Chris Wilcha's documentary about his time working at Columbia House

Assignment will be graded on the following minimum criteria (assuming all instructions and entire prompt are addressed appropriately, in completion, and on time):1. Include an excellent understanding of the required readings and underlying concepts.
2. Postings integrate relevant examples to support important points.
3. Well-edited quotes include source information. No more than 10% of the posting is a direct quotation.
4. Posts follow the expectations for respectful online dialogue (discussed above).
5. Posts are long enough to provide a unique, thoughtful, and detailed response to the prompt (and meets minimum word count when specified).
6. Posts are free of grammatical, spelling, and/or other conventional errors.
7. Posts are clear and concise (not wordy).

Watch Chris Wilcha’s documentary about his time working at Columbia House, briefly provide your thoughts on the film, and respond to the following questions:
• This was filmed in the early-/mid-1990s when, as Spinuzzi argues, many organizations were shifting from strictly bureaucratic structures to institutional adhocracies. Do you see evidence of this shift in Wilcha’s film?
• Wilcha shows us how the larger discourse of Columbia House is divided up into various sub-discourses. Identify a few of these discourses and explain how you understood them as their own discourse. That is, what specifically signalled to you that this group of people was a discourse unto itself?
• Wilcha seems to undergo some ethical dilemmas throughout the film related to his professional ethos and the ethos of Columbia House. What are some of these dilemmas, and how does Wilcha negotiate them?
• Wilcha’s team eventually gets to write their own catalogue. What are some of the rhetorical principles they employ in their catalogue?

Posted in Frequent Questions and tagged , , , , , , , .