Read: “How to: Recover from a Social Media PR Disaster” (from Mashable Business) hereThe Session Long Project will ask you to read and identify the claims within it. You will then write a...

Read: “How to: Recover from a Social Media PR Disaster” (from Mashable Business) here

The Session Long Project will ask you to read and identify the claims within it. You will then write a three-four page response to the article expressing whether you agree or disagree with the author. You will want to cite the article you have read in your essay. Again, this assignment is to give you some experience to continue writing argument, using third person writing (when warranted), and using APA format. Unlike the Case Assignment, you should include your opinion here, stating whether you agree or disagree with the author’s claims. Continue to use the reading material to help with summarizing, paraphrasing, and argument.

Asked on by dgault11

1 Answer | Add Yours

pohnpei397's profile pic

pohnpei397 | College Teacher | (Level 3) Distinguished Educator

Posted on

First off, please note that we cannot write papers for you on this site.  With a question like this, we can give you hints as to how you could write the paper yourself.

I would start a paper like this with a brief description of the article and its purpose.  I would then go on to give my general opinion about the article as a whole.  This would be very short—perhaps just an introductory paragraph.  It might read something like this:

As its title suggests, this article is about the ways in which an organization can recover if it does something wrong in its use of social media.  I would argue that the article is not terribly helpful.  This is partly because its central advice is not something that you can accomplish once you’ve made a mistake using social media.   I would also say this because the article’s advice is rather vague and is rather “easier said than done.”

This is, of course, just an example.  You could have a different opinion than I do.

After introducing your main argument, go on to the body of the paper.  There are two general ways in which to organize a paper like this.  First, you could go through and summarize the paper in the order it is written.  You could briefly outline everything that it says without making any comments or giving any opinions about the content.  That would be your first body section.  In your second body section you would give your opinions.  The second way to do this would be to combine summary and commentary.  I would do this by dividing the article into things that I agreed with and things I did not agree with.  This is the format I would prefer.

If you use the format I prefer, you should put information that tends to disprove your own opinion first.  In my introduction, I said that I did not think the article was very helpful.  Therefore, I should first talk about things that I did find helpful.  I would then go on to discuss all of the things that I did not find helpful.  In my case, I would have to say that all of the advice sounds very good.  I would list all the pieces of advice and say that they all sound like they would really be great.  But then I would turn around and say that they only sound good in theory.  For example, it is not very helpful to tell companies to build up a good reputation over years of business because a firm can’t simply do that in response to a social media blunder.

Once you have done this, give a brief conclusion.  I would conclude by saying something to the effect that the article did not seem to be of much practical use.  I would also say, however, that it is impossible for an article like that to be of great practical use because there are so many different kinds of social media blunders that no single article could give you a practical guide to recovering from them.

Sources:

We’ve answered 318,917 questions. We can answer yours, too.

Ask a question