The presentation of resources differed from print to audio. In Rebecca Onion’s “How Depression-Era Women Made Dresses Out of Chicken Feed,” she cites her sources by hyperlinking certain words or phrases to the study or source she gathered the information from that she presents in this article. It is easier in the digital media format for Onion to do so, as readers can quickly click on the link to either further understand the information presented, to learn more about the topic, or check the credibility of the author’s sources. She also often cites her source at the beginning of a sentence, whether it’s a hyperlink or directly addressing the name or organization she’s citing, which is helpful to readers so they have an inkling of what the rest of the sentence is going to be about. 

In “The Cost of Fast Fashion,” sources were cited sometimes, but most instances in which facts or statistics were presented, the hosts often used phrases like “There are studies to back this up” or “Research has…” without always citing what resources the hosts were specifically referencing. In many instances, the hosts dropped facts without citing where they were from. For instance, when discussing how many clothes end up in landfills, they said that in 2012 84% of unwanted clothes ended up in landfills. This is more acceptable for a podcast because people might not want to hear the name of an article or study thrown at them. There may also be a certain level of trust between avid listeners of the podcast to the studies cited by the hosts of the show, since they invest their time and attention to listening to these two women. The hosts methodology of presenting this research was often using personal anecdotes and then connecting research to those anecdotes. I personally found it interesting, as a novice to listening to podcasts, that sometimes the sources they referenced were themselves. There were two or three times in which the hosts talked about a topic related to the cost of fashion that they had talked about in a previous episode, such as donating clothes, and then they would encourage listeners to go check the podcast out to see what information they had to present about that particular subtopic.

In this episode of Adam Ruins Everything,  Adam Conver responds to the popular myth that the suburbs are nice, safe neighborhoods that reside within good communities, which are thought to have good schools. He proves this myth to be false, as the suburban dad in this episode keeps making claims that coincide with the misconceptions about suburbia, by telling the dad that he is wrong with facts and statistics. For instance, in the beginning of the episode the dad thinks that mowing the lawn is a positive aspect of suburban life, but then Adam tells him the average costs of mowing the lawn and how foreign imports of vegetation are more expensive to maintain. The episode continues in this format of presenting a myth about suburbia and then Adam sharing the facts relating to that topic. These topics range from social, environmental, and racial beliefs about suburbia. By exposing the truth about suburbia, Adam shows just how impactful an idea, such as the “American Dream,” can permeate one’s mind to the point of ignorance. He introduces the concept of the suburban sprawl, for instance, by showing how the infrastructure of suburban neighborhoods has not only negative impacts on the environment from pollution, but also on national debt, and even cites a doctor to support his claims about the worrisome aspects of suburban neighborhoods for older and sick people. He approaches this episode with humor, however, so that viewers do not feel dismal about their suburban prospects and impacts on society that may not be positive or conducive to their values.

David Dunning, a psychologist and researcher at Cornell, writes “We Are All Confident Idiots,” published in Pacific Standard on October 27th, 2014. This magazine is geared slightly more for younger adult men with a college education, who mostly likely have a job in research and marketing. Dunning’s article targeted science and society, as he shares the research behind metacognition and people’s confidence in their own misbeliefs. This article defines the issue of ignorance in relation to metacognition. He argues that people who are wrong about a belief or claim are almost always confident in their misbelief, specifically more than those who are accurate and sound in their beliefs. He uses examples from studies that were performed on people, such as the high school survey on evolution, the survey on financial knowledge after the 2008 financial crisis, and the general belief that babies and children have that sometimes survive well into adulthood. Dunning begins his article with a relatable topic: “Lie Witness News” from Jimmy Kimmel Live! He shows how people jump onto a false claim quickly with a television feature and then supports his argument with research from his own team at Cornell University. While Dunning seems to argue that people are idiots, he really argues that people are not ignorant, they are misinformed. Dunning sites himself and his own team several times in this article, as well as research conducted by the government, other researchers, and writers. As a psychologist and researcher, Dunning has credibility on this topic, but uses his own research to support the argument too much, as one will always be bias towards themselves.

Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.

— Oscar Wilde.

This is the first post on my new blog. I’m just getting this new blog going, so stay tuned for more. Subscribe below to get notified when I post new updates.

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.