Annotated Bibliography
What is an annotated bibliography?
|
Why would anyone create an annotated bibliography?
|
What would we use an annotated bibliography for?
|
Who has an annotated bibliography? What professions?
|
What professional skills can you gain from working through an annotated bibliography?
|
Entry One: Soha, M. (2017, December 16). What Losing Net Neutrality Means For Democracy. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/what-losing-net-neutrality-means-for-democracy_us_5a3422a4e4b0e1b4472ae62e
Summary:
This article provides an in depth explanation of the recent loss of net neutrality and the people behind the decision to dismantle it. Mike Soha brings to light just how unpopular this decision was, while making his stance abundantly clear. Soha, who clearly was not in favor of doing away with net neutrality, provides an insight into how opposed to this choice the general public was as well as the government. He goes on to explain the possible changes that may come as a result of this shift. He describes the possible favoritism of companies like Verizon and Comcast, as well as the possibility for restricted information and increased charges. He feels that the government acted without regard for the wants of the mass majority of people.
CRAPP Test:
The author of this article is a Lecturer in Communications and Media Studies. This clearly shows that he is not only knowledgeable on this subject but understands the massive importance of net neutrality. The points he provides, although clearly biased, is backed with statistics, which further validates his viewpoint. He explains that 83% of Americans do not agree with the FCC’s decision as well as three out of four Republicans, in providing these numbers his later claims of the government's neglect of the people’s wants is justified.
Reaction:
Soha’s negative outlook on the FCC’s decision provides a necessary layer to my research. Not only does this supply me with opinions of a qualified individual but the necessary facts to show the negative effects of this loss as well as the push for this to not take place. The true gravity of this issue is exemplified within this article. It of course is addressing the issues of net neutrality but he is able to project the issue onto a broader scale, taking into account the possible changes the Trump administration is now able to move forward with.
Entry Two: Kieren McCarthy in San Francisco 14 Dec 2017 at 22:28 tweet_btn(). (n.d.). 5 reasons why America's Ctrl-Z on net neutrality rules is a GOOD thing. Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/12/14/net_neutrality_vote_great/
Summary:
Throughout this article Kieren McCarthy provides five reasons why the loss of net neutrality is actually a positive thing. The article, although primarily opinion based, shows that the upside of the FCC’s choice is generally due to the fact that it benefits the market. He touches on all the money that will be made as well as the packages that the public will be able to buy. He sees this shift as obsorbanantly good and does not seem sympathetic to others with varying opinions. McCarthy uses blunt language to express his opinions which results in a harsh tone.
CRAPP Test:
McCarthy does not have any specific background on this topic. His information is extremely limited and his credentials are not available. This of course makes the information he provided much less credible. However McCarthy has written several articles that generally supported right wing ideals. This would lead one to believe that he himself is conservative and is writing from a place of bias. The article is less factually backed and instead is filled with personal opinions and ideas on what may happen.
Reaction:
This article directly combats other sources I have accumulated. It opens the door to a conversation and shows that both sides of this issue have been looked into. McCarthy provides a conservative perspective. Finding articles in support of the loss of net neutrality was extremely difficult, however when found the authors had limited credentials or a clear bias. This provides the basis for the argument that the voices of few stood out over the voices of many due to those in power.
Entry Three: B. (2017, December 14). Retrieved February 15, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zq-2Yk5OgKc
Summary: In this video BBC News breaks down what exactly net neutrality is and the services it has provided the public with in recent years. They not only provide an in depth explanation of net neutrality itself but give several different examples to make it clear to a larger demographic. They compare businesses and their accessibility to cars all driving in the same lane, losing net neutrality gives big business’ the chance to create a fast lane. This would mean companies would have to pay more to be put into said fast lane. Comparisons such as this one are made numerous amounts of times all in an attempt to further explain precisely what is occurring and how it may affect people day to day. They go on to explain that this issue is on a global scale and is not specific to the U.S.
