Updated Trackback Prewriting

Now that I've had some time to read through part of Richard Lanham's The Economy of Attention, I have a much better sense of where I'm going. So, I wanted to post an updated blog.

Basically, I’m using Lanham to define the economy of attention and will present and analyze the two types he discusses - the style expressed through Andy Warhol and the style expressed through Christo Javacheff. I plan to briefly explain each of these examples and track back the influences through scholars we have discussed. Thus far I have Aristotle for audience, Quintillian and Isocrates for style versus substance, Aristotle again for universal audience, and enthymemic rhetoric - this is all for Warhol discussion. Then, when discussing Wrapped Boxes and Running Fences I will use Augustine for clear and direct rhetoric, Aristotle for virtue, wisdom and goodwill (in terms of rhetoric) - and I’m still researching other rhetors for this section - Toulmin’s data/warrant/claim, Cicero and Quintillian for an emphasis on style. Then, I plan to bring in Liza Potts' Social Media and Disaster Response to discuss experience architects and the way they respond to unusual/unintended uses of social media tools.

Along with the tracking, I will connect each of these two styles to styles of social media I see - Warhol = viral fluff while Christo = altruistic uses.

Trackback: Economics of Attention

First of all, thanks to Lancia for reminding me of this term. The more I explore it, the more interesting it becomes! That is why I am doing my trackback assignment on the economics of attention.

The unfortunate thing about this term is that it is new to me, so I feel like I need a better idea of the concept and arguments going on around it before I write. Not like I don't have enough reading to do! For this reason, I don't have a real sense of how the biggest chunk of my trackback will go, but I will be reading a lot this weekend.

I know that I want to create a Keynote presentation that I will then narrate over (instead of a traditional essay). I also know that I want to apply the concept of economics of attention to social media. In order to tie this (at least loosely) to my class presentation (rhetoric of panic), I believe I will  argue for a new interpretation of this term. It is my understanding that the essence of the economics of attention is that people need to produce relevant content that will prompt some sort of purchase. Basically, producers of content must provide something that the viewer thinks is worth her time. Again, with a lack of thorough reading, my understanding is that this is generally applied to literally selling products, generating clicks on sponsored sites, or "liking" something; however, I want to argue that this concept can also be applied to social media when the response isn't a purchase, but sharing of information - either for positive, altruistic purposes like disaster response or for hedonistic or destructive desires, like inducing panic.

To do this, I need to define economics of attention and show how it can be applied to social media in this way. The two primary connections I will trace are appealing to a specific audience and the development of ethos. However, these will include discussion of style, Toulmin's data/warrant/claim with the expectation of building ethos, Perelman's specific versus universal audience (that also reflects Plato), the need for phronesis (connecting back to Aristotle) and kairos.

Basically, I'm hoping to understand and communicate how some social media posts go viral by creating effective rhetoric that takes advantage of the economics of attention.

Virtual Rhetoric

Prompt: If language is ever shifting, and if we have more recently seen a massive shift in communication practices both in terms of presentation tools and global connections, how should rhetoric shift in terms of its instruction?


We have been reading and discussing the major shift in rhetoric from being concerned with the qualities of the rhetoric because those are the things good rhetoric must have, to a greater emphasis on what the audience needs in order for the rhetoric to be effective. I think that is even more necessary today; however, it is also much more difficult. We discussed and agreed that there is no universal audience, which means there is no one group we can direct our rhetoric to in the hopes of making it effective for the largest group of people. But now with the prevalence of the Internet it is impossible to truly narrow our audience. Although certain people tend towards certain sites and forums (ex: Instagram is now incredibly popular with younger users) all users can access most sites, which means it is more about marketing demographics - who has a larger tendency to view my argument/material/rhetoric?

How should this affect the instruction of rhetoric? I think the primary way is that we need to emphasize the ever shifting audience and the need to know as much as you can about that audience. We can never reach everyone, but if we know who would probably read/view our content and who would benefit most from it, then we can construct our rhetoric to more accurately reach that group. I guess I'm saying that the instruction of rhetoric should, in some ways, meld with marketing courses. There is no longer a "one size fits all" set of guidelines that equates to successful rhetoric. We need to now help ourselves and our students to see the global audience and strive to appeal to it as much as possible. (I say that with the previously stated opinion that there is no universal audience.) This implies a greater need to emphasize the rhetorical situation as a whole, and audience specifically.

