Rhetorical Writing Theory
By Ally Bolender
Read like the smartest person in the room
The other side of new work composing
Podcast summarization of my theory project
Introduction
In journalism, we often hear, "write for the dumbest person in the room." However, this statement has seemed to turn into, "manipulate the dumbest person in the room."
​
The first thing journalists are taught is to write researched, concrete facts from primary sources and to never use opinion. But of course, there are those who intentionally write biased and fake news.
​
These journalists know the ethics, but they don't care. They know there will always be someone who can be manipulated to fit an agenda.
As long as there are politics, news, and new technologies, there will be lies and biased reports. Don't let unethical news outlets and social media manipulate you.
​
If they are going to write for the dumbest people in the room, we need to read like the smartest people in the room.
​
​
​
​
​
You'll have to excuse my bias, but I'm sure by now you have noticed I used journalistic approach to create my theories. But I must stress that these theories are not exclusive to this particular area of media consumption. My theories, reader responsibility, constructive skepticism, and robot writers, should be applied to any and all online content consumption.
​
I designed my website to appear similarly to a New Works of Composing chapter. With links, outside examples, and a summarizing video, my scrollable website introduces and intertwines readers to my theory and my referenced theorists. When I was theorizing, I wanted to come up with something I’m passionate about while relating to new media productions. I thought a lot about what the New Works of Composing chapters included, and what they neglected. I got to thinking that while most of the works in our theory textbooks revolve around the way one can produce scholarly works, there was little mentioned about the other side of production. For every producer, there is a consumer. I decided to revolve my theory on how we consume media in a new digital age and how consuming and producing new media are more intertwined than we think. Although I have three smaller theories, the arch of my project is the idea that if we can learn to accurately and actively consume new medias, it in turn will make us better producers of scholarly work.
​
​
News consumers, especially those consuming from social media and non-reputable sources, need to accept that the responsibility of reading fake news, biased information, and misinformation rests entirely in their hands. No matter how many journalists or organizations are exposed, there will not be an end to unethical reporting. It's the consumers that blindly use false information to shape opinions that are to blame.
​
I know putting the blame on innocent news consumers for basing their opinions of false reporting sounds harsh, but we have reached the point where people need to be conscious of what they are reading and sharing. With new media, false information will always be somewhere, and since we cannot avoid this, it's time to accept this responsibility of becoming our own news filters.
​
I want to introduce this theory of reader responsibility. This is the idea that with new digital age and the ability for anyone to post anything online, it is in now the consumers that have to monitor what information they are absorbing and sharing. The only thing we can control about fake news media is how we react to it, and the only way to combat the excessive amount of fake news is to avoid it or report it. Reader's must become actively aware of the amount of fabricated content on new media, not just with news, but expanding to unhealthy workout and diet routines, viral videos, childcare tips, and spam. For example, here is the extremely influential Kim Kardashian promoting appetite suppressant lollipops. You heard that right 138 million followers, if you want Kim K's body, better suppress your appetite!
​
​
A rather extreme example of a current media trend based off false information is the anti-vaccination movement. There are people who provide misinformation about vaccines, which in turn, cause other readers to believe it--especially if presented professionally. Regardless of how many platforms that are cracking down on vaccine misinformation, it is still obtainable and everywhere. It is in the hands of the consumers to research claims and come to an opinion based on facts. If someone were to believe vaccines were more harmful than the potential consequences, it is their fault for basing that on non-reputable, not peer reviewed, and unscientific sources.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
It is in the consumer's hands with what they do with this information, it's time to stop blaming the false content for people's poor reactions to it. Now you may be wondering, how do we know if something's biased, fake, or misleading information?
