All “Annotations” will be done the same fashion. I will always, however, post these directions in order to avoid any confusion.
All Annotations have two parts:
- Summary: Here, you will summarize the main ideas, thesis, and support for the article.
- what is the article about? what question(s) does the article raise?
- what are the author’s ideas/arguments about that topic (thesis)? how does the author answer the above question?
- how/why does the author think this way? what is their logic/reasoning/support/evidence?
- Response/Argument: Here, you will respond to the article’s topic/the author’s ideas.
- do you agree or disagree with the author?
- why? how?
- have you extended the conversation or just restated the author’s claims/a truism?
Please write your response in two separate paragraphs (a summary paragraph and a response paragraph, respectively). Please answer these questions using the Surowiecki New Yorker article posted in our Reading tab. This post is due before class on Tuesday, 9.6.
Berrigan English Composition 
1) This article is about the “ALS ice bucket challenge”, and deals with what happened to it. According to James Surowiecki it even though the fad has faded, it still had long lasting positive effects for A.S.L research. The ice bucket challenge not only helped raise reported two hundred and twenty million dollars to A.L.S. research, but it also helped raise awareness for the diseases which caused and lowering in the average age of donor age. And it was able to do this by using social media which hadn’t been used except for personal entertainment, and instead used it to spread a message and awareness of A.L.S.
2) I agree with the author that that the ice buckets challenge was effective for raising money and awareness for A.L.S. and its research by trying a new approach. And although this approached worked for A.L.S. it won’t become an effective way to raise money because while it’s new and exciting it will work, but as soon as the novelty wears off people will forget about it and it will fade away. So any approach like this will be effective for as long as it is new, but as soon as that novelty wears off it will fade, just like the ice bucket challenge. So if someone needs to raise money quickly I believe this would be effective, but long term it would not be.
1. In James Surowiecki’s article, What Happened to the Ice Bucket Challenge, Surowiecki addresses the challenge and whether it was ultimately a good or bad thing. The challenge swept the nation two summers ago, leading a massive amount of people to dump water on their heads and raise money for ALS research in the process. Many critics of the Challenge felt that the fad did more harm than good. Many claimed that it took away money from other charitable organizations, that ALS wasn’t the most worthy of causes, or that it was just a social media fad and was just for publicity. The author’s thoughts are clear; he feels that the challenge was a worthy cause and did a lot of good. He strikes down each claim against it one by one. The money raised by the challenge was mostly raised by millennials, a group that generally does not donate so much to charity. This means that this “publicity stunt” brought new people into the charity game and helped spread awareness and possibly cure a terrible disease.
2. Surowieki is right, the ice bucket challenge was an effective way to raise money for ALS. It got people, mainly millennials, who would not normally donate to any charity to open up their wallets and donate. However, ALS was not the right disease to direct this initiative toward. In the article, he states that six thousand people are diagnosed with ALS every year. This is a tiny number compared to the number of people diagnosed with different types of cancer every year. What could have the two hundred twenty million dollars raised by the ice bucket challenge have done for the millions of people suffering from cancer? However, would the same people who donated to ALS foundations donate if it were not for ALS? For the most part, the millennials who donated to the challenge were not interested in the disease, they were interested in the challenge, so it did not matter what charity they were donating to. It may seem cold to say that one cause is more worthy than another, but in this case, ALS was truly not the most worthy.
1. James Surowiecki discusses the pros and cons to the A.L.S. Ice Bucket Challenge. The idea of pouring ice cold water over your head for this disease has absolutely no relevance. He tells us that critics were concerned that this fad was getting out of hand and was taking away from other, possibly more alarming, diseases (like malaria). However, in just eight weeks, it raised over twenty million dollars, that’s thirteen times more than the organization made the entire year before. Perhaps the most impressive part, was the contributions from the younger generation. Studies have shown that the millennials are much less likely to donate, but the challenge overcame those statistics. James Surowiecki also brings proof that the ice bucket challenge even increased donations to other charities as well. He says, “According to Giving U.S.A., individual donations in the U.S. rose almost six per cent in 2014.”
