1. Send attached to your email: A 250-700 word report, double spaced, in doc, rtf, pdf, html, or txt format (NO .DOCX!).  Use Times New Roman font, point size 10 or 12 (does not apply to txt files). NOTE: Example BMW available here.
2. Send in or attached to your email: A link to, a recording of, or a detailed description of your artifact -- or an explanation of why you were not able to record it. Note: If a link to your artifact dies between the time you email it to me and my viewing it within the next week, you'll need to have noticed and sent me an updated link. Note that there are ways to attach textual web pages to email. Let me know if you're not sure how to make that happen.

1. Develop a critical apparatus for determining what makes an un/successful example of media writing.
2. Become more comfortable articulating the results of that process of evaluating media writing.
3. Become more familiar with ways of recording media artifacts.
4. Demonstrate and improve [spoken] presentation and delivery skills.

1. A brief description of your artifact.
• Include how you know that this is an example of professional media writing.
2. The context of your artifact.
• Related stories
• Info on the actors in the story
• Background information required to understand its message
3. Popular reception of your artifact
• Other stories that cite it
• Other artifacts that copy it
• Past artifacts it copies
4. Critique of the artifact's choices
• Edits/Production techniques used
• Deductions you can make about its intended audience
  • No artifact has an intended audience of "everyone".
  • For example, almost every item has an audience limited by economics on some level. Some can't buy a car. Some luxury brands don't want those without cash to buy their products.
  • There are always choices made of how to appeal to specific subcategories, even if only more strongly than others.
  • Think of "intended audience" as primary, secondary, maybe tertiary audieneces, if that's more helpful
• Beliefs of its authors
5. Link to and lessons about our culture
• How does your choice very specifically teach us about cultural mores and decorum?
• You must link specifics from your deconstruction of the artifact to these lessons. That is, it is your responsibility to build an argument.
• How do its lessons help you prepare your class assignments? Other productions you'll perform?

• Check Plus -- 2.25 points -- Goes above and beyond what was required, and does so efficiently. Does a great job linking specifics in the artifact critique to cultural and personal lessons about media writing. Carefully discusses small, overlooked, yet important decisions by directors, actors, or writers. Check Pluses will be rare.
• Check -- 2 points -- Does what's required. Includes appropriately captured artifact. Text files attached, movies included with links. Discusses everything from the "Requirements" section.
• Check Minus -- 1.75 points -- Does a good job, but has an obvious weakness. Perhaps the cultural merit or personal lessons are not well argued. You may have argued that the point that the BMW artifact is arguing is important rather than that the artifact is well done. You may have gone too generic in your final points ("This commercial shows that money and consumerism drives America."). May sum instead of critique.
• Minus -- 1.5 points -- Flawed BMW. Does not grasp the assignment, or makes many of the mistakes listed under "Check Minus". May use its space to quote the original without providing clear critique and deconstruction.
• Zero -- zero points -- Unacceptable work. May plagiarize from sources. May not include a critique. Writing may be unacceptably edited, or not obviously proofread at all. Does not include the points from the "Requirements" section.

[DO NOT USE] Unsupported attributions

... some people say, it is believed, many are of the opinion, most feel, experts declare, it is often reported, it is widely thought, research has shown, science says, it was proven ...

Shortcut: WP:WEASEL

Phrases such as these present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They are referred to as "weasel words" by Wikipedia contributors. They can pad out sentences without adding any useful information and may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proven should be clearly attributed.^[3]

Puffery

... legendary, great, eminent, visionary, outstanding, leading, celebrated, cutting-edge, extraordinary, brilliant, famous, renowned, remarkable, prestigious, world-class, respected, notable, virtuoso ...

Shortcuts: WP:PEA WP:PEACOCK

Words such as these are often used without attribution to promote the subject of an article, while neither imparting nor plainly summarizing verifiable information. They are known as "peacock terms" by Wikipedia contributors. Instead of making unprovable proclamations about a subject's importance, use facts and attribution to demonstrate that importance.

• Peacock example:

• Bob Dylan is the defining figure of the 1960s counterculture and the greatest songwriter of all time.

• Just the facts:

• Dylan was included in Time's 100: The Most Important People of the Century, where he was called "master poet, caustic social critic and intrepid, guiding spirit of the counterculture generation".^[1] By the mid-1970s, his songs had already been covered by hundreds of other artists.^[2]