Should The Public Have An Opinion

           In McDonald’s I Agree, But…, he explains sociotechnical controversies by saying, “Sociotechnical controversies, that is, those pertaining to society, science, and technology, seem to occupy a particularly important place in the contemporary public sphere and are the subject of numerous analyses in various disciplines, including rhetoric” (McDonald 201). Although people may not have the credibility to truly understand, their ideas can still be beneficial if they can be formed in an appropriate manner. “The value of public deliberation on sociotechnical issues and of citizens participating actively and rhetorically is therefore clear, as the deliberation exposes both experts and citizens to solutions they have may overlooked” (McDonald 201). Everyday citizens would not normally be welcomed into these discussions, but the fact that certain issues affect individual’s everyday lives makes it a public issue.

            McDonald defines public deliberation as, “The aim of public deliberation therefore need not be to consolidate different points of view but rather to learn, understand, and test a party’s beliefs about an issue by juxtaposing them with those of an opposing party. Thus deliberation has the potential to generate new ways of interpreting a controversy, even when the parties do not arrive at an agreement” (McDonald 200). Both Kaufer and McDonald’s articles support the idea that everyday citizens participation in public forms is important to help deliberate solutions to current issues. “They suggest that, for a rhetorical democracy to flourish, controversies should be welcomed, encouraged, stimulated and even organized in order to implicate ordinary citizens in government decision making” (McDonald 201). While both articles say that public deliberation is not always a way to achieve an answer, sometimes it can be left undetermined.

In Kaufer’s A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments, he defines stock issues by saying, “Stock issues are points of disagreement that recur regularly when people deliberate on questions of justice or public policy” (Kaufer 57). The article is stating that students need to be taught how to correctly write a policy argument. Stock issues are commonly addressed by people in today’s society, especially with the growth of the internet. Kaufer writes that in classical times rhetoricians understood why this was an important concept to teach. “They knew that stock issues (1) aid invention by helping speakers single out from the list of stock issues those obtaining in the immediate case; (2) aid organization (or arrangement) by insuring speakers against omitting information needed to marshal a comprehensive argument; (3) aid adaptation of speech to audiences by guiding speakers to include the points audiences expected them to address” (Kaufer 57).

             Kaufer begins his way of teaching this subject by asking the question, what causes a policy conflict? This comes with what he calls five levels. “It is designed to help students arrive at their own policy arguments once they have carefully assessed the arguments of others” (Kaufer 58). The levels provide different ways for a student to look at this policy and decide whether they agree with it or not. The first two levels ask if there was a misunderstanding on the frame or reference of certain statements. The third level asks if the article has conflicting evidence. The last two levels ask if the article has conflicting local or global values. After both sides of the argument is read, the students can then use these levels to develop their own argument about the topic. By knowing both sides of the argument and having these levels to decide what way their argument will go, students can then form a hypothesis that they can easily validate or contradict. I believe that McDonald’s Wind Energy section most relates to having conflicting evidence. McDonald explains that, “it can seem paradoxical that HQ, which was promoting natural gas plant, voiced no objection to a green energy source that many consider a better alterative” (McDonald 206).

In McDonald’s article, he states that according to Govier, “controversies have the following characteristics: the individuals who discuss issues are in disagreement with other individuals or groups that discuss the same issues; there is a minimum of two opposing views on these issues; and the parties do not simply express their opposing points of view but argue about the issues in a process of deliberation” (McDonald 200). None of those characteristics say anything about being a scientist or technologically inclined. As long as people who enter a public discussion have opinions and ideas, they should be included in these arguments. “In a constitutive perspective, public deliberation is a practice by which each party is exposed to the knowledge and interpretations of its adversaries” (McDonald 200).

            Public deliberation is a complicated idea because it involves a variety of people with different ideas. Both authors support the idea that if the issue involves the public, they should have a say in those issues. While controversies can be taken out of hand, if the two parties arguing can be professional about it, I believe it can be a good way to generate new ideas for all individuals.