2. I do agree with Jame Surowieki. An organization like this has two main goals: 1. raise awareness for their cause 2. raise money for their cause. The ice bucket challenge did both of those extremely systematically. Although pouring ice water over your head has nothing to do with ALS disease or Lou Gehrig, it still did a fantastic job at getting the name out there. They spent absolutely no money and somehow got almost everyone in the world to know about the disease. It used social media as an outlet to educate the younger community and it spread instantaneously. Once it started, everyone was doing it. In fact, I myself made a video. However, this idea could also be dangerous. There needs to be a line where organizations can’t cross. Getting your name out there shouldn’t be the only thing that matters and nobody should get hurt or tricked into doing anything they don’t want to. Even though ALS only diagnosis about six thousand a year, making it a relatively rare, it didn’t take away from other organization. They really targeted the younger generation, who other organizations already had trouble reaching. They also even increased the donations to other organizations.The ice bucket challenge was an extremely creative, effective, and efficient tool for getting ALC disease’s name out there.
In this article, James Surowiecki discusses whether the ALS ice bucket challenge was just a feel-good fad that didn’t help as much as people think, or a sucessful fundraising technique which helped raise awareness about ALS. He also throws out the idea that the ALS challenge highlights how social media can be utilized by charity campaigns to reach far larger audiences than ever before. Surowiecki believes that the ALS ice bucjet challenge helped greatly in several ways. He disagrees with the critics who say that the ALS challenge got donations which could have been directed towards charities which raise money for other diseases with higher mortality rates. His two main arguments are that the people who gave money to ALS would not have donated otherwise, and that by showing the millenials how to “give”, they will be more likely to open their pockets to other charities. He brings collected data from the ALS association, as well as from “Data USA” to prove his points.
I disagree with the author that the ALS ice bucket challenge had a significant impact for the future. I understand that large amounts of money were donated to the ALS association, and acknowledge that this will help toward the cause greatly, but I think that the critics are right with their assertion that this was just a fad and not some sort of new way to raise charity. I personally participated in the ALS challenge, and I did not donate any money to the ALS association. I am also sure that most of my friends did not give any money, and only participated because it was the social media craze at the time. Everyone was doing it, we wanted to get in on the action. I believe that most people who donated did it for that same reason, and would not be any more likely to donate to breast cancer research or to the united mitochondrial disease foundation. The author has some nice ideas, but I don’t believe that they are reflected in the real world.
In “What Happened To The Ice Bucket Challenge” published in The New Yorker, James Surowiecki discuses the positive effects of the 2014 A.L.S. Ice Bucket Challenge, in which millions of people recorded themselves pouring buckets of cold water over their bodies in support of Lou Gehrig’s disease. Many people criticize this campaign claiming that it causes individuals to donate money for the wrong reasons, and the campaign would cause people not to donate to other important charities. James Surowiecki thinks otherwise as he proves in this article that the A.L.S. Ice Bucket Challenge had astronomical effects on the public awareness of the charity, research of the disease, and donations to charities overall. Brian Fredrick, the vice-president for communications and development at the A.L.S. Association, mentioned “The Challenge suddenly made a lot of people who probably didn’t even know who Lou Gehrig was aware of the disease.” Thus, the Ice Bucket Challenge helped spread awareness of the disease. Next, in just eight short weeks of the challenge, A.L.S. organizations received two hundred and twenty million dollars, which has allowed research teams to make significant advances. For example, in 2015, a research team from Johns Hopkins made a significant discovery that was published a paper in Science due to the funding from the Ice Bucket Challenge. Finally, Giving U.S.A. stated that individual charity donations in the United States increased about six percent in 2014, which many people attribute to the Ice Bucket Challenge.