​
I want to introduce the concept of constructive skepticism. In order to avoid allowing biased news to construct our opinions, we need to know the steps we can take to determine if a source is giving us information from a neutral perspective. I recommend approaching information from a source you aren’t familiar with by using constructive skepticism. Read into the article and ask yourself some questions: are the statements backed up by evidence or sources? Is the source primary or secondary? Does the article include opinionated statements? Is this information from a reputable, nonpartisan source? Am I viewing this on social media? Applying constructive skepticism to your everyday news consumption, or even as little as applying it to social media, will help you become a better news consumer and information consumer in general.
This concept is not exclusive to news consuming. There are plenty of fake videos, both harmless and dangerous, that are created to spark online discourse. For example, there is the video of the woman on a subway pouring bleach on men's crotches for "man-spreading". The organized hoax caused uproar on social media and broadcast news, and the truth of it hardly spread at all. Constructive skepticism will keep us from being too gullible online.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Lastly, I want to discuss the concept of robot writers. When we read something online, it is sometimes hard to imagine that there is a person who sat down and wrote the information. I know I am guilty of reading stuff and never questioning the facts because it is written so professionally or on a reputable website. We sometimes don’t see that there is a real, imperfect person on the other side of the screen. These aren't magically appearing words, or a robot, it’s a human who makes mistakes in high-demand environments just like us. This concept is not exclusively in journalism, but any writing we consume on media. Someone wrote that article, blog post, breaking news alert, research paper, data analysis, journal, recommendation. This connects back to the topic of the anti-vaccination movement. Information is more believable when presented in a professional tone with fancy words and statistics we may not understand. We are more susceptible to believing things on the internet written in these professional tones. It presents itself as a disembodied article, written by a higher intellectual. When in reality, every information you absorb was composed by a human being with flaws and desires just like the rest of us.
​
Once readers understand and actively use the concept of robot writers in everyday consumption, they become aware of underlying manipulations of the author. They are able to perceive discourse with the authors as an equal playing field, and they become more comfortable with scholarly thinking.
Theory
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Other Theorists
Danielle Nicole Devoss,
Mothers and Daughters of Digital Invention
In Mothers and Daughters of Digital Invention, Dànielle Nicole Devoss discusses the idea of digital danger or digital risks, "...when users post materials to social networking sites, they lose some control of that content—technically and legally. It can be downloaded, otherwise stored, and tagged by other users." Everything that is put up online will always be accessible, and can be taken completely out of context when paired with the right words, much like images in the "30 Reasons Girls Should Call it a Night." Online there is an abundance of images that can be described with false context, harmless or not. When you see something like this, it's important to find the original source of the photo, and often you'll find that the reported image and story aren't all truth. We have always heard that once something is on the internet, it is on there for good. We often interpret this statement as not to put our own private information online, but neglect to see the other side of it: anything online can be taken and used in a way the original source did not intend.
A popular example of a rather innocent falsifying photo context is the viral photo of this dog and pelican friendship.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
However, this photo was taken over ten years ago, and the pelican has since then been dead. Fake information like this may seem harmless, but it is used to manipulate an audience to feel a certain way. Once readers become aware of the high frequency of false photo-contexts and the intentions of the writer, they will have an increased awareness of it and how to appropriately consume stories based on images. Understanding the importance of stories based on an image calls for the use of constructive skepticism. It makes the readers dive into the original source and context of the image provided. The steps readers take to achieve this understanding is a direct representation of reader responsibility. This is healthy media consumption: claiming responsibility for false information we become victim into believing, and avoiding passive information consumption by actively being aware of purposes behind given information.