I think we also need to expose students to how rhetoric can be produced and experienced/viewed online. We traditionally direct instruction - and research, really - towards very print-based means. Even when we have students research though the library, the sources are generally digital versions of something they could access in print. But that is now how the world works now. Content is designed specifically for the web. The colors, layout, font, length, word choice, images... everything is presented in a particular way because this content will be viewed on a computer or a smart phone. This is something that the younger generation takes for granted because they grew up with it. Those of us who are a little older, however, view the Internet with a bit more skepticism (or awe) because we remember a time when print was it. Many of our students do not think, let alone think critically, about what they find online - the content, the layout, or the context - which is why I think new studies of rhetoric need to focus on those elements. Because what they publish is so widely seen, students need to know how to produce effective rhetoric and how to avoid creating an online persona that could be damaging - or simply misrepresenting - them now and in the future.

Thoughts on Abundant Style

I found the section on abundance style interesting, but somewhat paradoxical of times. Abundant style seems to be the methodology behind what words to use and which ones to avoid when communicating. Some of them makes sense, but others seem to contradict one another. Erasmus breaks copia (abundant style) into two areas: one, richness of expression; two, richness of subject matter. The use of synonyms seems logical to me. It is important to not duplicate or to sound monotonous as Erasmus explains. And the avoidance of vulgar words also makes sense. However, when he gets into our kick, obsolete, and harsh words there seems to be some redundancy. This is where the emphasis on audience comes into play to a larger extent. Archaic words "add charm" if they are used with the right audience in the right place. It seems that this is also a rule for harsh, obsolete, and foreign words.

While this does make sense to me, I don't know why exactly they needed to be articulated. However, I suppose the idea of audience as important to rhetoric was new at this point in time. However, at this point it seems somewhat unnecessary to state. The more interesting juxtaposition for me is between unusual words and new words. They almost seem as if they are the same thing. New words seem to be a new pairing of other words, where unusual words also seem to be a pairing that, although new, doesn't seem to work for the audience. I'm not sure how one would tell the difference until after the audience had responded to one.

As for my example, I am not sure if I am supposed to write one or simply mention an application. I'm going to opt for the application. Although the prompt mentions an application and our workplace, the elections are more on my mind. Reviewing the section made me think more of an elected official's first statement in office. Perhaps more specifically, a presidential speech. That is not the time to be vulgar, use unusual words, or sound monotonous. I can see how all of these things would apply and that it would greatly depend on audience. Although a president would be speaking to a variety of different people, it would be important for him or her to address a middle ground. S/he would need to use common language, sound interesting, and do as much as possible to be clear and unoffensive.

Dialectic: Take Three!

I figured since no one had commented on my previous draft, I'd update my post to get more accurate feedback.


This is incomplete and a lot of the more important bits are still unwritten, but I'd love your feedback. Specifically, I'd like to know where you might want to hear more. Is the event itself clear? My goal is to begin the dialectic with dialogue, yes, but also to establish the context for a discussion on how to respond to social media related panic. I may even extend some of that conversation to this panic in school-aged children, like those affected in this example. Also, if you have read anything about social media benefitting in disaster response or enacting panic, I'd love to hear your two cents. I will be diving into a new book by Liza Potts this weekend to see if she can shed some light and help me generate some ideas for the meatiest part of my dialectic. Thanks!

Because this event took place over several days, I have chosen to break the dialectic into stages. Each stage represents a dialogue that could have taken place during that time. Together, they function to provide context and lead into the problem-solving area of the dialectic between the scholar and the high school principal.

Wednesday September 3, 2014

---

Student/child: I can’t go to school tomorrow. Something bad is going to happen.

Parent: What? Why do you say that?

Student/child: I saw it on Instagram. Those guys, the ones who call themselves The Merry Men, tagged our campus. It was all over Instagram.

Parent: The Merry Men? Aren’t those the people who tagged the Catholic Church a month ago with antiestablishment propaganda? They tagged the school?

Student/child: Yeah, two nights ago – on Tuesday. They were bragging all over Instagram. Now everybody is freaking out on Twitter because somebody is saying they are going to shoot up the school tomorrow!

Parent: Okay. There is absolutely no way that I am letting you go to school tomorrow. With all of the school shootings over the last few years, we are not risking this for one day of class. Plus, I would be a nervous wreck all day. I wonder how the school supervisors are going to handle this?