James Surowiecki makes extremely valid points in his article, “What Happened To The Ice Bucket Challenge.” Originally as an active participant in social media, naively I would criticize the entire ordeal and claim that people were peer pressured into participating in the Ice Bucket Challenge, but James Surowiecki clearly points out that that although it is believed that many people did not donate to the organizations and participate in the challenge for “moral” reasons, Surowiecki’s compelling evidence proves otherwise. He not only explains why the Ice Bucket Challenge was a huge success, but he also brings proof as to how someone taking a video of themselves, pouring a bucket of ice cold water, and posting it on social media can help society as a whole. His evidence from Giving U.S.A. is convincing because it is believed that donations in the United States rose about six percent in 2014 as a result of the challenge. Six percent is an incredible increase in donations, which many people, including James Surowiecki, attribute to the A.L.S. Ice bucket challenge. If technology, such as social media was used in 2014 in such a positive way to accomplish raising two hundred and twenty million dollars for A.L.S. organizations, I truly believe that with clever planning and advisement, it can be done again for different causes.
1. In the article What Happened To The Ice Bucket Challenge by James Suroweicki he discusses the long lasting effects of the ice bucket challenge from the summer of 2014. The ice bucket challenge was a method of raising money through social media. Through social media 220 million dollars was raised for A.L.S. disease in 8 weeks, which was 13 times the total donations for the entire prior year. The article discusses that critics of the challenge said that people were not choosing wisely where to put there money, but rather just donated for emotional reasons. Critics said that it was just a fad and because of that it undermined the entire challenge. The Suroweicki responds that the challenge was not a bad thing for several reasons. One because people are now aware of the disease, the money allowed for some break throughs and donation are still 25% higher now than the years before the challenge. Also it is asked if this ice bucket challenge took away donations from other more common diseases and the authors concluded that it had the opposite effect. Giving U.S.A. recorded that donations rose 6% in 2014, so people became more generous because of the challenge.
2. James Suroweicki says that although the ice bucket challenge was a fad it was still very beneficial. I would completely agree with this because it doesn’t matter if it was a fad and faded out. The important part to me is the long lasting effects that we could look back upon and appreciate. Such as the fact that so much money was collected and was put to a good cause. Everyone who donated because of the challenge could have just kept their money for themselves and just gone one with their every day life. This challenge arose and grabbed everyone’s attention in an exciting way, not just like someone soliciting money for a charity. It does’t matter that it faded away because everyone still became aware of A.L.S., and gave money generously from their own pockets. For those people that said that the donations were given for the wrong reason should realise that the A.L.S. foundation doesn’t care one bit why the people were donating. The money is very important and goes to good use whether people gave for the intention of saving these sick people or because it was all fun and games. The bottom line is that i agree with the author of the article because there were significantly more positive outcomes than negative outcomes from the ice bucket challenge.
1. James Surowiecki clearly takes a position on the 2014 fad called the Ice Bucket Challenge. It was a fun activity to spread the news about ALS. This activity has been deemed non beneficial, however, this article holds differently. By dumping ice buckets and challenging your friends, it vastly brought ALS awareness. This movement used free and popular advertising to raise attentiveness to an important issue. The Ice Bucket challenge did not interfere with other charities, and it caused the “slacktivism” generation to donate to the cause more.
2. I do have an issue with something the author did not pick up on when it comes to the concerns of the Ice bucket challenge. He was absolutely right that it was a good cause, and it did not cause harm to other organizations. My biggest concerns have to do with the future of donations from our generation. I am curious to see if the next fad raises the same awareness or if it becomes a thing of the past. Long term this rush of excitement could cause a lack of interest in the cause because fads always come and go. Could it be replicated in the future? Could it be beneficial long-term? Unfortunately, historically when it comes to these gimmicks, they always leave and seldom return.
