Candidate: Claudia Lopez
Rogger Rodriguez Cotua
Manuela Arango Restrepo
Juan Sebastian Sierra

Final Luisas

Grupo : 

•  Luisa Fernanda Henao
• Luisa Fernanda Duque
• Valentina Villamizar

Candidato : Daniel Quintero 

Final

information:

Group: Carolina Hidalgo Mejía
Candidate: Juan Camilo Restrepo
DATE: 1st of November

Nicolás buritica - Mauricio tobon franco

FINAL

Felipe Mejia
Juan David Echeverry
Leonardo Toro

we are gonna attack Alfredo Ramos

Group : Marian Corrales y Lina Moreno

Candidate : Santiago Gómez 
November 8 

Andres Guerra - Gobernador, November 1

Group:
Miguel Angel Ramirez
Juan Diego Parra Orozco
Leidy Vieira Brun

Wag The Dog

Since I will be representing the Language Center in an Academic Activity tomorrow October 18th, in Choco, there will be no presential class. However, there was planned the following activity for you to carry it out during the class period.

You ought to see the film Wag the Dog, after watching it, write down a critique in which you will answer the following question: Are we responsible for believing the lies we are told, for being easily manipulated? and also make a comparison with a case that has occurred in the recent history of Colombia.

This task must be individually done and must comprise at least two pages. The work should be sent to rupalacio@udem.edu.co no later than Monday October 21st.

PODCAST: SUICIDE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ui48Plf9GEg&feature=youtu.be

Juan Felipe Mejia Zapata
Leonardo Toro
Juan David Echeverry

Fake news : McDonald's

https://lmorenor8090.wixsite.com/website/podcast-1

POST-TRUTH: CONSTRUCTING REALITIES

RUBRIC TO EVALUATE MULTIMODAL RESPONSE PODCAST – WHY ARE FAKE NEWS USED RATHER THAN TELLING THE TRUTH AS IT IS? IN OTHER WORDS, DO WE PREFER PARRHESIA OR POST-TRUTH IN TODAY’S SOCIETY?

PODCAST CATEGORIES	CONSIDERATIONS	Total score	Students’ score
INTRODUCTION	Catchy and clever introduction. Provides relevant information and establishes a clear purpose that engages the listener immediately.	6
CONTENT	The Podcast inquires in general terms the concepts of parrhesia, post-truth, objective truth and fake news. Besides, weaving students and interviewees’ arguments relying on course literature and additional sources.	8
	It discusses participants’ thoughts regarding critical consciousness about the aforementioned concepts. In other words, their validity and potential contributions.	8
	The Podcast points out existing flaws as a means of improving one practice over the other.	8
DELIVERY	Highly effective enunciation and presenters’ speech is clear and intelligible. Expression and rhythm engage the audience.	5
TECHNICAL PRODUCTION	Volume of voice, music, and effects enhance the presentation. Besides, offering the particular characteristics of a multimodal tool (Kress, G. 2009).	5
CONCLUSION	The Podcast was well structured and provided a good critical reflection about the concepts of parrhesia, post-truth, objective truth and fake news and addressed somehow the question “Why are fake news used rather than telling the truth as it is? in other words, do we prefer parrhesia or post-truth in today’s society?”	10
		50
COMMENTS		FINAL GRADE

ADAPTED FROM: https://podcasting.commons.gc.cuny.edu/documents/podcasting-rubrics/

Reference

Kress, G. (2009). Multimodality: A social semiotic approach to contemporary communication. Routledge.

