1.    Robert-Miller’s framework for analyzing demagogic discourse is an interesting form of rhetoric. I find the underlying qualities and repetitive patterns that are identified within this rhetoric to be most relevant. She claims that the qualities and stereotypes associated include polarization, demonization, victimization, scapegoating, etc., The first thing we think of is usually politics, specifically the WW2 era with Adolf Hitler. At a more local level, we see this rhetoric during competitions, public speaking, and trials in the legal system. 

2.    Reading Govern George Wallace’s inauguration speech through the lens of Robert-Miller, many parallels are eluded. Polarization is a significant feature present in the rhetoric of demagoguery. Robert-Miller claims “to polarize is to divide a diverse range of things into two poles” (2). This is shown in Wallace’s speech as he says, “Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever,” which is completely polarized on two opposite ends. The people he’s prohibiting are those of color, of those are for integration. Another thing that Wallace’s quote aligns with Robert-Miller’s demagoguery qualities, is slipperiness of crucial terms; god and devil terms. Wallace views segregation as a god term and integration/desegregation as a devil term. 

3.    I believe we have recently seen such an increase in the kind of rhetoric Robert-Miller because our nation has become politically divided. Both sides of politics heavily rely on this rhetoric because essentially, it’s persuasive to those who don’t do research and those who easily believe everything a politician says. At a more local level, we also do this within our homes and lives as individuals. As human beings, I believe it’s in our nature to easily blame someone especially if you’re desperately trying to get someone to join your side. I’m in SDSU Mock Trial, and when we compete, we honestly use all Robert-Miller’s tactics to get the judge to see our side and prove why the other side is wrong. Along with this, I watch the show Survivor a lot, and when they form alliances to vote people off, they use demagoguery rhetoric to convince swing votes on why their side is good and why the other side is evil. This is a strategic rhetoric especially if the person you’re swinging is not that bright or lacks awareness.

Reading Response for September 23 

What do you think are Boyd’s most important claims? Why?

•  Boyd’s most important claims include that today’s teens are “digital natives” because they’ve grown up around technology whereas adults that are apart of Gen X, are considered “digital immigrants” (176). This is an important claim he makes because today’s teens are deeply engaged with technology consisting of social media and media networks. Boyd compares this to the literal meaning of “natives” and “immigrants”- that digital natives are extremely familiar with this ground and the ins-and-outs, while digital immigrants are new to this and have a lot to learn within the technological dimension, due to lack of foundation. The foundational aspect is important because Boyd states that today’s teens are learning with technology, while adults learned with physical materials such as books, paper, posters, etc. Another important claim that Boyd makes is that Another important claim is that despite being digital natives, the youth must be media literate. Boyd explains by censorship or inaccurate data provided online can interfere with critical thinking. The youth must be media literate because they must dissect and analyze media artifacts when they are engaging with consumers via the internet (181). Along with this, technical skills are needed to understand the fundamentals of advertising and the uses of computer systems that aren’t clear but are necessary. 

Boyd claims the “rhetoric of digital natives” has been damaging. List some problems Boyd associated with the concept. 

• Some problems that are associated with this concept is that it’s dangerous to assume that digital natives are automatically informed. There are mismatches across the scene of technology that could lead you to be- misinformed. Another damaging aspect of the rhetoric of digital natives is that this platform is not available to the entire youth population (179). Because of this, Boyd invites a sense of privilege to those who have access to media 24/7. Since we are moving into an extremely technological dependence as a youth, it would be a disadvantage to those who cannot keep up because of priorities (low-income/poverty/ raised to not believe in technology). Along with this, you have to be comfortable using media/ technology to have a good-paying job, managing medical care, engaging with government, etc. (180). 

Caulfield also thinks digital literacy has been defined incorrectly. What are his main claims? Do either Boyd or Caulfield’s solutions seem useful?