Thursday September 4, 2014

---

Principal: After last night, I didn’t think this week could get any worse. First, our campus was tagged by The Merry Men. Then, there was tremendous social media chatter about a shooting today. This isn’t the sort of thing I take lightly, especially not with the rising wave of school shootings. Bullard High students must remain safe, but at what cost? We cannot live in fear. We cannot forgo education in light of panic. That is why we went on high alert. Although I don’t believe that guns are the solution to our problems, these guns held by highly trained officers of the law might prevent these insane antiestablishment Merry Men from instilling more fear, harm, and possibly fatalities here on our campus. And if guns in the right hands on the right days will prevent that, then I am an advocate for guns. Bombs are a different story.

Late this morning, around 11:00 am, I felt hollow after reading an email stating there was a bomb on my campus. A bomb. On my campus. The panic generated by last night’s Instagram threat was enough to cause too many students to avoid school today, and who can blame them? Now, I have no choice but to close the campus early even though we have swept the campus and found that both threats have been false. The panic was too widespread. Students didn’t take it seriously enough and parents overreacted. It seems that the days before social media prevailed were simpler times, but there is no going back. So how can we mitigate or even circumnavigate this kind of event in future?

In Reflection

---

Scholar: The events at Bullard High School were eye opening, but thankfully not tragic. Did the principal and other leadership make wise and rational decisions? Yes. Although closing the campus early did not remove the panic, it did eliminate possible risk and acknowledged that the fear was too extreme for the educational system to function properly.

Principal: But over 800 students sacrificed both their freedom and education that day.

Scholar: This is true; however, keeping them in the classroom would not necessarily have alleviated those losses. When the mind is occupied with another subject, be it pleasant or fearful, other focus is lost. If these children had remained in their classes, they would not have retained the lessons taught. Their minds would have been on the possible risk involved for themselves and their friends. And there was also the small chance that physical harm would come to pass on the campus. Unfortunately, violence has become an increasingly common occurrence in educational settings. Releasing students was the best decision for you, your campus, and everyone involved.

Principal: Although it was a difficult decision, I agree. It was the best option of those available. But this may not be an isolated event. With social media growing, it is easier for any threats, real or fake, to incite panic.

Scholar: This may be true, but there was panic before social media. You may have heard the saying that people are smart, rational beings, but crowds are stupid and emotional beasts. Sadly, this tends to be true. But we used to think of these crowds in the traditional sense – people gathered in one centralized location to picket or rally torch-and-pitchfork-style against a common fear. But times have changed. Now, crowds can be virtual. Panic can be shared internationally. What was once considered a local issue can now be viewed nationally or even globally.

Principal: Yes, but social media has added to this, and has changed it. Virtually all of my students have some sort of social media profile. While Instagram is the most popular right now, Facebook and Twitter are still contenders. And because so many people use social media and because they are so intertwined, information travels at light speed. When young people decide something is worth sharing, it goes viral immediately. Often times, that information is simply pop culture – a cat video, someone doing something stupid who got caught on tape, a bit of celebrity gossip – but now I have seen how a threat can also go viral. What may start out as an act of goodwill – of sharing knowledge – easily snowballs into mass panic. And these young users don’t have the power to make real changes. They have the power to share information, but not to make sure their school is safe and their friends are protected. No matter how inspired or enamored they may be by superheroes, most cannot and should not take a stand in these sorts of situations.

Scholar: That fact has not changed. Most people are not destined to be heroes, for myriad reasons. So the real issue is twofold. First, can we remove panic? The answer is unequivocally no. The news tells us on a daily basis what we should fear. In 2001 it was Anthrax, then it was West Nile. In 2005, the Bird Flu. A few years later, the world was going to end because of a bad economy. Obama Care carried the torch in 2011, and now it’s Ebola. Any of these issues may legitimately warrant concern, but were they worth widespread panic? Probably not, but the fact remains that panic ensues.

This was the case even before social media, and even before modern technology as we know it. The Internet has simply made it easier for the average person to share what she knows, be that opinion, fact, or a melding of the two.

Principal: Yes, I used to think that was a good thing. Students had all sorts of information at their fingertips. If we didn’t have funding for additional library books, it didn’t matter; we had computers. Although students did not always know how to find the right information, the information was there for them to find.

Scholar: But that is the crux: we must find the right information. Within the last twenty years, information transitioned from being generated by experts to being generated by anyone with a blog. We used the peer review process to make sure anything available was accurate and well grounded, but that is no longer the case. This is not to bemoan the old days; it is simply to examine a reality. Once, not long ago, readers knew they may not agree with an author, but the information within the article would be sound. Those articles still exist, but they are now nestled amongst ungrounded rants and unqualified statements presented as facts, which makes distinguishing truth from hearsay significantly more challenging.

