Stakeholder #2

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE senses. If the stakeholder is an insitution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.

Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha is a female pediatrician of the main children’s hospital in Flint, Michigan. She appears to have the height of the average-female in the United States. She has a tan complexion with hazel eyes and lavishing dark hair. The pediatrician has a slightly long nose with a left dimple when she smiles and has a bright smile (she also seems to wear glasses at times). Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha speaks English and she has an American accent (particularly accent from Michigan). When she speaks in front of the public, Mona tends to cringe her eyebrows when she tends to speak about issues that she finds deeply devastating like children being hurt or in danger. Being someone who is working with children daily, I would assume Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha must have a high hygiene and as it appears in the bags of her eyes and her occupation as a pediatrician, she must work constantly in her profession and rarely gets rest. Her mannerisms are mainly focused on her hands. In interviews with news stations, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha tends to wobble her head and use aggressive open hand gestures when speaking about negative issues like the effects of lead on children.

Unknown "lab coat"  via pixabay
CC0 Public Domain

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.

“This is a community-wide trauma that was caused not just by the lead but also by the deceit from government agencies,” she said.

“For almost two years the state had been denying this was an issue. Right when the water switch happened in April 2014, residents were complaining the water was brown, that it looked gross, it tasted gross. And so the moms were talking, the activists, the pastors. Water experts came in and had concerns. And it was deny, deny, deny. And then when we shared our results at our press conference we were attacked. They were like ‘No, this is wrong, you are an unfortunate researcher, you’re causing near hysteria, our numbers are not consistent with your numbers.’”

“People need to go to jail – this was criminal,” she said.

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
Most of these claims are somewhat valid. They are heavily carried with objectivity and it plays on your emotions very well. The claims of the government agencies deceiving people is accurate.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
She is on point with the residents of Flint, Michigan and has little things in common with say Rick Snyder or emergency manager Darnell Earley who signed the switch of the water source of Flint.

Stakeholder #1

1. Can you describe this stakeholder in 200-250 words? If they're an individual, vividly describe how they look, what they wear, how they move. Tell us how they sound, how they talk, what their mannerisms are. Conjure them in our mind's eye, by appealing to at least THREE of our FIVE
senses. If the stakeholder is an insitution or group, then describe the institution and how it appears in the world. How do people encounter this group or institution, digitally or physically? Describe their
website or headquarters or something else that physically represents the group to the world at large.

1

           One of the primary stakeholders in this controversy are the residents of Flint, Michigan. The residents of Flint range from young children to senior citizens and of all ages in between. The youth of Flint are small in stature, soft of complexion due to the little amount of time their skin has been exposed to mother Earth. The average citizens of Flint are female and male adults whom have Michigan mannerisms like subtle emphasizes on some letters in the English alphabet like the letter o. Also, these people may be described as poisoned because of the water they have been consuming for a long period of time. 

    

     The ethnicity of these residents are mostly African American, then Caucasian and other minority groups. These people look like average American citizens and speak with an American northern accent. The people of Flint dominantly speak English, with the exception of some minority groups which may speak a foreign language such as Spanish or French or Mandarin.  They wear common American apparel like jeans, shoes, t-shirts, and for the most part of the year they wear warm clothing due to the cold, snowy environment in which they live in.  Knowing about the fear to use the pipe water to bathe, some of these citizens may have a slight foul stench…just slightly.

Unsplash "People" 2015 via pixabay
CC0 Public Domain

2. Can you identify THREE specific claims being made by this stakeholder? The claims should be public and about the specific story you're investigating. Provide direct quotes for three different claims or ideas made in public by this stakeholder. Each quote sould be clearly hyperlinked to the original source.
"They're poisoning an entire community. A generation of kids will never recover from this. And it's all just to save a few dollars. They played a game of chess with our lives and we lost."

“They not only poisoned an entire community, they tried to hide it, they lied about it, they dismissed, tried to discredit and publicly attacked the people who were trying to prove what they were doing,” Walters said. “They falsified documents, they made jokes about it and still do not admit what they did is wrong. Instead of firing people and arresting people, they are reassigning people and allowing people to walk away with resignation with severance packages. That is not justice for what they have done to my family and every other citizen in Flint. People deserve to go to jail for their actions.”

“We’re drinking water that’s not fit for human consumption,” Wright complained, “and we’re paying an arm and a leg for it.”