Figure 4
Valerie Kinloch,
​
Politicizing, Placing, and Performing Narratives of Gentrification in an Urban Community
In Politicizing, Placing, and Performing Narratives of Gentrification in an Urban Community, Valerie Kinloch talked about how digital technologies provided a positive experience for the kids, "...we would have not been able to question our own stances in ways that allowed us to reflect on, reconsider, revise, and reframe our initial positions on gentrification and community change. Hence, the use of digital technologies strengthened the types of conversations we had and increased our ways of being and becoming self-reflexive learners, ethnographers-in-training, and practitioners." Kinloch first-handedly described the process of these young students learned how to converse like intellectuals with digital media. When we have digital technologies, and don't use it to bash, put down, or humiliate each other, we can interact intellectually and far more productively. These kids present a concrete argument on something considered an "adult topic." They reflect and revise their argument, proving they can hear the other-side of the argument, and further develop their stand while including opinions based off their individual perceptions. This intellectual argument isn't biased just because it provides individual perspectives, it is valuable because it provides individual perspectives along with argumentative points. This is a prime example of reader responsibility in terms of seeing an argument through many lenses.
I think as a society, it is easy to take these digital technologies for granted. We like to hide behind our screens and type away, never considering the other side of the story. Perhaps if most of us took the time to create a concrete, professional argument like these kids, then we wouldn't feel so different from the other side. With the access of technology, these students use media to support their argument. They provide a persona to the argument to tell this story. This completely eliminates readers from assuming robot writers. These students encourage discourse by complying to the assumption that they are not all-knowing on the subject, but they have voice to offer.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Figure 5
James Bono, Curtis Hisayasu, Jentery Sayers, and Matthew Wilson,
​
Standards in the Making: Composing with Metadata in Mind
​
The authors from Standards in the Making agknowledge how informal discourse spaces provide a space for intellectual exchange, "...I would add, how people view metadata as an opportunity to intervene in the development of informal standards, themselves. As Curtis suggests, even relatively informal discourse spaces like the Flickr Commons are important sites for knowledge-production and exchange, or, more specifically, for observing the processes of knowledge accumulation and standardization as opposed to formalized, fixed products.”
A productive informal discourse space in today's internet realm is Reddit. If you're not familiar, Reddit is not technically defined as a social media, but an advanced forum, where you can find information and advice on a multitude of topics. But something special about Reddit is the importance of factual statements that the whole community involves themselves in, as well as "bots" that monitor subreddits for incorrect information, spam, and hurtful comments. This website is a host for informal knowledge production and exchange.
For example, on the "Today I Learned" subreddit, people will post interesting facts that are commonly unheard of in which the viewers can read more about. However, what differentiates reddit from other sharing platforms is the unspoken requirement of sources. So, if someone were to post something on this subreddit, they would be informally required to provide a peer reviewed study, a primary source, or something of the sort, otherwise the post would be widely ignored or even deleted. In the comments, you will find people reacting upon the data in intellectual ways you don't often see on social media.
Reddit combats the idea of robot writers by providing writers with usernames and online personas, all while avoiding profile pictures and the unhealthy side effects social sharing sites. It's site used solely for discussing the provided data or information. Sites like Reddit provide a space for every day people to have intellectual conversation, all while collectively revolving around fact-checking and constructive skepticism.
​
Here is an example of a reddit bot fact-checking a debate:
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Platforms that encourage civil discourse among a variety of scholarly topics encourages users to become better, well-rounded communicators, debaters, and scholarly thinkers, all while encouraging the use of unbiased and factual information.
Figure 6
Relation to my blog
When I was creating my blog, I pondered what exactly a journalistic blog would look like. Prior to this class, I never imagined that blogs could be considered professional. However, as we learned more and more about what makes a scholarly work, I found the direction I wanted to take with my blog. Our textbook included videos, art installations, webtexts, oh my! I came to the conclusion that my blog can have real, intellectual purpose. I had never experienced blogs that weren't about fashion, makeup, food, interior design, etc.. But I now see even those blogs have intellectual characteristics in them. Blogs are an expression of one, all while acting as a platform to form connections: to others, yourself, your location... Blogs make you ask scholarly questions without even realizing.
​
I started to develop my blog's purpose: I wanted to help adults establish constructive skepticism in their news consumption. I thought and thought on how I could present this purpose in a creative way, and I landed on the decision of offering debunked fake news stories, and offering resources and tools for my audience to debunk stories themselves. It is the blogs that offer new perspectives or new ways of thinking that can spark something in the reader.
