The podcast was very interesting in the way they used people as sources. Talking TO the veteran who got screwed over in the mortgage crisis made it so much more personal. On the opposite hand, listening to the mortgage broker who did the screwing over talk on and on about how he hung out with B list celebrities and spent all this money as though he himself were the wolf of wall street really sold the idea that these people suck. The podcast put it in much better words but the general theme was that these wall street adjacent brokers were either embodiments of corporate evil, or just poor simple douchebags who got sucked in and then spit right back out. While another podcast we recently listened to about fast fashion outlined research in a fun, casual conversational way, this one felt a lot more like interviews. This mat have simply been done to add valid points from real life experiences, but I think it was done much more strategically. Personally, I couldn’t possibly care less about the mortgage market. I do however, care about Frank who’s about to lose his house and want to know what happened. Had I not been pulled in by real people affected by this crisis, I probably would’ve retained much less information. By presenting the facts in such a hands on way and getting the listener invested, this podcast had every reason to be dry and boring. It was very intelligent to lean into the personable aspects of the crisis and then pull out the numbers, I can’t think of a better way to make such a complex issue understandable and even palatable to the masses. There were certain parts that read as a lot more conversational than others, but the intermittent interviews made it feel a lot more clinical. Specifically the framing around the man who sold these bogus loans. During the interview portion they simply let him dig his own grave talking about how much money he had and bragging about his newfound status. It was only after the microphone was off and he could no longer defend himself that the podcast switched angles and ripped him to pieces. This was also the point where he got his poetic justice and they talked about how now HE was the one who had to move back in with his parents after screwing all those lower income people over.

The first thing to be pointed out in the podcast was that the women speaking on the matter were not immune to the problems they discuss. Throughout the hour they talk about fast fashion being unavoidable for many demographics and approach the subject with as little privilege as I think they can. Clothing being mass produced at the speed of light with no regard for the economic or environmental consequences, especially considering that new collections are released on an almost monthly basis, is a very dramatic juxtaposition to the depression era clothing. The extreme waste vs the extreme stinginess about fabric, like the willingness to turn unlikely mediums into clothing is a really interesting contrast. Most fashion now is brought in from overseas, while during the depression era most families had to make their clothes at home. Both the article and the podcast seemed a bit like they wanted what they couldn’t have. On the podcast they want sustainability, in the article they just wanted something new for once dammit. Their points were also conveyed very differently across different mediums. The podcast contained a lot of jokes and sarcasm because they have the advantage of control over tone of voice. The article was a lot more straightforward and read more like research and less like a conversation. Having said that the sources used were on full display in the article and everything was cited as it went along. The podcast was as a disadvantage in this area because the listener is hearing them at their pace with no captions. If you miss a source you don’t have the luxury of just scrolling up a bit and seeing it again. I suppose you could rewind and listen more carefully, but it’s inarguably easier to catch a cited source in writing than in the middle of a conversation.

The author of this piece (David Dunning) notes that he is a leading expert on the ideas that sometimes more information is not necessarily better, but does contrast that with the fact that these ideas are in no way new and can be dated back to at least the founding fathers. In his article Dunning talks in depth about how when someone gets a little bit of information, their confidence in their own grasp of that information can drastically outweigh what they actually know. By having only a small piece of puzzle but holding the impression that they’ve put the whole picture together, people are digging their own intellectual graves. This article made me think of the old idiom “all I know is I know nothing”. As the piece goes on Dunning says that people have so much trouble admitting they don’t know something that they will draw ridiculous conclusions to fit the tiny shred of information they have. By this logic people who have less information can actually be in better shape because they have no misconceptions about whatever topic is up for discussion. Dunning also notes that even when given unbiased information, peoples personal thought processes can skew how they view that information. Much of the research done in this piece is either done by Dunning himself and his colleagues, or other researchers in his field that are on a similar level of expertise as him. Among the very academically worded sources, explanations and theories, Dunning ties in pop culture or household names. A few of these are the use of Barak Obama as an example, or clips from Jimmy Kimmel bits that show the theories at work.

In the suburbs episode of Adam Ruins Everything his research debunks a lot of ideas that are generally considered common knowledge. In the same way that old wives tales and superstition can get in our heads, the concept of the suburbs as a bubble of safety and security is widely regarded as true. I like that Adam Conover doesn’t just disprove these ideas, he points out that they are very much there on purpose. We didn’t just all wake up one day and think “I think I want a lawn and a golden retriever today” it was a wave of systematic oppression and unfair rules and regulations that set the stage for the suburbs. The addition of a well meaning but very naive father character did two things. One it set up an opportunity for Adam to educate the audience by showing how all of his statistics affected a “real” family. Two, it showed that ignorance truly is bliss. Every fact about why the suburbs are actually a hellscape is met with contention. The show being called Adam Ruins Everything is a tell of course, but I think the way Ron (the suburban father Adam terrorized) reacts to finding out the hidden truths about suburbia is also very telling. This episode highlights the abundance of privilege that you need to have in order to make the cut for suburban life, and Ron goes through denial and anger about it. This may not have been done on purpose but it sends the clear message that people within that bubble would much rather not know how the sausage gets made. This points out that a huge part of the problem is the contributors unwillingness to acknowledge that for every white picket fence, there’s a house lined with barbed wire due to the unfair circumstances. No matter what point in history or what culture, every utopia is built on the backs of people who have to live in a dystopia.

In the articles “Internet-age writing syllabus and course overview” and “College writing assignments with real world applications” from McSweeny’s Internet Tendency, there is a clear commentary amongst the satirical tone of both pieces. The message being that younger generations unappreciation of books and other print media is having negative effects despite the illusion of positive growth. This is well outlined in Internet-age Writing when the author Robert Lanham writes “Students will examine why former generations carried around heavy clumps of bound paper and why they chose to read instead of watching TV or playing Guitar Hero.” This is written in a section titled “reading is stoopid” and while it’s written in a very dry, funny way it still shows that the preference for media that’s easier to consume doesn’t impart the same lessons. The whole piece pokes fun at kids these days (lacking better words) and how young people aren’t getting the same information on grammar and spelling, so while it may be easier to watch a couple tiktoks and call it a day, no actual knowledge is being retained. By writing this in such a sarcastic funny way, its impossible not to look at how ridiculous this notion is. In College Writing Assignments, author Cameron Dodd writes in a similar way, coming up with all too real but still hilarious situations in which traditional writing techniques could be applied. This turns the idea that academic writing classes will only be applied to academic writing situations on its head. Maybe in the 1930’s people would scratch their heads and worry about writing their next collection of essays to be displayed in the library, but a much more modern worry is “oh shit how do I tell my mom I’m dropping out of college”. By framing the article that way it both highlights that academics have to evolve with the times or they will end up out of date and obsolete, and that modern problems require modern solutions. I’m not going to find a college course on how to handle my family members asking me for money, because those two points have not merged yet. Even though it’s hilarious to think about writing a college essay on one of Dodds topics such as “Write a Post-It note to your landlord with a feasible yet non-cliché explanation for being late on this month’s rent.” it still shows the gap between those two problems extremely well.

This is an example post, originally published as part of Blogging University. Enroll in one of our ten programs, and start your blog right.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.