Topic Amazon fires

Luisa Fernanda Henao
Luisa Fernanda Duque
Valentina Villamizar

Topic: climate change-activism

Group

Luisa henao
Valentina villamizar
Luisa Duque

Fake news in food companies .Case McDonald’s

Lina Moreno y Marían Corrales

Our team is:
Juan Sebastian Sierra Sanchez
Rogger Alexander Rodriguez
Manuela arango

We are going to talk about: "Misleading advertising"

Felipe Mejia
Leonardo Toro
Juan David Echeverría

PRIVATE COLLEGE SCHOLARSHIP: FROM BLESSING TO NIGHTMARE
“Student at Javeriana college killed himself”

Podcast topic

Group:
- Hidalgo Mejía Carolina
- Mena Ramos Marylin Vanessa
- Sarria Palacios María José



Topic: greta thunberg (activist- her speech at the ONU)

Midterm topic group 4 (against the proposition)

Topic: Lies in Politics

Group:
- Hidalgo Mejía Carolina
- Mena Ramos Marylin Vanessa
- Sarria Palacios María José
- Parra Orozco Juan Diego
- Ramírez Leon Miguel Angel

Tema : fake news Marian corrales , Nicolás Marín y Lina Moreno

fake news

video Post-truth and emotional lie and Mind Map

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h87K9oHQ7Rs

https://prezi.com/view/KL1G4iE1ixJfQk3W76G3/

MIDTERM EXAM

Class Debate

For your midterm exam for Post-truth: Constructing Realities class, you will be debating a proposition in four groups (three of 5 and the other of 4) (check your group below). You will choose a proposition topic, a position of either negative or affirmative, and a specific role within your group will be decided by your group as well. Each team member is responsible for a section of the debate, but you will be graded (and judged) as a group by the professor. Therefore, you must work collaboratively on the preparation of the debate as a whole. The debate should last somewhere between 30 to 45 minutes.

Following, I will be suggesting different topics based on the movie “The Great Debaters” since this movie touches upon different themes of the post-truth era or either the topics we have seen in class regarding post-truth, parrhesia or relativism. The idea is that your group and your counterpart will decide on one of those topics by this Friday September 6^th the latest, post your topic on the blog so that everyone is aware of them and assume a position of either in favor or against (Group 1 VS Group 2/ Group 3 Vs Group 4) (these positions have been provided to you below)

Possible topics:

• Racial Discrimination
• Fake news
• Lies in politics
• Everyone lies no matter what
• Is it possible to practice parrhesia nowadays?
• Honesty is a utopia. Don’t you agree?

Once the topic has been selected officially by the whole group, we will engage in the following debate structure where there is a specific role for each member of the team:

1.       Name a chair in each group.

2.       Plan arguments with your team. Each member of the group should plan their arguments separately so they do not influence other team members.

3.       Cross out any repetitive arguments and improve those that may need it.

4.       Divide the arguments amongst the number of speakers, so that each team member has a particular topic to develop as part of the argument.

5.       Find evidence to support your case – facts, opinions, quotes, references or objects.

6.       Hints for refuting or rebutting arguments (finding holes in the other team’s arguments):

7.       Try to guess beforehand what the other team might use.

8.       Take note of the authorities quoted by the other team in support of their arguments – are they valid?

9.       Don’t waste valuable time in challenging a minor point.

10.   Challenge the opposing team to supply further evidence for their arguments, if needed.

Since I am fully aware that this coming week is for midterms, I propose to use the time of the class on Friday September 6^th where you have the chance to meet synchronically and bring your arguments to prepare within your team. Then, the debate will take place on September 20^th during our class schedule. You may either meet with your classmates somewhere within the campus or come to the Language Center where I will open one of the Labs for you to work.

The following is a website with more information regarding “How to debate”.

STRUCTURE

Affirmative Opening statement/Moderator (2 min.)

• Affirmative statement.
• Rebuttal
• Affirmative Closing statement (2 min.) 

Negative Opening statement/Moderator (2 min.)

• Rebuttal
• Negative statement.
• Negative Closing statement (2 min.)