3. Can you explain how valid these claims are? Objectively, how much weight do these claims carry? How credible are they? Be specific. Think about how poorly or successfully the stakeholder cites FACTS, plays on our EMOTIONS, or presents themself as a CREDIBLE actor in the debate.
These claims are conclusively valid and they do play on your emotions rather strongly. However, these claims are pretty spot on to the factual truth of what they're saying. The citizens are paying about 130 bucks a month for dirty water, kids won't recover from this, and the government did try to falsify any accusations on the validity of the Flint River water at the beginning of the accusations.

4. Can you explain how these claims are similar and/or different to the other stakeholders? Be clear and precise - does this stakeholder have anything in common with others involved in the debate? Who do they have the least in common with? Why?
These claims are similar to those of Dr. Mona Hanna-Attisha, which claims as well that the water of Flint is dangerous and is poisoning the children. These claims are sort of uncommon with Governor Rick Snyder and his emergency managers because they were all claiming the opposite about the water in Flint, Michigan.

The Big Event

Mcability "Water Glass" 03/20/14 via Pixabay
CC0 Public Domain

The current water crisis in Flint, Michigan all initiated about two years back. Let’s fly back to April 25, 2014. The weather in Flint was somewhat warmer than at the beginning of the year (yet, being a city in Michigan it was probably still cooler than say here in Arizona during April). Flint around this time had been going through some financial issues and as part of one of the ways to solve some of their financial troubles, officials in charge of Flint decided to stop buying water from Detroit because piping water from there to Flint costs a pretty penny. The officials switched to the Flint River as the primary source of water for the next couple of months until they could build a pipe of sorts to a much more reliable source of water (preferably a lake since lake water is less salty than river water). 

 So, back to April 25^th. On this day, the mayor of Flint of the time officially announced the switch of the water source of the city of Flint, shut down the pipeline which was connected to Detroit’s water source, and turned on the pipeline connected to the Flint River. All the officials present with the mayor celebrated by drinking a fresh, uncontaminated glass of treated Flint River water……or so they thought it was uncontaminated until later on in the coming months.

My Sources

The following are the ten sources that will help me in my first project.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V21PdoZEyzE

• The source is from Youtube but the actual video is from MSNBC. The source is credible considering it is from a broadcasting news network. 
• The author is Rachel Maddow. She is a well known news reporter for MSNBC, attended Stanford University and has a strong presence on online media such as Twitter. Her strong presence makes her a reliable source.
• The source came out on 18th of December of last year. Nothing was going on that month that might have affected the controversy. The time period of the source comes sort of late into the exposure of the controversy as by around October of 2015 the results of lead in Flint's water was pretty much confirmed by local research done in the community. Also, at this time, Flint declared a state of emergency.
• The source offers an overall outline of the controversy in which it presents stakeholders such as the residents of Flint, governor Rick Snyder and the emergency managers who moved the switch to the Flint River as a source forward.

http://michiganradio.org/post/listen-not-safe-drink-special-documentary-about-flint-water-crisis#stream/0

• The source is from Michigan radio. The source is credible since it is from the state from which the controversy arose from
• The author is Lindsey Smith. Lindsey is the reporter of Michigan Radio and she has been recognized by Michigan AP. This gives more credibility to her. 
• The source came out in December of 2015. At the time of this month, MSNBC was doing a special report on the water crisis in Flint. In this month, the nation was on the verge of being informed on this issue.
• The source offers specific dates in the controversy such as the date of approval of the switch of water sources in Flint and gives me a more local insight into the controversy.It presents key stakeholders such as Rick Snyder and the citizens of Flint.

http://www.freep.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/10/10/hanna-attisha-profile/73600120/

• The Detroit Free Press. The source seems credible considering it is a newspaper.
• Robin Erb. Erb has a Twitter account and she is a health writer for the Detroit Press and not much else is given by her. This makes her credibility sort of doubtful.
• October 2015. Around this time, state officials of Michigan were doubting the numbers coming from Dr. Mona Hanna-Attishah, a pediatrician of Flint Michigan who researched numbers of lead in children's blood.
• This source focuses on an important stakeholder, Dr. Mona Hanna-Attishah and provides more insight into what she significantly contributed to the Flint water crisis.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/local/michigan/2015/12/15/flint-mayor-declares-state-emergency-water/77346036/

• Detroit news. The source is a somewhat local news source of the controversy.
• The Associated Press. The article does not mention any specific authors other than the AP wrote it.
• December 15, 2015. Rachel Maddow was bringing this controversy into light around the same week.
• The source gives detail into a progressive part of this whole controversy when the new mayor declares a state of emergency in Flint, Michigan.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/10/gms_decision_to_stop_using_fli.html