• Caulfield claims “media literate” students are unable to identify fake stories, misinformation, disinformation, and other forms of spin which is why he believes digital literacy has been defined incorrectly. Caulfield’s solutions consist of knowing the web reading like fact-checkers, Caulfield used examples of “fake” octopi, fake websites, and fake flowers as a “shock factor,” which ultimately is false, while Boyd used examples like Wikipedia and google- the unreliability. I believe their solutions are good in theory, but not in practice. I wish we could all truly know the web 100% and scroll through the web like fact-checkers, but is every individual going to do that? Humans by nature are lazy when it comes to media. The reason why we use it is to search for things quickly, rather than search through dozens of different search engines. However, if we were doing thorough research then this wouldn’t be the case. But usually, we put our trust in the first one or two answers we come across. Caulfield and Boyd’s solutions are useful, to the extent that individuals are going to do this. 

1. In Walter Ong’s “Some Psychodynamics of Orality,” he illustrates the consistent trends we see in oral culture. This ranges from formulas, to repetitions, and to relation of relevance of time. The reason why there are traits within orality is because of the mnemonic devices that orators must conserve and retain. Along with this, it needs to keep the audience interested in the orator’s story. Ong details oral culture with technique and skill that preserves the entertainment of oral storytelling. I will analyze “Version II: Sundiata” by John William Johnson and textualize this lens through Ong’s oral culture traits. In this case, it was Griot’s who told stories who were talented historians and “can read its [country] future” (1). 

One of the first traits that Ong notices within Oral poems is the rhythmic power that is present that is shown through patterns and repetition. In Johnson’s “Version: II,” “baobab leaf”, “Will you never rise?” are extremely repetitive within the first section of this poem. To give it context, these repetitional phrases are used to emphasize situations (the Kòndiè woman’s despair and strength). In this particular oral poem, there is no rhymes that are present in which Ong describes the need for this. In replacement of rhymes, I believe this poem shows a lot of redundancy/ copias. Ong believes it’s fond to repeat a phrase many times, rather than hesitate or let alone- a pause. For example, “And upwards drew himself, And upwards drew himself/ And squeezed them, And squeezed them.” This would be a good rhetoric device since it’s best to keep speaking, even if unintentional it adds suspense and makes points clear. Along with Ong’s list is being “conservative” with oral poems, in other words, writing it down. Here we have written down an oral poem that has been conserved for centuries that 21^stcentury college students are analyzing. In relevance to time (Ong’s list), there are many phrases that I personally do not understand such as, “bilika” and “tunyu” which possibly has relevance to oral culture when this was first composed. As Ong mentions, you want to keep it as relevant as possible to keep the audience drawn, you don’t want to leave them confused. Overall, this poem conforms to some of Ong’s list such as patterns, redundancy, conservative vs. liberal, and homeostatic qualities. 

2. I believe Saracas extends Ong’s claim of conservation of oral texts with dis/advantages of new writings. Ong Claims that writing down a poem conserves the history and knowledge of the older generation to preserve meaning. Saracas goes further in mentioning that even though it conserves it physically, does it orally? What he means by this is once you write it down, you are using different parts of your brain and sense to interpret an oral poem that’s written down. There are benefits to this such as creative writing especially in terms of storytelling, but the memory isn’t as alive as opposed to using and applying mnemonics straight from memory. 

3. An important claim that Sullivan brought up was if we don’t write, then there are mental acts we cannot perform because of the capacity of our memory. I believe this is relevant because the human mind is extremely limited especially in memory. We can’t do extreme algebraic equations without writing it down (unless you’re a complete math-wiz-genius). This is where our ability to perform other mental acts comes in place. Along with this, in terms of writing, we’re able to express what we intend by writing it down. To improvise and speak on the spot without any written motion will not be as abstract as opposed to a text, idea, or thought that you have written down; this allows for deeper thought an understanding. 

Reading Response for Monday September 09

1. Waldman (Chad) discusses McCulloch’s argument that the internet is making writing better. In what way does Waldman suggest writing is getting better?  Do you agree?