TEAMS

Group One (Affirmative) – In favor of the proposition

• ARANGO RESTREPO MANUELA
• RODRÍGUEZ COTUA ROGGER ALEXANDER
• SIERRA SÁNCHEZ JUAN SEBASTIÁN
• VIEIRA BRUN LEIDY JULIANA
• VILLAMIZAR QUIROZ VALENTINA

Group two (Negative) – Against the proposition

• DUQUE CÉSPEDES LUISA FERNANDA
• HENAO OSORIO LUISA FERNANDA
• CORRALES CANO MARIÁN
• MORENO RAMÍREZ LINA ROCIO
• BURITICA MARÍN NICOLÁS

Group Three (Affirmative) – In favor of the proposition

• MEJÍA ZAPATA JUAN FELIPE
• FRANCO ECHEVERRI JUAN DAVID
• RUIZ ARANGO DOMYNIK
• TORO ALVAREZ LEONARDO

Group Four (Negative) – Against the proposition

• HIDALGO MEJÍA CAROLINA
• MENA RAMOS MARYLIN VANESSA
• SARRIA PALACIOS MARÍA JOSÉ
• PARRA OROZCO JUAN DIEGO
• RAMÍREZ LEÓN MIGUEL ÁNGEL

MENTAL MAP POST TRUTH - EMOCIONAL LIE

MARIAN CORRALES Y LINA MORENO






https://prezi.com/view/KL1G4iE1ixJfQk3W76G3/

Miguel Ángel Ramírez, Juan Diego Parra & Leidy Vieira

Click here to listen

Trust and Democracy

Identifying concealed and falsified emotions in universal facial expressions

The matters: Teaching young students to search for the most reasonable answer

Mind maps

Juan Sebastián Sierra
manuela Arango Torres
Rogger Cotua

Integrants:
Manuela Arango Restrepo
Mr Rogger Cotua
Juan Sebastián Sierra S

Our articles are:
- When A Lie Becomes Memory's Truth: Memory Distortion After Exposure to Misinformation.
- Speaking the Truth with Folk and Fairy Tales: The Power of the Powerless
- Processes Underlying Deception: An Empirical Analysis of Truth and Lies when Manipulating the Stakes
- The hollow man Donald Trump, populism, and post-truth politics

GROUP:

Juan Felipe Mejia
Juan David Franco
Domynik Ruiz
Leonardo Toro

ARTICLES:

Garlin Gilchrist: Fighting fake news and the information apocalypse.

Motivation Enhances the Ability to Detect Truth from Deception in Audio-only Messages.

Can You Catch a Liar? How Negative Emotions Affect Brain Responses when Lying or Telling the Truth.

The mental nose and the Pinocchio effect: Thermography, planning, anxiety, and lies.

Activity 23/08/2019

Group:

- Maria Jose Sarria
- Marylin Mena
- Carolina Hidalgo

this are our articles:

-  Discursive construction of truth, ideology and the emergence of post-truth narratives in contemporary political communication.

- From Postmodernity to a post-truth society?

- THE SHApE of SOCIETy'S LIES.

- Post "Post‐Truth": Are We There Yet?

First 25%

As it was told in class last friday, this coming friday august 16th, we will be evaluating our first 25% of the course. The idea is to have a glance over the first reading on Parrhesia and the second one on Nietszche, Relativism and Truth and to bring it up to our context in terms of time and space. Be ready to participate asking questions and carrying out the discussion of the matter of truth. Just as we have done it during these first sessions.

Nietzsche, Relativism and Truth

Based on the previous reading and video,

1. How did Nietzsche understand the concept of Truth?
2. What literary figures are exposed in the video that help to grasp the concept of truth? Please give out examples.
3. Why is there a need for lying?
4. What is truth made of?
5. How do language and art play around the concept of truth?

Nietzsche, Relativism and Truth

Parrhesia

The meaning of the word parrhesia related to 5 different views

Based on the previous readings:

1. Define the concept of parrhesia in your own words.
2. Is it possible to practice parrhesia nowadays? If so, how?
3. What is the main obstacle for being a true parrhesiastes in our context?
4. What other practices do we use as feasible alternatives to parrhesia?