CRAPP Test: BBC news is not a primarily American news source, it is based in the UK. Despite this their thorough understanding of this issue is evident in their countless comparisons and as well as the facts provided. Being that they are a news station which is available on several platforms, this issue is extremely relevant to them. Being able to broadcast their news and have an audience receive in a timely cost free way, whether it be on their website or youtube, may be directly affected by this decision. This would mean that they would be more apt to correctly inform their audience and provide the proper information needed.
Reaction: Having clips from this video provides a concise explanation of net neutrality. This is crucial for me to make any relevant points. Not only is the tone more informative than angry ,which provides a neutral way for viewers to understand BBC’s explanations, but they provide real life examples which I can utilize. The fact the BBC is a UK news channel allows the audience to see how wide spread this issue really is. Showing the vastness of this issue and displaying other countries contempt with the changes shows how impactful they truly are.
Entry Four: Choi, J. P., & Kim, B. (2010). Net neutrality and investment incentives. The Rand Journal of Economics, 41(3), 446-471. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.rowan.edu/login?url=https://search.proquest.com/docview/747989519?accountid=13605
Summary: This journal initially gives a background on how net neutrality came to be. However majority of the article discusses the financial aspects of net neutrality. They touch on why big businesses such as Verizon, AT&T, and Comcast are against net neutrality. How having net neutrality or not having it affects the market is thoroughly discussed. The audience is able to understand the side of large businesses more throughout this article.
CRAPP Test: Being that this is an academic journal it is entirely non biased and just intended to inform. Both authors Jay Pil Choi and Byung-Cheol Kim are both heavily qualified to be discussing this topic. Choi and Kim are both distinguished professors in the Department of Economics at Michigan State University. Having the financial portion of this issue discussed by experts in this field is pivotal to grasping the complete understanding of exactly why this is all happening.
Reaction: Providing the audience with an explanation of the money that is involved with this situation certainly would make the reasoning behind why this is happening more clear. Seeing how greatly big businesses would benefit from this change is crucial in having a full understanding in why the FCC made the choice they did. In regards to the discussion of money, having highly qualified professors speaking on the topic makes it easier to understand. Having this piece of information shows that both sides are being looked into and their reasoning is understood despite my standpoint.
Entry Five: B. (2018, January 24). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltzy5vRmN8Q
Summary: In this video Burger King gives an in depth explanation of what the loss of net neutrality will mean. They provide their audience with a physical representation of the possible virtual consequences using the whopper. Although the burgers are prepared and ready the speed at which they receive them is dependent upon how much they pay. This parallels the way in which information and websites will be available to the general public due to this recent loss. Burger King not only provides an explanation but makes the fact that they are opposed to the FCC’s choices known as well.
CRAPP Test: Burger King, due to how effective their ad was, clearly has a large understanding of the current troubles surrounding net neutrality. Being a large corporation they are able to see both the side of the public as well as the side of the big business. This creates a unique perspective. Burger King is extremely relevant and clearly very popular as of right now, which makes their input relevant as well.
Reaction: Having the opinion of a big business voiced is extremely important. Due to the fact that they have the perspective of both sides Burger Kings standpoint is crucial for those fighting against the FCC’s choices. Being backed by a large corporation provides a sense of validity for the argument that this decision was wrong. Burger King was able to voice this opinion to a large demographic in a way that was easy to comprehend. This was a pivotal moment in regards to everything that has gone on surrounding net neutrality.
Entry Six: F. (2017, November 22). Retrieved February 16, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u9laGMO2IAM
Summary: In this video Ajit Pai gives his own explanation of net neutrality and explains why he believes that disbanding it will inevitably have a positive outcome. Throughout this interview Pai explains how this will help the market while being baited by the interviewer to discredit the claims made against his decision. The topic becomes slightly skewed as they briefly attack the Obama administration. However generally the video is consistent of him providing explanations as to why he has decided to take action of net neutrality.
CRAPP Test: Ajit Pai is the man who has been at the forefront of getting rid of net neutrality. He is the most credible person to discuss his own thought process. In hearing from him directly accusations or false claims are unable to be made, it is only his genuine raw outlook on the situation. The interview is conducted on Fox news, which is a primarily conservative news station. This of course provides insight into the opinions of the right side.