Waldman suggests writing is getting better through the lens of McCulloh. He suggests that writing is advancing through the use of expression, which is shown by replacing our tone in “real life” with extension of words, emojis, and use of periods and commas to express what we truly mean to the fullest extent. The length of words we use online such as “yayyyy” can mimic the state of mind an individual is at. I do agree that this is improving our expression to almost match what we’re trying to communicate as well as creative writing, however I don’t believe it makes us better professional writers. I believe if we get too comfortable writing this way, it’ll be hard for us to express what we’re trying to convey in professional and serious settings due to reliance on informal writing. 

2. Compose a brief response to the texts by McNamee  (Asia) and Tufecki (Erin).  Describe what you found most interesting/important and discuss one way these texts complicate or challenge Thompson.

McNamee is terrified by the damage being done to these internet monopolies. What I found most interesting about this text is how he describes his relationship with social media- he absolutely hates it. McNamee uses studies to illustrate how depressing social media is by comparing it to how much we invest in these corporations. He uses the rhetorical device of pathos to emphasize how these apps know you more than you know yourself. This text conflicts with Thompson’s agenda by every degree. Thompson is positively for these apps, while McNamee is not. Thompson demonstrates the benefits and strengths of online writing, as McNamee names every consequence there is to it. 

Tufecki has analyzed the YouTube algorithm. What I found most interesting within this article is the comparison to our crave for fact, sugary, and salty foods. That YouTube provides an algorithm in which we crave and cannot get enough of which confirms McNamee underlying assumption that we are in a sense, “controlled” by these corporations. This also challenges Thompson’s article as it presents a not-so-great use of the internet. Tufecki examines how serious it is when young adults are reliant on YouTube for information, while Thompson argues that young people using media is an advancement. 

• 1A) Summarize Thompson’s main claims in Public Thinking and “I’m So Totally Digitally Close to You“
• “Public thinking” is an article that explains how the concept of “public thinking” affects yourself and society. According this article, public thinking means curious minds could discover things at the same time; people who are writing and working at the same time often discover ideas at the same time. Thompson claims that the audience effect (the shift in our performance when we know people are watching) is true regarding a large or small audience. Studies have shown this through children, college students, and online. This article also claims that the myth, young college student’s writing is getting worse as time goes on- false. Stanford University English professor, Andrea Lunsford led this study to prove that the skills that young college students have aren’t affected by much. Since they writing argument-evidence based essays, this improves critical thinking and advanced rhetoric. 
• “I’m So Totally Digitally Close to You” is an article that claims how the emergence of social media has had a shift in privacy over the years. At first, people using these platforms would be skeptical about their privacy but as time went on, they didn’t care as much due to how much they were missing out. This article also claims that ever since twitter, we’ve communicated in ways we never thought were possible; how people talk online vs. how they communicate in person, “… invisible dimension floating over our heads because you don’t talk to people like that face to face”. 
• 2. Describe a claim from each text that connected most/least to your own experiences? 
• In “public thinking,” the claim that relates most to me is the idea of the audience effect. I am not particular active on social media with my own person accounts, but I am with marketing my club. I run the website, email, and Instagram of SDSU Mock Trial, and I find myself trying to impress potential members with what our club has to offer. This means how I write updates and captions, which pictures I use, and how I design our flyers. Since I’m reaching out to an audience, I find myself contributing to the audience effect. 
• In “I’m So Digitally Close to You,” I relate to the claim that I communicate differently online than in person. I find myself being more “bubbly” online than in person, I know from my personality I don’t talk the way I do online. I have a hard time deciphering this because typing online is not to any face, using tone, or articulation. 

