllabus (paraphrased):
You're exploring representations of "events, personalities or situations" by evaluating how medium, form, perspective and choice of language influence meaning.

Remember that you're not JUST focussing on 'the truth', you're focussing on 'the telling OF the truth'.

Your supplementary texts should 'provide a variety of representations' and should be drawn 'from a variety of sources, in a range of genres and media'. In other words, don't just look at one perspective of an event (eg. war is bad because bush lies) because you're not fufilling your criteria. Look at HOW they created the impression that war is bad, for example.

You also have to look at how different genres, media and forms can affect the way information is received by an audience. Different versions of a similiar event are useful here but are not necessary by any means.

HTH. I'm half asleep writing this so I hope it makes sense.

 

[no_proof_needed]

If you can handle it try a historeography text like Warren or Finley. It relates to History Extension but it's also really good for Truth (although better for The Justice Game than Frontline)

"The masses do Frontline. The elite do The Justice Game."
My English teacher