fowlercr

Fair enough. But Turkle is ignoring some real problems that Pokemon does address. According to the CDC, 74% of children ages 5-10 don't get enough exercise, and 80% of adults don't get enough exercise (Jaslow). Yet fitness tracker data shows that Pokemon players "were found to be walking 62.5 percent more than usual" (Baig).

Another real problem is that 14.8 million American adults are depressed and 40 million American adults suffer from anxiety (Anxiety and Depression Association of America). But believe it or not, Pokemon can help. Playing Pokemon improves peoples' moods, which in turn promotes social interaction. Plus, reward pathways and the hippocampus are stimulated during game play, both of which can atrophy with depression.

Professor Daniel Freeman from the department of psychiatry at Oxford University notes: “It [Pokémon Go] could be used to refocus your attention away from threat by getting you immersed in engaging activity, or it could be used to present the things you fear for long enough to help your anxiety naturally decline. Combine the right psychological science and augmented reality and you’ll have a really powerful treatment tool” (qtd. in Baig).

Boom. Mic drop.

Friedersdorf, Conor. "The Backlash Against Serial -- and Why It's Wrong." The Atlantic. 3 Dec. 2014. Web. 18 Feb. 2016.

Friedersdorf's claim is in the title: he argues that Koenig did a good job of reporting in Serial and that we should focus on the larger issue of making sure the truth is out there in order to get, in this example, justice for both Hae and Adnan.

Friedersdorf establishes credibility by referencing commenters on Kang's article as well as an author from The New York Observer, thereby making me trust that others hold his opinion as well. However, I wonder how cherry picked the quotes from the comments section are. I checked and there were a few who agreed with Kang's analysis.

Nice job of getting some refutations out there early on. This helps establish ethos in that Friedersdorf appears to be self-aware, although, as I pointed out in an earlier annotation, he is not entirely self-aware because he ignores his own point that there is usually some grain of truth in criticisms about white reporter privilege.

I agree with this point, and it's something I need to do further research on. After reading the article in full, I don't think Friedersdorf acknowledges what Koneig could learn from her critics. Instead, he focuses on undermining Kang's concerns about Serial. In my opinion, the takeaway for Koenig is to be more mindful of race and culture in her reporting, and to be sure to refer to credible authorities when she may not fully understand.

Friedersdorf tries to establish credibility right away by acknowledging the value in Kang's concerns.

Here's what "they" are saying. From reading the article in its entirety, "they" are writer Jay Caspian Kang, who Friedersdorf greatly admires, and Jeff Yang. Kang is Korean American and Yang is Chinese American. Both well-known and highly respected writers.

Conor Friedersdorf is a staff writer at The Atlantic, where he focuses on politics and national affairs. He lives in Venice, California, and is the founding editor of The Best of Journalism, a newsletter devoted to exceptional nonfiction. "Conor Friedersdorf"

The Atlantic is a well-known magazine (a reliable popular source) known as "high quality review with a moderate worldview."

One of the oldest and most respected of American reviews, The Atlantic Monthly was founded in 1857 by Moses Dresser Phillips and Francis H. Underwood. It has long been noted for the quality of its fiction and general articles, contributed by a long line of distinguished editors and authors.

Here Friedersdorf gets to what's at stake in the big picture: according to Friedersdorf, it's important that people's stories are told. The truth needs to be out there, and it's dangerous to make reporters feel scared to tell someone else's story.

This is another useful quote to use to support Keonig's credibility. It also gets to the heart of Friedersdorf's argument, or what's at stake for this white reporter.

Book review: http://www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/random-family-ten-years-on-an-interview-with-adrian-nicole-leblanc

Friedersdorf is trying to establish ethos here by pointing out that just because he doesn't think Serial is racist doesn't mean that he doesn't wish for more diversity in the news.

Good questions here. I don't know where I stand on the issue and need to do further research. Just because This American Life is doing a better job than some news outlets doesn't mean it shouldn't be called out for its failings.

Nice refutation here. Friedersdorf acknowledges that there is a wider problem with white reporter privilege, just not as much in this case.

It's a good idea to accept Kang's speculation even after disproving it because it shows that Friedersdorf is unbiased and truly taking Kang's opinion into account.

This is useful to see how someone calls an author out for a logical fallacy. It undermines Kang's ethos, the "they" to whom Friedersdorf is responding.

Here is a picture of Hae.

any old place with you.

Any old place with you.

Annotation.