​
Now, I did question what credibility I have telling my audience what is right and wrong when I don't even have my own reputable platform. This hypocrisy made me realize that there must still be public discussion, instead of dismissing information because it is not coming from a news organization. We are no different then the journalists that write these stories (sometimes smarter). This sparked many of the concepts reviewed in this theory composition. As regular news consumers, we need to use our set of consumption tools and civil discourse to work alongside journalists, so we can discuss and test information in scholarly ways as regular people.
​
In my blog, I debunk popular stories that spread and reach a large audience. But, with an extensive use of constructive skepticism (and common sense), I show my audience step-by-step on how exactly I debunked the story. For example, I create a blog post about a VOX article that contained false and biased information. In this article, "Don't let the data fool you," I explain my use of constructive skepticism. First, I fully read the article and pinpoint statistics or claims that seem untrustworthy. I then did my own math to find the true statistical evidence that the story was claiming. However, with a little bit of math and reputable sources, I was able to say that VOX provided an untrue argument based on statistics that the journalist didn't seem to fully analyze. The importance of constructive skepticism is heavily referenced in my blog posts, not just this one. I am a believer that anyone of any educational level has the ability to debunk articles instead of passively believing, and I hope I taught my audience that.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
Relation to a classmate's blog
I want to use my classmate Sara's blog to help build my argument. Sara's The Tiny Texan as an example of lifestyle or opinion journalism. I would like to bring up her post, "Bobcats Up in Smoke." In this post, Sara is presents a rather liberal opinion as she calls for legalization of marajuana. However, read for yourself how Sarah presents her argument. She is stating her own opinions, not attacking those who favor conservative marajuana laws. Her blog post acts as a discussion where the reader's can see a glimpse of Sarah's opinion that was shaped by her life experiences. She acknowledges how her own perspectives shape her opinion on a debatable topic, and presents her argument in a respectful, funny, and intellectual manner.
​
This is an example of what opinion journalism should be: seeing each other's arguments and research, and not turning it into a competition of who can make the other side look worse to the public eye. Sara acknowledges that this is her opinion, and she leaves the comment sections open for debate. She encourages her readers to discover new ideas within her blog all while welcoming civil discourse. When readers productively perceive opinionated work as a place for intellectual conversation, we become better thinkers and debaters, and more well-rounded regarding the topic at hand.
​
In today's day and age, we are facing an epidemic of the blur between opinionated and news. Often, articles are taking off that "opinionated" label and manipulatively blending the lines between what is facts or what is opinion. While Sara's post is a wonderful example of what opinionated work should look like, we still need to use the concept of constructive skepticism for the opinionated posts that aren't so obviously opinionated. In my blog post, "Fact vs. Fake: A Pew Research Study," I present the alarming statistics of how many news consumers were unable to differentiate factual from opinionated statements. The findings from the survey revealed that the basic task was challenging for most Americans. Only 26% of the adults could identify all five of the factual statements, and only 35% identified all opinionated statements.
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
​
How can intellectual and civil discourse be achieved when producers of media are swaying the standards for opinionated and factual reporting? This alarming study spotlights the necessity of informing adults on opinionated information: the prevalence of it, how to avoid it, and how to react to it. Or, in other words, how to use constructive skepticism.
​
​
​
Figure 7
Howard Besser,
The Next Digital Divides
​
Danielle Nicole Devoss references The Next Digital Divides in Mothers and Daughters of Digital Inventions. In this text by Howard Besser, he stresses the importance for students to learn to become active participants in digital production, not just idly consuming, "Education should not be about merely learning how to consume; education should be about becoming an active participant in the major communication functions of society. Just as we not only teach students to read, but we also teach them how to write, how to assemble their writings into forms others will want to read, how to speak publicly, etc., in a digital age we need to teach our students how to author and distribute digital works."