• Michigan live. The source is a credible news source.
• Ron Foger, reporting for the Flint Journal since 1995. He has experience in journalism.
• October 14, 2014. At this time period in the whole story, Flint is well into using the Flint River as their water source and complaints begin to emerge from the residents.
• This source offers an interesting point in the story where a company of the city recognizes that the water of Flint is beginning to rust the auto parts used at GM. I would say it sort of represents the citizen of Flint GM (a company is a person after all) publicly stating that the city's water is rusting up their product.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TA53UEr2vaQ

• Youtube. This could doubt the credibility of the source.
• DTV. Not much could be found on the credentials of the author other than they are a Public Education Channel created by high school students in the Davison School District.
• January 4, 2016. Nothing significant was going on around that date to have impacted the source. 
• This source offers a more local in depth analysis of the Flint water crisis in which it represents the citizens as stakeholders as well as the emergency managers that were sent by Governor Rick Snyder to help Flint financially.

http://www.mlive.com/news/flint/index.ssf/2014/05/state_says_flint_river_water_m.html

• Michigan live. The source is from a newspaper.
• Ron Fonger. Fonger has been working in journalism in Michigan for about twenty years. He has a small presence online.
• May 23, 2014. This period places slowly before the climax of the story, which is around mid 2015.
• This source offers insight into what some residents of Flint were saying in reaction to the suspicion of the newly placed Flint River water.

http://www.michiganpolicy.com/index.php/urban-affairs-the-news/current-issues-9/1474-greater-water-rates-deteriorating-water-quality

• Michiganpolicy.com. The source is a website. 
• Amber Vrooman. Vrooman did not have that many credentials to be found, doubting his credibility as a writer.
• April 20 2015. Nothing of impact is occurring around this time to the controversy.
• This source is key to the project as it gives a slight background into the "why" of the water switch in terms of finance.

• Where does the source come from? What website or host? How does this affect the source's credibility?
• Who is the author of the source? What can you find out about their credentials, background, and public presence online? How does this information affect the source's credibility?
• When did the source come out? What else was going on in the world during that day, or week, or month that could have some affect or impact on this controversy? How does the specific time period play into the story?
• What information does the source offer your project? Which stakeholders does it represent? What contextual information does it offer you? Why is it important to your project?

• Where does the source come from? What website or host? How does this affect the source's credibility?
• Who is the author of the source? What can you find out about their credentials, background, and public presence online? How does this information affect the source's credibility?
• When did the source come out? What else was going on in the world during that day, or week, or month that could have some affect or impact on this controversy? How does the specific time period play into the story?
• What information does the source offer your project? Which stakeholders does it represent? What contextual information does it offer you? Why is it important to your project?

http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/12/flin-j12.html

• wsws.org An organization website which makes the source reliable.
• James Brewer. Not much information was found on Mr. Brewer, so he does not have a strong presence online either.
• January 2015. Around this time, the people of Flint were protesting about the water supply, but nothing else major was occurring around this time to have impacted the controversy.
• The source goes into the specifics of the chemicals founded in the Flint water and more details into the stakeholders of the governing officials and the citizens.

http://www.abc12.com/flintwaterworries/headlines/Gov-Rick-Snyder-to-make-announcement-about-Flint-water-331164342.html

• abc12.This is a .com website. This source seems reliable.
• ABCnewsteam. The author is not specifically pointed out in this article, making the article somewhat suspicious.
• October 9th, 2015. Around this time, data coming from Flint, Michigan on the lead levels in the children's blood. 
• This information offers some insight into the actions one of the stakeholders, Governor Rick Snyder, was taking to respond to the water crisis going on.

Analysis of My Rhetorical Situation

The rhetorical situation consists of the context,the audience, the purpose and the subject. The audience is one of the key components in suggesting in what form to mold the content.

1. So, what can you assume about people who might be interested in your topic? Describe them as specifically as you can - what other kinds of magazines, websites, or newspapers might they read regularly? What other kinds of media might they comsume? What demographic factors - like e1conomic class, race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, political affiliation, religious beliefs, geography, etc. - might you be able to guess broadly about your audience? What kinds of things are likely to be important to them? What might they value? What things are likely to be unimportant to them? What might they not value?

geralt "Person Men Theater" 2015 via Pixabay
CC0 Public Domain

I expect my audience to be a young demographic who primarily consume social media. I expect them to be dominantly Caucasian males who are from middle class backgrounds who probably value issues that are relatable in some way to them. I believe they value stories that more likely involve social issues as opposed to say nonsocial issues like say a new technological method to debug a calculator. The audience might not value topics where there is no clear protagonist or antagonist since that could potentially be dull to them.


