Analysis of a blog

Previously, I read a blog entitled " How to Survive the Age of Obama". This blog can be found on www.survivalknife.blogspot.com. This blog was about a person sharing his/her polictical, economic, and personal views about Obama and the current nation status of a recession. The author basically lays out his/her concerns and then counters them by providing a list of precautions one could take to help prepare for the imminent recession. I took some time to read and anylize this blog by answering the following questions to the best of my ability.
Writer:
• How does the writer represent him or herself in terms of gender, age, or location?
• What are the social, political, and religious perspectives espoused by the writer?
• What qualities or characteristics do you share with the writer? How are you different?
• What elements lead you to believe that the writer is being forthright and honest in representing him or herself? What elements suggest that writer is not being forthright and honest?
• What is the writer’s stated purpose for maintaining a blog?
• Why do you think the writer maintains the blog?
• How does the writer demonstrate authenticity, veracity, expertise, or trustworthiness?
Reader / Audience:
• Who is the intended reader, or what is the intended audience of this blog?
• What assumptions does the blog's creator make about an intended audience? How does the writer demonstrate those assumptions?
• What groups of people would not be part of the desired audience, and why?
• What tactics, if any, does the site use to foster loyalty and a sense of community?
• Who actually visits this blog (consider gender, demographics, and social, political, and religious practices at a minimum)?
• Do readers visit this blog to be informed or to be confirmed?
• Who interacts with this blog? Do readers trade links with or add responses to the blog?
• Why would this site appeal to the intended audience? What aspects would draw readers? What aspects would turn them away?
• Are you a member of the intended audience? What qualities would draw you back to this site again? What qualities would deter you from returning?
Subject / Content:
• What elements make this site more appealing to the intended reader or audience (consider layout, organization, use of photo and graphics, etc)?
• What kind of language does the writer use (formal, informal, jargon filled, etc)?
• How is the blog organized? What form does it take (i.e. a journal or diary, links, news)?
• Does the blog include advertising? If so, how does the advertising appeal to the intended reader?
• How does the writer present information? Does the writer use evidence? Does the writer rely on his or her opinion?
• What makes the content believable? What makes it unbelievable?
• How do readers interact with or influence the content?
• How did you relate or react to the content?
Message:
• What is the blog’s message? Is the writer attempting to define, explain, or describe something?
• In what ways is the message balanced? In what ways is it imbalanced?
• In what ways is it ideological
• In what ways is the message problematic?
• Why should you believe and accept what you encounter in the blog? Why should you be skeptical?

Answers:
1. By picturing the writer's voice, you can tell that he is a guy. You can tell he's young, but I can't tell anything about his location.
2. Some of his political values would be that he is definitely against Obama, and that he is definitely not muslim.
3. I'm in agreement with the writer about Obama, and Democrats in general. I don't really know how my opinion differs from his.
4. Discussing politics is serious, and for that I think he is serious for discussing his issues, but he is a little bizzare in some of his suggestions.
5. He wants to see what other people think, and how other people feel about the issues that he is concered with.
6. He demonstrates authenticity by putting a lot of sarcastic statements and suggestions into it.
7. His intended audience in my opinion is people who are worried about the new president, and economical issues.
8. He is assuming that his audience falls into 1 of 2 classes: 1 being people concered about Obama, and 2 being Obama supporters looking to argue. I think these are demonstrated well by his serious/sarcastic comments.
9. People who don't care about politics, because if you don't care then you won't appreciate his humorous or his serious comments.
10. It fosters a sense of community by letting whoever write about whatever. People can share stories and feelings.
11. People who are some what interested in what this person thinks about Obama.
12. I think readers visit to here a good story, or in some cases to simply be informed.
13. People have added responses to the blog; 1 Obama supporter and 1 person interested in the stock market.
14. It appealed to me. I think political issues and survival tips are both aspects that would draw readers in. A touch of sarcasm might turn them away.
15. I don't think I'm a member of the intended audience, but the title appealed to me.
16. Definitely photo and title.
17. He is both formal and informal in this blog.
18. It is organized into list form; It's well organized.
19. It includes advertising that was hilarious to me.
20. He really just gives his opinion.
21. The content is believable because we all face the issues being discussed here. It could be unbelievable because of a few sarcastic opinions.
22. Some leave comments, others just may take some information with them.
23. The writer is just trying to provide the readers with some information that could possibly be of some use to them.
24. It's imbalanced because it's purely an opinion.
25.
26. It could be problematic with the millions of people who would disagree with this writer political and economical views.
27. You don't have to believe anything, but you should be skeptical of a random opinion.