The cause of this new kind of panic is rooted in this: uncensored authorship. Not only has uncensored authorship allowed any uneducated – and I do not mean this simply in the formal sense of the word – person to make a statement about any given subject, it has driven a shift towards sensationalism and relevance. The news, once a trusted source for accurate information, has shifted its gaze towards stories and presentation that garner increased audiences, not informed audiences. Therefore, when there is a small outbreak of salmonella poisoning, it becomes a pandemic, with or without warrant. Social media has taken this to the next level. This is most evident in parody websites, like The Onion. Blatantly fallacious mock news stories are posted on these sites and are often shared via sites like Facebook and Twitter. However, many users are accustomed to trusting whatever they see and they, therefore, take the article as truth. With the best of intentions, this misinformed user shares the article with friends, family, and often strangers, accompanied with words of excitement or caution, until someone (hopefully) sets the user straight. If such an obviously falsified document can be mistaken for truth, imagine the erroneous beliefs that are generated through the sharing of misguided rants and new stories.

Principal: Yes, I see that on this campus every week and hear the teachers complaining about students who use faulty or untrustworthy sources as their research. And clearly, panic can be generated from these false and sensationalist sources. But then the question is what can we do about it?  

Scholar: Excellent question, and it brings me to my second point. If panic cannot be eliminated, then we must establish methods to monitor and deescalate it.

Principal: My sentiments exactly! But how can that be done? And more specifically, how can I enact this for my student population?

Scholar: Despite the additional pathos involved with the safety of minors, there are several strategies that could be put in place to nullify potential issues before complete panic ensues.

Dialectic... Take 2

This is very incomplete and, really, the most important bits are still unwritten, but I'd love your feedback. Specifically, I'd like to know where you might want to hear more. Is the event itself clear? My goal is to begin the dialectic with dialogue, yes, but also to establish the context for a discussion on how to respond to social media related panic. I may even extend some of that conversation to this panic in school-aged children, like those affected in this example. Also, if you have read anything about social media benefitting in disaster response or enacting panic, I'd love to hear your two cents. I will be diving into a new book by Liza Potts this weekend to see if she can shed some light and help me generate some ideas for the meatiest part of my dialectic. Thanks!

I hope this is okay, but I wanted to do a somewhat cinematic dialectic that spans more than one day because of the way this specific event played out.

Wednesday September 3, 2014

Student/child: I can’t go to school tomorrow. Something bad is going to happen.

Parent: What? Why do you say that?

Student/child: I saw it on Instagram. Those guys, the ones who call themselves The Merry Men, tagged our campus. It was all over Instagram.

Parent: The Merry Men? Aren’t those the people who tagged the Catholic Church a month ago with antiestablishment propaganda? They tagged the school?

Student/child: Yeah, two nights ago – on Tuesday. They were bragging all over Instagram. Now everybody is freaking out on Twitter because somebody is saying they are going to shoot up the school tomorrow!

Parent: Okay. There is absolutely no way that I am letting you go to school tomorrow. With all of the school shootings over the last few years, we are not risking this for one day of class. Plus, I would be a nervous wreck all day. I wonder how the school supervisors are going to handle this?

Thursday September 4, 2014

Principal: After last night, I didn’t think this week could get any worse. First, our campus was tagged by The Merry Men. Then, there was tremendous social media chatter about a shooting today. This isn’t the sort of thing I take lightly, especially not with the rising wave of school shootings. Bullard High students must remain safe, but at what cost? We cannot live in fear. We cannot forgo education in light of panic. That is why we went on high alert. Although I don’t believe that guns are the solution to our problems, these guns held by highly trained officers of the law might prevent these insane antiestablishment Merry Men from instilling more fear, harm, and possibly fatalities here on our campus. And if guns in the right hands on the right days will prevent that, then I am an advocate for guns. Bombs are a different story.

Late this morning, around 11:00 am, I felt hollow after reading an email stating there was a bomb on my campus. A bomb. On my campus. The panic generated by last night’s Instagram threat was enough to cause too many students to avoid school today, and who can blame them? Now, I have no choice but to close the campus early even though we have swept the campus and found that both threats have been hollow. The panic was too widespread. Students didn’t take it seriously enough and parents overreacted. It seems that the days before social media prevailed were simpler times, but there is no going back. So how can we mitigate or even circumnavigate this kind of event in future?

** I know the remainder of this is the really important part, but I haven’t quite gotten there yet. With Dr. Rice’s help, I just got the general structure down. From here, I will have the principal and a scholar debate the different options for handling this kind of social media event in future.