Questions for Week 10: Larsen

1.      Larsen discusses how television has “the lonely crowd” where people have secluded themselves from their community or neighbors because of the television.  Further explaining how society’s massive consumption of television does not encourage socializing, but in fact deters it.

From reading his article, it sounds as though it was written in the ‘90s.  I was wondering if the computer has taken the place of the television in terms of making us part of “the lonely crowd.” People still consume a lot of television but at the same time I wonder if television has lost some of its luster, especially in comparison to the internet.  In addition the technology surrounding the internet is rapidly and continuously updating, as opposed to the television. Do you think that the television still holds the same power to make us part of “the lonely crowd?” Do you think that the internet does this more effectively and if so, why?

2.      Larsen refers to McLuhan’s theory about hot and cold media. “Hot” media being that which is easy to perceive and demands little from the audience in terms of interpretation. “Cold” media is the opposite. It is more interactive for the audience and the message is less clear.

When thinking about news networks, such as FOX news, CNN, and MSNBC, which all have relatively clear political slants. Do you think that these would be considered “hot” media because of this? Or would you consider them “cool?” Why? Do you think that technology has anything to do with this?

3.      Gatekeepers decide what goes on the air and when. “Mass media do not tell us what to think; they tell us what to think about.” Sometimes there is deeper meaning to this, for example, news networks may decide against airing a program because it would upset their advertisers or conflicts with the head of the studio’s political views. But sometimes it merely has to do with time.

With newspapers disappearing and news being consumed by way of the internet, how do you think gatekeeping will affect journalism, especially investigative journalism? Do you think people are going to read an in-depth investigative article that is five pages online? How do you think this will affect the quality of journalism, if at all?

Response to Kelsey Mallahan's First Question: Week 9

“It would appear then that the print-oriented society, responding to the technology of movable type, became so independent, isolated, and self-reliant that there was progressively less need for social communication.”(260) This reminds me much of the advent of technologies such as e-mail and text messaging. With more ways of communicating with out talking is our society trading out our “ears” for our “eyes” much like that of the society of Gutenberg’s technology? And if so, will there become a time when we don’t need social communication at all?

I agree with McLuhan’s argument that with certain technologies we are trading one sense for another, or as he puts it, “amputating” one sense for the other. Thinking about communicating by way of the written word for instance, makes wonder what is being sacrificed in terms of information in this transmission, no matter what medium is utilized. The receiver loses the fullness of the speaker’s tone and in correlation the speaker has to work harder to convey their tone and reflect their voice. The same message may produce two different rhetorical situations depending on its transmission, written or spoken.

Thinking about how technology has further changed this, I think that technology has provided us with tools that can dull our ability to express ourselves by way of the written/typed/texted word. I believe this is what is being sacrificed as opposed to a specific sense. With texting for instance, the writer no longer has to use his/her armory of vocabulary to express emotion, they merely need to end a sentence with J. There is less of a challenge or desire to utilize language beautifully and powerfully. Furthermore, we are no longer challenging ourselves psychologically by communicating face-to-face, which is far more difficult for some socially; we are losing “social communion.” I don’t believe there will be a time when we, as a world full of diverse societies and cultures, no longer need social communion. Think about the power of the first impression…it has the ability to get us jobs, partners, friends, etc. and it has the power to take away all those opportunities. I think that this will always exist. If not, it would be a detriment to society. I feel that there are some individuals who strive to live an existence that relies on technology that removes them from society. You tell me if you think that that’s healthy.

Questions for February 16-19

1. In regards to the slippery slope argument, the authors explain that “when an advocate objects to something not because it is undesirable but because it may lead to something else that is undesirable,” they are presenting a slippery slope argument. My first question is concerned with the definition of the slippery slope argument. What if the argument presented is undesirable to the advocate and then they explain that it might lead to further undesirable things, are they still presenting a slippery slope argument? An example of my questioning is certain groups argument against gay marriage. They find it undesirable to begin with and they argue that it will lead to other undesirable things, the most ridiculous argument is that it will lead to people wanting to marry anything. I always assumed that this was a slippery slope argument, am I correct? Can an advocate find it undesirable to begin with and their argument still be defined as a slippery slope argument?

2. Many of the fallacies presented seem to have the motive of manipulating the audience's emotions in order to “win” an argument: appeal to pity; appeal to fear; pointing out your opponents personal flaws. The authors also point out throughout the chapter the importance of being likable on a certain level: “most people prefer not to associate with argumentative people. So choose the arguments you wish to initiate wisely;” “Some individuals get swept up in the process and engage in tactics which undermine their credibility and likability.” Obviously there is a value in the audience's emotions and their opinion of the debaters. My question is what if you pair some of the examples of fallacies with a “good” logical argument, would the argument be better and more powerful or would it be committing fallacies?

3. Throughout the chapter the authors explain different tactics used in argument. If the affirmative or the negative refutes the oppositions' claim and basically take apart their argument do they then have to present a solution for every refutation. I believe the authors explained that if you decide to argue this way you must also present an alternative solution for the audience. Do you have to do this throughout your argument as you refute the opponents specific claims or do you present an overall solution at the end? 

Response to Shelley's Week 6 Questions

Shelley pondered the effectiveness of generalizations used in argument discussed by Warnick and Inch. The authors reason that “in a generalization one reasons that what is true of certain members of a class will also be true of other members of the same class or of the class as a whole.” Warnick and Inch supply four questions that are intended to test the validity of the claim made in generalizations. Because these tests shed light on how easily a generalization can fall short, Shelley wondered how effective they really are and if “they work on an audience.”

I think that in certain arenas generalizations can be very effective, even if they are invalid or exaggerated. I think that they would be very effective on young audiences because they may lack the analytical skills to test the generalization. They may also not have the knowledge or life experience to supply comparisons to refute the claim of the generalization.

The other area where I think that the use of generalizations in arguments can be effective is in politics. Generalizations create buzz and even if they later prove to be invalid or unfounded that initial reaction took place and changed the rhetorical situation. For instance, during the campaign there were generalizations (some due to association) made by both candidates. McCain pointed out the connection between William Ayers and Obama, which created a media storm that may have caused viewers (the audience) to make generalizations about Obama’s politics and patriotism. Though the facts about the connection seemed to invalidly produce the generalization they were still powerful, especially among right-wing conservatives.

This brings me to another reason why generalizations can be effective even if faulty. Sometimes the audiences’ desire to believe them can over shadow their desire to test or question the validity. I believe that this can make for a very difficult rhetorical situation and a distraction. Furthermore, if the generalization being made proves to be true, then that can support the speaker if he/she attempts to make another claim (chaining).