2. Analyze your purpose. So, now that you've thought a little harder about your audience, what do you want your project to do to them? To do for them? How do you want to make them feel? What are the most important elements of this controversy that your audience might miss or misunderstand that you want to be sure to make clear to them? What do you want to make sure your audience knows about the key stakeholders? What should they know about the setting's effect on the controversy? What about the time period's effect on the controversy? What about other key 
contextual details that you're worried the audience might not understand?

Peggy_Marco "Friends Trust Friendship" 11/3/14 via Pixabay
CC0 public domain

I want my project to make the audience feel that in the United States, a nation that is considered a "first world" country, there are still problems that you would expect to happen somewhere in a developing country such as the lack to access to clean water. Also, I hope they feel that our government is not perfect and they can tend to mess up, big time. I hope they don't miss that the controversy of Flint, Michigan has left an impact on the citizens of the town on their trust with their governing officials. 



I hope the audience understands the effects that people of Flint have felt by the water crisis and the motivations behind the governing officials who decided to switch the water source for the worse. The setting is obviously key in this controversy because it serves as a key in the creation of the controversy. That is the primary thing I want the audience to understand that the setting has more of an impact on the controversy than one might think.

3. Analyze your author (that is, yourself). What do you bring to this project that no one else in any of my classes could bring to it? How specifically does this story intersect with your own interests or passions or worldviews? How are you the perfect fit for this story you've selected. Really sell yourself!

I can bring to this project a nice blend of seriousness with some lightened tones here and there (to not overkill the audience with grimness). The story of Flint water crisis connects with my view that most governing officials of any nation are very tempted by power and greed and can sometimes put the people's best interests second to benefit their own pockets. This story fits in perfectly with that opinion of mine and so, I think I'll have a blast in the park with this controversy!

cherylholt, "boy player baseball pitcher short" 09/02/14 via Pixabay.
CC0 Public Domain

Cluster of Stakeholders

The cluster map is located here.

In my cluster map I basically split the Flint water crisis into a good v. evil story. I wrote how the Flint residents are the protagonists and how they have lost their liberties to clean water and decent care and also mistrust from their government. They have the chance to bring the governor to justice by asking for his resignation and their health is at risk.
 On the other hand, I have Governor Rick Snyder who is somewhat the antagonist of all of this. He decided to switch the water supply for the worse just to save a few extra bucks instead of betting with the safer option that would ensure clean water to the citizens of Flint, Michigan. He is in jeopardy of losing his position as governor and has the chance to win back the love of the people of Flint and try to right his wrongs.

Evaluation of General Sources

The following two sources relate to the water crisis in Flint, Michigan.

URL: The URL is http://www.mlive.com/news/index.ssf/page/flint_water_crisis.html#incart_special-report. The source ends in a .com, this means the source is credible although a .org or .info or .gov would be more of a reliable source.

Author: The author is John Counts. Yes, I can verify his qualifications by researching him online (he also works for a newspaper of Michigan).

Last Updated: No it doesn't provide last updated on the article. The article is not outdated as it was released in 2016 of January. The source has working hyperlinks to charts, statistics and videos with regards to the history of the water crisis in Flint.

Purpose: The text wants to inform the history of how the Michigan Government contaminated the waters of Flint, Michigan. 

Graphics: The only considerable graphics are the charts and videos added on to the video to provide further information on the controversy.

Position on Subject: The source seems unbiased as it is presenting the factual truth of the history of this crisis to the best of its abilities. If the information is viable, it profits readers who are investigating on the matter of this controversy. Yes, I can verify the information with other sources.

Links: The source links reputable sources to provide further background on the controversy.

geralt, "Binary Ball" 9/23/14 via pixabay
CC0 Public Domain 

URL: The URL is http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/01/12/flin-j12.html. It is a reputable source as it is a .org website. 

Author: The author for this source is James Brewer. Yes, I am able to verify his qualifications via research.

Last Updated: The website doesn't provide when the source was last updated but, it is contemporary as the source was released in January 2016.

Purpose:The purpose of this source is to explain the situation of the water crisis in Flint, Michigan and the effects it is having on the public health of the residents.

Graphics: There are no graphics in this article.

Position on Subject: It is a bit biased in favor of the residents of Michigan and if this information is true, it benefits media outlets and citizens who want to be well informed on the matter.

Links: The source does not provide any additional links.