1. The article, “What Happened to the Ice Bucket Challenge” posted in the New Yorker by James Surowiecki addresses the long lasting fame of the notorious ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, which, consists of an individual pouring a freezing bucket of water on their head in an attempt to raise awareness for Lou Gehrig’s disease. Surowiecki begins by touching on the fact that the Ice Bucket Challenge grew viral through the usage of social media despite only about six thousand people per year being diagnosed with Lou Gehrig’s disease. This can lead pundits to wonder whether peole were paying too much attention to ALS and not enough to something more viral and effective like Malaria. Moreover, Surowiecki acknowledges that the effort and commitment in raising aware for Lou Gehrig’s disease can be described as “slacktivisim” meaning people did not actually do much to affect the disease but by doing the challenge, feel justified enough of their contributions. This can lead to many questions challenging if people actually did the activity to help raise awareness and be part of the solution, or had the intentions of posting a video deemed to amount a ton of likes and reports on different social media outlets. Interestingly enough, Surowiecki concluded that in those 8 weeks that the ice bucket challenge was popular, millennials(who are known to donate the least to charity) contributed the most to the cause helping increase donations by 13 times as much as the previous year. As a result, Suroweicki concludes that the ice bucket challenge indeed helped raise awareness and that year as overall donations to charities in 2014 increased by a total of 6% and was in fact very effective and positive.
2. James Surowiecki’s , “What Happened to the Ice Bucket Challenge” article tackles numerous new perspectives on why the Ice Bucket Challenge went viral and most importantly, was an utter hit. This leads a reader into wondering what the future of the technology can do to raise awareness for something as big as Lou Gehrig’s disease and the success that technology played. Thus, Surrowiecki recognizes that the ALS ice bucket was indeed beneficial due to the different social media outlets and opportunities that it raised during its 8 week stretch resulting in an increase of donations by 13 times the total amount earned in all of last year for the cause. Additionally, Surowiecki acknowledges that a majority of the success came through celebrities like Bill Gates and Justin Timberlake who were seen drenching themselves in cold water in an attempt to raise awareness for the disease. Therefore, many young adults decided to hop on what’s on the rise and complete the challenge aiding with the awareness of Lou Gehrig’s disease resulting in a wave of young adults talking about it and even doing the challenges themselves. As a millennial myself, I was intrigued by the social media aspect of this article and the success that it can bring to an organization. The rapid success of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge leads a reader to think that in order to get something trending, social media will be the way to get the millennial generation involved. Surowiecki proves this by stating that the millennial generation was the ones who donated the most to the cause despite their financial concerns. Surowiecki leads a reader to deem the Ice Bucket as a major success in order to show future generations how impactful and influential social media outlets can be and the benefits they can bring to your organization or to whatever a person is trying to market.
The “What happened to the ice bucket challenge?” article by James Surowiecki brings up a point about people doing things that are fun for a while, but then fades away because it gets boring. People stop doing it and move on to something new. The author uses one main example, which is the Ice bucket challenge. It’s doing something easy because everyone else is doing it, and thinking that they are righteous for doing it. So the author raises a question, “was this the right thing?” So the author has several reasons throughout the article why it is. He brings up the fact that it educated many young individuals, who don’t even know what the disease is or the baseball player that was killed by it. It also raised 220,000,000 around the world in just 8 days, which could take years to reach. Lastly, it helped the organization to spend more money on patient care for the individuals affected by it. Great things can come from things that become very popular.
I think the author thinks this way because of all the facts mentioned about it in the above paragraph. Also you can tell by the mood of the writing that he thought it was a good thing. Though he didn’t like how it faded away, which is very true and is an issue. Also how it will be very hard to make something so popular and for a great cause again.
I honestly have to agree with the author’s point about why the challenge was a good cause even though it ended up fading. I agree because I have a friend who lost a loved one from ALS. He himself did the ice bucket challenge, and challenged others to do the same. To see this on facebook was very moving to me. There’s no doubt in my mind that it was a good thing. That was my evidence seeing someone get back up after a hard and sad time to fight it even though his loved one lost to it in the end. This gives hope for people, I’m sure the families who’s loves are struggling with the desease were flattered to see this. In the end it just gives people faith and hope, and this was a tremendous boost of for it.