Reaction: Having Pai’s explanation provides the audience with an insight to his thought process. He does not address how everyday people will be affected but instead focuses on the positive effects it will have on the market. This reenters the argument that the people are not being heard. Having Pai and the interviewer briefly attack the Obama administration shows that they have a great disdain for the previous President and open up the door for the audience to question their motives.
Entry Seven:
Federal Communications Commission (FCC), Electronic Comment Filing System, September 4, 2014, online posting: http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/comment/view?id=6018327622.
Summary: Within this journal a hearing before The Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate in regards to the importance of net neutrality is provided to the reader. Within this hearing the core reasons net neutrality should be salvaged are explained. They discuss the financial factors of the issue as well as how everyday people will be affected. They discuss the reasons these regulations are needed and the issues that have burdened the internet, such as fast lanes and prioritizing, as a direct result of a lack of regulation. This was before net neutrality was enacted and was an attempt to explain the need for these rules.
CRAPP Test: The entirety of the individuals providing facts on this issue are all highly qualified elected officials. The fact that these individuals have the opportunity to speak before the United States Senate in itself provides a basis that the information they are providing is accurate and sufficient. Those speaking are senators, governors, and others in a position of power. If these individuals hold these positions they clearly have a background in dealing with matters such as this one.
Reaction: Having statements of elected officials that back my claims will provide my audience with further reason to believe the information I am providing. This will show that my arguments are not based only in bias and that others with outstanding credentials share the same ideals.
Entry Eight: Bourreau, M., Kourandi, F., & Valletti, T. (2015). Net Neutrality with Competing Internet Platforms. The Journal of Industrial Economics, 63(1), 30-73. doi:10.1111/joie.12068
Summary: Within this journal the effects of net neutrality are tested within two models. One that follows the guide lines of net neutrality and one that does not. During this experiment they found that investments in broadband capacity and content innovation are both higher when not under net neutrality. Although this is clearly positive they also note that their was a higher possibility of unfair workings whether with competition or the possibility of sabotage when not under net neutrality.
CRAPP Test: This experiment is fully explained throughout the journal. Proof of the experiment is provided and those who participated are mentioned. The effects are undeniable and are provided directly within the findings. The Journal of Industrial Economics published this work, which would certainly mean it is credible.
Reaction: Having this experiment shows both sides of the argument. There are benefits to doing away with net neutrality. I feel that it is only fair to provide this information to the audience in order for the to fully grasp the issue. Although there are positives one must understand that they are heavily outweighed by the negatives.
Entry Nine: Gans, J.S. J Regul Econ (2015) 47: 183. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11149-014-9266-7
Summary: This journal looks into the impact of net neutrality as well. However within this journal they find information that directly combats the previous journals findings. They found little to no negative impacts on Internet Service Providers when these regulations were used. It is explained that they have findings that may prove that net neutrality can actually boost investments for ISP's.
CRAPP Test: Once again the information gathered by the models are provided within the paper. The evidence is provided to the reader. It was once again published by a notable journal, specifically The Journal of Regulatory Economics. After each of their claims they provide proof and the equations they used to prove it.
Reaction: Having a counter to the previous journals findings creates an interesting dynamic and gives the reader an insight into both sides. It arises the question of the motives of those who publish these findings. It also shows that there is a plethora of findings on this topic and one must come to their own conclusion based on their beliefs.
Entry Ten: (2017, November 25). Retrieved May 04, 2018, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8yREn390izE
Summary: This podcast discusses previous attempts to dismantle net neutrality. They not only recall past accounts but discuss how this will be negative for practically everyone in the future. The raw emotion of those speaking are evident throughout the podcast. They provide a very real example of how losing net neutrality can change lives.
CRAPP Test: H3H3 produces a series of podcasts on youtube. They make their living off of the platform and this change can genuinely affect their lives. This is information and opinions coming directly from those who this may hurt directly. They clearly are informed on the topic and add a more personal level to the issue.
Reaction: Having the blunt opinion of someone whose income comes purely off of the internet is extremely interesting. It allows the audience an insight into how this can genuinely affect peoples lives. He is clearly informed on the topic and his rawness adds makes the issue more human.