Kaufer, David S. "A Plan for Teaching the Development of Original Policy Arguments." College Composition and Communication. 35.1 (Feb. 1984): 57-70. Web. 

McDonald, James. "I Agree, But...Finding Alternatives to Controversial Projects Through Public Deliberation."Rhetoric and Public Deliberation. 199-217. Web. 

Analytical Response Science Blog

Here is a link to my Science Blog. 

     For my essay, “Are Copyright Laws Out of Date?” I chose to focus on Charles Bailey Jr’s, “Net Neutrality = Digital Dystopia”, discussing how copyright laws are being misused in todays internet based society. I chose one article for Wired.com called “Corporations Abusing Copyright Laws Are Ruining the Web for Everyone” and an article from the New York Times International website called, “The Inexact Science Behind D.M.C.A Takedown Notices.” Both of these articles provided an immense amount of information backing up my theory.

    Once I found my information, I reread the Blogging book to find out ways to frame my blog in a new light. Blog is defined as, “a discussion or informational site published on the World Wide Wed and consisting of discrete entries, typically displayed in reverse chronological order” (Rettberg 32). Although having the definition of a blog was helpful, I chose to focus more on the style of the blog. In our Style book, we discussed Cohesion and Coherence. This is one thing I found hard for me to do throughout my essay. While I had the information, it was not being placed in a way that framed the ideas in my own perspective. Our style book states that cohesion and coherence are two different aspects of writing, and you need both to succeed. “Think of cohesion as pairs of sentences fitting together the way individual pieces of a jigsaw puzzle do. Think of coherence as seeing what all the sentences in a piece of writing add up to the way all the pieces in a puzzle add up to the picture on the box” (Williams 38).

    That was finally what helped me frame my story. Rather than spitting out the information I had read, I needed to reframe the information to be a new article, which I did not quite get in the beginning. Another chapter in Style that helped me is the chapter on Shape. In all my essays, the feedback was that I was not stating my point from the start, but rather giving those important pieces of information at the end. “When we read its point first, we can anticipate the relevance of the next nineteen words even before we read them” (Williams 101).

   The last source I used for this essay is Grant-Davie’s article on rhetorical constraints. In that article, he says, “Bitzer argues that understanding the situation is important because the situation invites and largely determines the form of the rhetorical work that responds to it” (Grant-Davie 265). I had to keep rereading this section to keep this point in mind. I continuously forgot who and why I was writing this article and what was the importance of it. My rhetorical situation kept leaving my mind. I believe after all the work I did, the article came out wonderfully framed and made a good point.

Works Cited:

Grant‐Davie, Keith. "Rhetorical Situations and Their Constituents."Rhetoric Review 15.2 (1997): 264-79. Web.

Rettberg, Jill Walker. Blogging. Cambridge, UK: Polity, 2008. Print.

Williams, Joseph M. Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. Print.

Short Assign 2

In Read Naturally, Scientific Research, and Reading First, Davidson begins by explaining the No Child Left Behind Act, which is an education bill that was passed in 2002. This act is attempting to improve reading skills of students in grades K through 3. This article discusses how reading and fluency can effect a child, and how, scientifically, we can change that outcome. This blog seems to be a citizen’s explanatory genre because it is explaining a concept that is important but has not been reported on very much. Other than the fact that this concept of improving reading skills in children is being explained, Davidson gives research to back up her beliefs and ideas. “Blogs provide a means of publishing and distributing that is cheap and simple enough for everyone with access to the internet to use directly, whether from home, school, the library or even a mobile phone” (Rettberg 91). With this type of publication, anyone can access this article to further his or her knowledge of the subject. I believe that although this article was published on “White Paper,” it is scientifically sound and can be used to increase reading comprehension in students.

In this article, Davidson states that, “The National Reading Panel report identifies the essential elements of reading instruction: alphabetics, fluency and comprehension” (Davidson 3). By starting out with these facts, Davidson is giving the reader the overall information of the subject. She also states, “The National Reading Panel defines reading fluency as “the immediate result of word recognition proficiency” (Davidson 4). The article then goes on to say, “While fluency includes automatic word recognition, the ability to read words rapidly is not enough. Readers also need to be able to read with expression, chunking words into phrases and using pauses appropriately” (Davidson 4).

