questions for rhetorical critics

What sorts of roles are being enacted? What kinds of participation or response is being sought? What sort of online community is assumed, and what are its conventions and values? What are the significant absences--who is excluded; what values are suppressed; what is not said? -"Rhetoric Online" (Warnick)

Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse

Many rhetorical scholars are trying to look at the rhetoric of the digital sphere the same way that they do traditional texts. This is mainly because they have no other knowledge of how to approach this. Warnick's article argues that while this can work well, it most likely will not. They believe that critical work and critical theory will be changed to suit the new communication environments, but this can not happen. Authors can not be evaluated because the author of a text online usually gets lost within a group of commentators.

Traditional aspects of rhetorical criticism can be used in some aspects, however, on the basis of communication practices. The communicators still support some sort of value and ideology and try to influence others. They still take a standpoint to try to appeal to reader.

The identity of the audience is also difficult to determine in an online environment. While devices can measure the attendance coming to a website, it can not always determine who that person is that is visiting. (Although, as I am researching, data mining is becoming more and more accurate with this). Also, Warnick mentions that the web is a cluster of pseudo-environments. It is difficult to judge the credibility of a certain website or candidate because there are so many impostors trying to pretend that they are that person with fake websites.

rhetorical criticism reading

This reading was about how criticism of public discourse has to change from the old ways when one is looking at rhetoric online. I feel like we had been talking about some of these ideas before -especially when talking about the idea of identity  - but this reading was still very informational.

As usual I found the ideas of identity particularly interesting. Especially how once again a paper brings up the fact that you can technically play as another gender online. I had never really thought about this when I am just on the Web; the idea that a person could tell me they are a woman or a man and I would just have to take that text at face value. But it seems to be an idea that plagues rhetorers because I have read about it in several papers. I would have to think some more about how I perceive and anonymous identity online but my first thought is usually to think of them as male. This is because I see most faceless people online as highly assertive, often-times destructive, and many times powerful people and I've been taught socially to view these traits favorably in men.

One thing that fist stuck out in this reading for me was the part they quoted on reading hpertext. The point made about how one can't fully research the quantity that the internet provides and that online rheterors have to work with chunks and samples reminds me of the paper we just had to write. Ten pages, trying to contextualize all the work that has been done on World of Warcraft, and I felt like I had barely scratched the surface. That's a normal feeling on the internet; the understand that I will only be working with a small sample of what their is to offer. I never thought before about how this effects my rhetoric. It has to, on some level, because I have to understand that I will never be a 'master' of the knowledge that I am studying; or at least in the way that it used to happen.

Rhetorical Criticism of Public Discourse on the Internet - Warnick

This was a really interesting read. The first thing that really stood out to me was when she quoted, "new communication environments... are themselves metamessages" (74). This was interesting to me because Marshall McLuhan's book, The Medium is the Massage came to my mind. This topic interests me because the same message is taken in different contexts based on where it's placed. If I post a Facebook post, for example, it will not have the same message as a Twitter Tweet or blog post or a Pinterest Pin. All of the mediums have their own connotations, and I love that about the digital sphere. To me, I kind of feel like the world wide web is just a giant puzzle, and as rhetors, we need to figure where to post our message and how in order to achieve the best result.

This reading also talked a lot about malleable texts. This idea is also fascinating to me because it makes so much sense, yet people still don't see this viewpoint when they're on the internet or when they're posting on social media sites or other websites. When I post something, I know it is not finite. It is not "set in stone", and I know others can - and may- distort it for their own purposes and attach their own meaning to it, essentially changing my text completely. A quote from the reading says, "we may have to change our expectations of what texts are and how they function" (75). This is completely true in my mind, however, deciding how to change the expectations is where the hard part comes in (for me at least). I, as a user of social media and the internet, switch back and forth from a rhetor to audience, and back again in the blink of an eye. This is the same for a vast majority of web users today.

This flows into Warnick's discussion of the audience and how the meaning of audience has had to adapt to the digital sphere. Because messages can be so distorted from their original meaning, and because they can be re-posted and distributed beyond our wildest dreams, "the audience is often not readily identifiable" (77). This leads me to wonder how much the audience plays a role in messages. To me, this new form of the digital sphere only strengthens the notion of audience. The original message had an audience that it was intended for, knowingly or not. The message that is constructed based on that message is then tailored to an audience, and so on and so forth. Without the notion of audience, the message wouldn't need to be reformed in the first place. Or so I believe.

Along with the question of the audience comes the question of authorship. There have been many times when I have found what seems like a great source for an academic paper, only to question whether the source is credible because there is not author associated with the content. In response to this, Warnick says, "one cannot tell who the author is, nor does it make sense to ask this question in the traditional way" (79). This brought up a whole new world of ideas for me, because it makes sense that if all the other traditional ways are being re-positioned to apply to the digital sphere, why should authorship not be redefined? It makes sense that it should be re-examined, especially as everyone on the internet (and especially social media) has the potential to be an author of content.

In response to the above paragraph, one quote that jogged my brain was when Warnick quoted, "to treat all representations as true" (79). This, however unrelated it may seem, made me think of a TV commercial. I believe it's a State Farm commercial. A man is on his mobile device when a woman comes up questioning the existence of the State Farm apps. She then goes on to say, "you can't put anything on the internet that isn't true" (Commercial). This just made me think of the level of credibility on the internet, and how some people will really believe anything they read or see online.

Overall, this article really jogged a lot of new ideas and theories.

Hope everyone is having a good spring break.

I just found this and know if I wait till next class to mention it I'll forget about it. I really haven't formed my thoughts about it yet, so I'll just post it without comment; however, I feel that is very revelant to our class.

NoHomophobes

(Trigger warning for some terrible language and obviously homophobia)

Rhetoric on the brain..

Lately, everything I look at-- literally everything, from magazine covers, book covers, coffee mugs, menus, labels, board games, facebook posts, advertisements, descriptions, everything-- I apply rhetoric to it. I rhetorically analyze everything.

What are they trying to say?
Who are they trying o say it to?
Why are they trying to say this?
In what ways are they going about getting their message across?....
excigency? constraints? audiences? goals?....

I try to think of ways they could have displayed or worded something differently, I think of the type of impact what they have created or said has on their audience- and their unintended viewers? Does it effect them negatively? Positively? I just can't stop ladies!

I wish I could post everything that really grabbed my attention...but I can't post all of them or it would be too much. Here's one that I came across while I was communicating with my father via Facbook (you can obviously tell his stance on things haha)-----crazy that just the action of "posting "a graphic to his Facebook wall, and "sharing" it with people, he is forming or displaying an aspect of his identity! exciting right?! haha

Anyways, take a look below and see what you think of the message/argument/"calling to change" this post is trying to attempt....then think about could/would happen if something like this went viral???


p.s. don't mind my advertisements-they get me every time, apparently they think I'm a homeowner.

Harlem Shaking Before It Was Cool

I'm going to start by saying I know the point of memes is to make fun and take things out of context. That being said, take a look at these.



What we talked about in class today reminded me of this. I saw it on Facebook. I wonder, what does this say about the original Harlem Shake? Does it infer that the original isn't cool? What does that say about the Harlem culture? I Googled "Harlem Shaking Before It Was Cool" and found many similar memes, including this one:



What does this say about our culture? I highly doubt that Michael J Fox was doing the "Harlem Shake", since he has the medical condition. Personally, I think this is a slap in the face to Fox and the original Harlem Shake.