I could not agree more with Besser's argument: as technology and new media rises, education needs to keep up. If we don't teach students how to productively produce content, then their generation will have flawed perspectives--not only on how to produce content, but also content consumption. If student's aren't taught the scholarly ways to form arguments and compositions of media, that will also affect the way they consume digital media negatively as well. This ties in with my concept of robot writers. If students cannot see themselves as intellectual thinkers and producers of media, then they may be more susceptible to believing any media content that sounds smart, or too far over their heads. These students may have the perspective that intellectual debate and rhetoric online must be coming from reputable and researched sources, otherwise it would be composed in an uneducated way. If students learn how intellectual content is produced, and understand that they are fully capable of participating in scholarly discourse, they can grasp a sense of right and wrong in digital works, therefore making better consumers.
Marc Lamont Hill,
Lalitha Vasudevan,
Media, Learning, and Sites of Possibility
Referenced in Politicizing, Placing, and Performing Narratives of Gentrification in Urban communities, Marc Hill and Lalitha Vasudevan argue in Media, Learning, and Sites of Possibility, "...media culture raises concern among many educators who presume a unidirectional relationship between students and media, in which students are seen as the passive and unwitting recipients of an endless series of problematic messages.” This statement is concerning as the next generations rise up to become our next politicians, activists, and well, adults. Younger generations are extremely susceptible to false information unless taught by an educator how to actively react to information instead of passively believing everything they see.
Since younger generations grew up around new media and sharing sites, they should be taught at an early age the concept of constructive skepticism. Once digital users obtain the concept that not everything is produced from a neutral and truthful perspective, they can absorb news and information in general online in a more productive and non-passive way. Similarly to my argument made with Besser's statements, young students require education on presentation and participation in new media. Becoming used to passively scrolling and absorbing will lead to readers basing their opinions and values on information that was not given a second thought. Constructive skepticism, stopping and considering the source, purpose, and wording of a statement, directly combats passive absorption.
Donald Bartholomae, Anthony Petrosky,
​
Ways of Reading
Referenced in Standards of Making, Donald Bartholomae and Anthony Petrosky dive into how we read in Ways of Reading, "Reading is not simply a matter of hanging back and waiting for a piece, or its author, to tell you what the writing has to say. In fact, one of the difficult things about reading is that the pages before you will begin to speak only when the authors are silent and you begin to speak in their place, sometimes for them— doing their work, continuing their projects—and sometimes for yourself, following your own agenda."
This is a nonconventional way of thinking about how we consume information. Our own experiences and perspectives shape the way we think about information, acting as our own personal bias. This concept is important to be aware of as we shape our opinions, values, and beliefs. If we consistently hear what the writer says in a way that contributes to our personal preferences or beliefs, then how would we learn? Of course, It's important to be actively thinking about information opposed to submissively accepting it, but it is just as important to keep an open mind to the information and underlying arguments. If we were to perceive everything strictly from a single perspective, we would be failing ourselves. This argument supports my concept of reader responsibility. As consumers, we are responsible for the content we use to shape our opinions, but we just as responsible for the content we refuse to use to shape our opinions.
​
If someone of a particular party refuses to accept unbiased, factual evidence because it does not align with their predetermined beliefs, they are irresponsibly consuming media. Only you can be responsible for what you use to build your opinions, so if you are resisting to accept factual information, you are neglecting your responsibility as an active participant in society.
​
We have access to any information with the push of a button, and we should take advantage of this. But with this opportunity comes great responsibility.
​
I hope that my readers grasped a sense of the responsibility they must partake in with media consumption. Nowadays, almost everything you find online will provide a "share" button. Anyone can say anything, anywhere, and it can reach anyone. We are in an era where information from the internet needs to be consumed using constructive skepticism, reader responsibility, and without perceiving the information is coming from robot writers. The ability to accurately form opinions, values, beliefs, rests entirely in our own hands, but we jeopardize this by passively absorbing any information that just sounds true.
​