I spent a lot of time this weekend doing research for my Editing 420 research paper. I've done quite a bit of research on the web, but this afternoon I ventured to the library. I was able to find some articles and one really good book at the Communications Library, and then I ventured to the History, Philosophy and Newspaper library in the Main library. While there, I used the microfilm newspapers and the viewing machine. Although I hate trying new technology, it was extremely useful and I was able to look at some really good stuff that I would never have found online. I really recommend doing this if your topic allows.
Now I'm in the process of going through my research and developing a concentrated thesis statement. My topic is image coverage(with focus on fashion) of First Ladies and how newspapers frame information about them. It is still broad at the moment, but I want to focus my research on Jackie Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and (soon to be First Lady) Michelle Obama, showing how the increasing image coverage have enforced both positive and negative stereotypes of these women. The only source I'm worried about finding is an editor to talk with me about these topics. What do you all think about the topic? I'm open to suggestions.
5 comments:
I absolutely adore your topic. Jackie O is so iconic, fashion-wise, and I saw in TeenVogue the designer that Michelle Obama wore to the Democratic national convention and then that designer on the runway and his new Target line. It is important, and people do care.
Hilary, especially, is a little more pants-suitish than Michelle, and it would be interesting to see how people view her differently because of it.
I should definitely check out the microfilm. That sounds awesome.
I really like this topic, especially because women now are being represented in the media as powerful images. You might decide to delve into an interesting angle somewhere in your paper about why the media focuses so much on the first lady's outfits, but never on the president's clothes. I understand the president usually adorns the standard suit and tie, but why must the media focus so much coverage on something as superficial as clothing and style.
I wonder, if Michelle Obama wore pant suits as much as Hillary Clinton, would the media be portraying her any differently? Because my topic focuses on the Internet, I don't think it would benefit me to use the microfilm, but it seems like it is really useful for topics similar to yours.
I love your topic as well! I visit this one fashion site and many of the girls on it love Michelle Obama. They have been comparing her to Jackie O in terms of being fashionable and much more relatable to younger women. It makes me wonder if there is a reason Republican first ladies are usually not so fashionable? And could that be part of the reason that young people are mostly liberal?
I used the newspaper library as well for my research. It's crazy how far the newspapers go back! My paper focuses completely on events in the 60's and I haven't had a problem yet in terms of not finding records back then!
That's a really great topic! Kudos on thinking of it. I'm having trouble thinking of an editor to speak with as well. I'm doing my paper on Rolling Stone magazine, and besides one of those editors, who would never give me the time of day, I'm pretty much stuck to choosing who will ever speak with me.
Your topic reminds me of a comment my mom said when Obama and his family walked out on stage to make his acceptance speech. "Look at them! They are all wearing red! They are so cute." Clothes really do matter, especially in such a visual era.
It will be interesting to see if a liberal vs. conservative contrast appears in your research paper. I would find it reasonable to assume that left-leaning women are generally more fashionable than right-leaning (no offense to anyone reading this). I think it's the nature of the liberal to be progressive in all forms, including fashion.
Post a Comment