1) In the article, What Happened to the Ice Bucket Challenge, James Surowiecki examines whether or not the Ice Bucket Challenge was useful or damaging to the charitable community. Around two summers ago, a massive amount of people took to social media to raise awareness for the disease A.L.S. People started posting videos of themselves pouring buckets of cold water on their heads. The challenge helped raise over two-hundred million dollars in a matter of weeks. Many celebrities that we idolize to took up the challenge as well. However, critics questioned whether it took too much away from other diseases or epidemics that hurt U.S citizens on a larger scale. Surowiecki refutes the critics opinion and firmly believes the challenge helped raise awareness for the A.L.S disease. The millennials were a great success with this campaign. Normally, a charity has had a difficult time gaining millennial participation. According to Surowiecki, millennials are more resistant to donate charity as opposed to previous generations. Like Surowiecki said, the biggest accomplishment of the A.L.S bucket challenge was taking technology and social media and using into something useful and good.
2) I agree with James Surowiecki. The point of the Ice Bucket Challenge was to create awareness throughout the country and even beyond. It accomplished that goal and even more. I’m also an avid social media user. And one day I was scrolling my twitter feed and stumbled on a new video Dwayne the Rock Johnson posted. He posted a new challenge that started called the Twenty-Two Push-Up Challenge to raise awareness for the twenty-two veteran soldiers that commit suicide every day. The fact of the matter is the Ice Bucket Challenge didn’t just help raise awareness for A.L.S, but it showed other charity associations the potential they have to create awareness for other campaigns as well.
1. In his article, “What Happened to the Ice Bucket Challenge?”, James Surowiecki explored the positive and negative impacts of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge phenomenon. From a positive perspective, Surowiecki explained the campaign, though merely a fad, helped raise “two hundred and twenty two million dollars” for the A.L.S. organization. Those donations have led to advancements in research to help cure and treat the disease. On the contrary, Surowiecki also illustrated the negative feedback and criticism resulting from the exorbitant amount of money raised for the little known cause. He explained that some critics believe the majority of people donated without proper “evaluation” of the cause, and that those funds would have been more effective if allocated to other organizations. Ultimately, the author believed the campaign was a success that demonstrated the power of social media marketing for charitable causes.
2. The A.L.S. Ice Bucket challenge was undeniably a massive success. It is absurd for critics to even attempt to undermine the positive outcomes of the Ice Bucket Challenge. Although, the real significance of it’s success reached beyond the research and progress the A.L.S. organization had made towards curing and treating the disease. The campaign revolutionized the way other charitable organizations raised money for their respective causes. For example, charities such as March of Dimes and Water have raised millions of dollars by creating content and posting it onto their social media pages. In addition, Make-A-Wish Foundation also utilized social media marketing by publishing videos to help spread awareness. In addition, St John Ambulance created a video that explains how to save a choking baby. The video now has over 7 million youtube views, thanks to social media marketing. Even though other charities may have not been able to duplicate it’s exact success, the Ice Bucket Challenge has demonstrated to countless other charities on how to succeed and grow with the use of social media Marketing.
1. The article “WHAT HAPPENED TO THE ICE BUCKET CHALLENGE?” by James Surowiecki, in the New Yorker, examines a lot of interesting questions regarding the trend of the ice bucket. For example, does dumping iced water on your head really help the cause? Or is it just a keep up with different social media outlets and whats trending that day. Additionally, many pundits claim that the ice bucket challenge can be described as “slacktivism”—a way for people to feel virtuous without doing much.”. Surowiecki goes on to explain that this social media trend raised two hundred and twenty million dollars for the cause in just eight weeks showing that the awareness of Lou Gehrig’s grew rapidly over the course of the bucket challenge. One of the many reasons this trend is so successful is because they created a platform that could reach the demographic that most charities cannot connect to. The millennial generation is a lot less likely to donate charity to the traditional charities based off of their financial status. However, the Ice Bucket challenge recognized this and therefore paved the way for the millennial general to donate easily by using text message and spreading the information on Facebook allowing the youth and young adults to get more involved and donate within an easier access`. Overall the author proves that this fad was a huge success in terms of supporting the A.L.S organizations and was not just a case of “slacktivism”.