• 3. Note elements of the text you found most rhetorically interesting, or that you had questions about/wanted to know more about. 
• In “Public Thinking,” I found Okolo Medea’s journey rhetorically interesting due to how the article described her surprise to a large following, how she didn’t expect many people to find her writings joyous. Though she was hesitance, she wrote a book due to the inspiration! “’ That was the first time I had a sense of the volume of it.’ Okolloh didn’t want to write a book, but in a sense, she already had.” 
• 4. Identify a particular strength or weakness in Thompson’s arguments
• The main argument of Thompson’s article is that there are numerous benefits to online writing. He sticks to this argument throughout his entire article; he uses experts, professors, and studies. However, this is only it; he doesn’t talk about the negatives of online writing or anything to hint at that. I believe a weakness is not mentioning the negatives of online writings. I believe there should be both sides because there are experts and professors that most likely disagree with him. “I’m So Totally Digitally Close to You” mentions both sides of online use. That article uses personal testimonies of different experiences of how social media has negatively affected individual lives.  
• 5. Where do you see Thompson addressing people who might disagree with him? How persuasive are Thompson’s rebuttals?
• I believe people will disagree about the notion of “hand waving.” According to Thompson, “In a panic, you try to describe how the gadget works, and you start waving your hands to illustrate it: hand waving. But nobody’s ever convinced. Hand waving means you’ve failed.” I believe not everyone will agree with this statement, even if hand waving is seen as frustration and improvising, it’s also used to emphasize or illustrate a point. Thompson pointed out that a threat of an audience produces hand waving. This is where he addresses the audience effect. I believe his rebuttals are persuasive because he backs it up with experts and professors in the field such as Andrea Lunsford; he used her studies to advocate for how public thinking encourages spontaneous young writers. 

Be yourself; Everyone else is already taken.

— Oscar Wilde.

When I think about new media writing, I believe it affects culture. Culture is always changing as time goes on, but in ways that my younger siblings are experiencing 10x different than me. I have 3 younger siblings and in elementary school they’re already typing and learning within tablets- in other words, media writing. In a sense I believe it does good and bad, but I care more about how it affects their development and culture. Is it helping? because of the advancements, or is it hurting because of the dependence and reliance. Something I care about is accuracy, this is because since we live in the digital age using media writing, literacy, culture, and politics, anyone has the ability to present information to a vast majority of people even if it’s false, while editing it to make it appear true. I’m curious about how media writing will change in the future, at times we feel like this is peak advancement however, we know it can go further. Issues that matter to me when it comes to media is using your platform for the benefit of others and being accurate while doing so. We see big celebrities advocate for certain issues, whom are using their platform for the better of society, yet not being accurate with their information which can be extremely misleading to the public, especially those who rely on their beliefs and news outlet.

My name is Asia Nicole Smith and I’m a third year student at San Diego State University. My current major is Philosophy and my minors are Communications and RWS.

You’re going to publish a post today. Don’t worry about how your blog looks. Don’t worry if you haven’t given it a name yet, or you’re feeling overwhelmed. Just click the “New Post” button, and tell us why you’re here.

Why do this?

• Because it gives new readers context. What are you about? Why should they read your blog?
• Because it will help you focus you own ideas about your blog and what you’d like to do with it.

The post can be short or long, a personal intro to your life or a bloggy mission statement, a manifesto for the future or a simple outline of your the types of things you hope to publish.

To help you get started, here are a few questions:

• Why are you blogging publicly, rather than keeping a personal journal?
• What topics do you think you’ll write about?
• Who would you love to connect with via your blog?
• If you blog successfully throughout the next year, what would you hope to have accomplished?

You’re not locked into any of this; one of the wonderful things about blogs is how they constantly evolve as we learn, grow, and interact with one another — but it’s good to know where and why you started, and articulating your goals may just give you a few other post ideas.

Can’t think how to get started? Just write the first thing that pops into your head. Anne Lamott, author of a book on writing we love, says that you need to give yourself permission to write a “crappy first draft”. Anne makes a great point — just start writing, and worry about editing it later.

When you’re ready to publish, give your post three to five tags that describe your blog’s focus — writing, photography, fiction, parenting, food, cars, movies, sports, whatever. These tags will help others who care about your topics find you in the Reader. Make sure one of the tags is “zerotohero,” so other new bloggers can find you, too.