These small facts and examples give the author credibility. I don’t believe that it matters whether this author is a journalist or not because the facts are given and the ethos is presented. “You don’t need a particular degree or license to call yourself a journalist as you would to call yourself a doctor or a psychologist” (Rettberg 94). This article is explanatory because other than stating the facts, it gives ways to achieve these goals. Davidson gives the step-by-step process of the READ NATURALLY procedure. “In the last step, the student retells the story either orally or by writing sentences. Students must either include a certain number of ideas or write for a certain length of time” (Davidson 7).

           This article, to me, would be considered citizen’s genre because a person who is concerned with this subject published it. This article did not come from a journal or newspaper, but from this “White Paper” site. Davidson is giving examples of how this can be achieved and what the outcome would be. The way the article is ended justifies all that I said in this assignment, “READ NATURALLY can provide the tools to move the reader stalled at a slow word-by-word reading stage into comfortable fluent reading where attention can be focused on meaning. After all, the goal of reading is to gain meaning from what is read. Thus, READ NATURALLY can be a critical bridge to meaning and ultimately, to reading success” (Davidson 11).

Bloggers

I would like to apologize in advance, I have been very sick all weekend and this might not be up to my usual writing standards haha.

The idea of blogs has not always been around in our world. The growth of the internet in recent years has provided many new mediums for writers to utilize.  “The word blog is a contraction of the words ‘web’ and ‘log’”(Rettberg 30). Originally, they were not called blogs, but weblogs, as they are on the internet. The Oxford English Dictionary defined ‘weblog’ as “A frequently updated website consisting of personal observations, excerpts from other sources, etc. typically run by a single person, and usually with hyperlinks to other sites; an online journal or diary” (Rettberg 34). Wikipedias first definition of blog is from September 18^th 2012, stating “A discussion or informational site that is published on the World Wide Web and consisting of discrete entries typically displayed in reverse chronological order” (Rettberg 32).

Blogs have can various topics, and can also be either professional or personal. It is up to the blogger. “Blogs are far more diverse in their subject matter than either comedies or sonnets” (Rettberg 31). Blogs today are more diverse than ever, and are used for many different things. Bloggers use their sites to get their opinions and points of view out into the world. This has become a new way for the publishers to personally reach out to their readers.

Rettberg discusses that there is a thin line between a blog being a medium or a genre. “Scholars have suggested that, rather than looking at the internet as a single medium, it makes more sense to consider different authoring software as providing different media” (Rettberg 32). Rettberg then states that yes, a blog is a medium while what you write on the blog is a genre and sub genre. I agree with that and believe that the genres on these blogs show who the author is. If a comic wants to get their jokes out to their audiences, they may use a blog to write and share their ideas. The medium is the blog, but the genre is comedy.

Journalist can use blogs to get their ideas out into the public when they have no other options. My sister, for example, is a comedian and journalist. She has a blog in which she has continuously written on for 6 years. During that time, she has had a few different journalist jobs, New York Times or Buzzfeed, but her personal writing and ideas stay on the blog for her fans and audience. Through her blog, she found a way to reach the audience she wanted, in a medium that was accessible to her. “In twentieth-century democratic societies, people wishing to have their words and ideas published or broadcast had to contend with editorial policies that were generally based on ideology or on what advertisers support or the public buy” (Rettberg 90). With this being the case, many stories were not published because they did not, at the time, seem newsworthy. In today’s society, anything can be published on a blog. This idea of personal blogs changed the way the internet was used.

In the Miller and Shepard article, they state that bloggers were initially unaware of the audience they could reach with these blogs. The freedom to have a space where writers can express their ideas on their own merits is an incredible attribution to what blogs have become today. Blogs can be used for all different genres and can convey whatever message the author would like. They have changed the way writers and journalist publish their stories.