2. James Suroweicki discusses many reason as to if and why the trend of the ice bucket challenge is a success. For instance reaching out to the younger demographic to open up peoples mind to what A.L.S actually is. Although this may be true, one question i would like to dig into is not did this fad help the cause? Did this fad help the cause long term. Yes fads could be very useful and successful in certain elements. However the disease isn’t cured and the fad has already faded away. Which causes me to think did this fad really impact the disease forever or did it just affect the patients in 2014 suffering from ALS.
In The New Yorkers Article, What happened to the ice bucket challenge the author, James Surowiecki explains how truly influential the ice bucket challenge was. Over the course of 8 weeks people from across the country poured ice water over their heads and raised over 220 million dollars for ALS; formally known as Lou Gehrig’s disease. As the article states, “The challenge suddenly made a lot of people who probably didn’t even know who Lou Gehrig was aware of the disease. It really changed the face of A.L.S. forever.” Thus exemplifying the result of the ice bucket challenge. However the author is confused as to why there are people who discount the challenge, calling it, ““slacktivism”—a way for people to feel virtuous without doing much.” And later solved this question by posing the reader with somewhat of a challenge in which he highlights that people aren’t mad about the challenge but rather that it hasn’t been able to be duplicated.
I agree with James Surowieck’s understanding of the ice bucket challenge. Not only does he present the reader with sufficient evidence as to how successful the challenge was but he also solves his own questions along the way. The topic he chooses to cover was why there were so many critics of the challenge, he shows the reader that the people who ask those questions are really asking why can’t this be duplicated and thus I can only agree with the author. For instance, inspired by the ice bucket challenge was the siracha challenge, if you haven’t heard of it,that proves my point. The sriracha challenge was to raise awareness for the poor people but it never got the traction that the Ice bucket did. I believe this is because the simple idea of duplication is a turn off to a majority of people who hear about it. It is human nature to get tired of seeing or hearing the same thing and by the end of the eight week period that was the ice bucket challenge the last thing I wanted to see was another clip of some guy hilariously throwing ice water over his head. Because of this, I can’t see any duplication of the Ice bucket challenge being successful.
1. In his article in The New Yorker, James Surowiecki analyzes the positive and negative aspects of the ALS Ice Bucket challenge, a fad that swept the world by storm in the summer of 2014. He explains that while the fad was just like any other — lasting a few months, encapsulating the entire world, and subsequently dying down — it had much further reaching effects than that of another recent and extremely popular fad, Pokemon Go. The Ice Bucket challenge, despite being labeled as “slacktivism” helped ALS organizations worldwide raise approximate 220 million dollars in a mere three months. Additionally, it has been reported that money raised via this “slacktivist” approach to charity actually aided in the discovery of an ALS-related gene.
Surowiecki then plays his own devil’s advocate. He asks whether the money given to ALS foundations took away from the money that would have been given to other charities with more “victims.” Further evaluation shows that no, the overall amount of charity given did not decrease because of one set of organizations receiving more than they ever had. Despite all of these positive affirmations, the writer explained that some critics of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge believe that many donors gave to the charity because of the societal pressure, without truly evaluating the cause. Ultimately, however, Surowiecki believes that the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge, although a mere fad, shows the power of social media, and how it can have a far reaching effect on society as a whole.
2. The far-reaching effects of the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge clearly show how successful the movement was. I agree with Surowiecki’s belief that social media is a viable option for charities to raise money for a given cause, be it a social issue or a medical one. I do, however, strongly disagree with critics who label this movement as “slacktivism.” How else is one supposed to raise awareness for a medical condition effecting thousands of people worldwide? Promoting awareness for a medical condition is not the same as promoting awareness for a social issue. Politicians cannot find a cure for ALS the same way they can propose laws to fix certain societal issues; therefore, what better way is there to be effective in the 21st century other than creating buzz in the media? The ALS Ice Bucket challenge was not only a smashing success, but was also a respectable way of giving charity and promoting awareness for a condition that otherwise would not have received as much attention as it did.