Miller, Carolyn R. and Dawn Shepherd. “Blogging as Social Action: A Genre Analysis of the Weblog.” Into the Blogosphere [Rhetoric, Community, and Culture of Weblogs]. North Carolina State University. Web. 14 September 2014. 

Rettburg, Jill Walker. Blogging: Digital Media and Society Series. Cambirdge, 2014. Print. 

Scientific Journals Blog

I agree with Aubrey's post about the adaptation of a scientific journal into an article that will interest the public. In both Palmer and Killingsworth’s article  “Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America” and Fahnestock’s “Accommodating Science, The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts”, they discuss the difficulties that come with taking a scientific discovery and making it into a scientific journal. While scientific discoveries are important, the way these discoveries are presented to the public must be intriguing to the audience. People who are interested in science will easily take an appeal to these topics, but an audience who is not familiar with scientific topics will not care about the work. Both authors note that original scientific discoveries are written with a more complicated vocabulary than most people have. Science has it’s own language in a way, and only other scientist truly understand it. Fahnestock stated that the public has a right to know these discoveries, but the concern is with the public’s ability to understand them. A journalist will take this original discovery, and turn it into an article that a general audience can understand. The intriguing aspect of both of these articles is that the science part of the discovery is almost forgotten when an article is written. 

The major difference in a discovery and an article is that the scientists are writing facts of what occurred, while a journalist is attempting to find an edge for their story. A journalist, who may be interested in writing the piece, depends on more appealing and willing sources and information. “Human interest is the leading factor in determining what scientific activities will be covered as big stories” (Palmer/Killingsworth p.3). While this is true, scientists may not be so happy with this idea. When human interests are included into the objective, it goes against two main aspects of scientific objectivity. First, it insists that science must have social value, and second, it insists that science must not only be applied to general human problems, but it must solve these problems.

In Fahnestock’s article, he notes that the change of audience will bring a change of genre. He states that there are three big factors that occur during this change, the genre shift, the change in statement types that occurs with a larger audience and the effectiveness of classical stasis theory in clarifying what goes on in the rhetorical life of a scientific observation. The minor changes made to the way a scientific journal is written are attempting to add significance to the subject by claiming its uniqueness. The genre shift, that Fahnestock mentions, is from a forensic discourse to an epideictic discourse, which concerns judgment over whether something deserves praise or blame. The public will ultimately decide if this is something worth their time. Journalists want to celebrate the news rather than validate the news, giving it that extra sparkle for the audience. “Thus the work of epideictic rhetoric in scientific journalism requires the adjustment of new information to an audience’s already held values and assumptions” (Fahnestock p. 6).

With this change in genre comes a change in information. The facts themselves are not changed, but a journalist will find the points of interest that will appeal to the audience and expand upon them. Fahnestock states in his essay, “glamorizing is the writer’s purpose throughout accommodation, part of his heavy task of bringing a deliberately dry research report into the realm of interesting journalism” (Fahnestock p.8). While the research may sound boring to some, the outcome of the research can be magnificent. That is what the journalist will aim for rather than facts. Qualifications and validations become less important when writing for a general audience.

Both authors seem to have the same general idea in their articles, changing a scientific journal for a broader audience is difficult and can change the overall subject of a journal to aim at a topic that the audience will respond well to. When these articles are dumbed down, they lose the important information that the scientist probably wanted others to see. The audience just wants to see that it works, but don’t generally care how it works. While the scientist, who worked hard and created something, will not be able to reach a larger audience. Both essays suggest that studying this topic of changing scientific journals for an article should be looked into more. The science part of a discovery is just as important at the discovery itself.

Fahnestock, J. "Accommodating Science: The Rhetorical Life of Scientific Facts." Written Communication 15.3 (1998): 330-50. Web.

Killingsworth, M. Jimmie, and Jacqueline S. Palmer. "Ecospeak: Rhetoric and Environmental Politics in America." Choice Reviews Online 30.03 (1992): 30-1771. Web.