Gary Weiser
Engl 278Z
Section 0201
Geary
Rhetorical Analysis of Two Sources
As technology improves, so too does the technology associated with popular media. Increasingly, the internet has become the source of information for the majority of people. This shift in the major source for information has resulted in new requirements for entrance into the parlor room of ideas. This means that the requirements for discussing new ideas in a forum that contributes to the zeitgeist of the people has changed to a necessity to both access and contribute to the content on the internet. When we look to the previous preferred sources of media and information such as the radio and television there is a disconnect between those contributing to the discussions and those receiving content from them. In more general terms, more people watch television or listen to radio that contribute content to them. As a result there is an uneven amount of power content producers have in the parlor room of ideas in determining the discussions and opinions expressed. While researching this phenomenon, two sources were discovered, both explaining the necessity of keeping an open forum on the internet not limited by a disproportionate power wielded by content producers over noncontributing viewers. Though these two sources express this sentiment in different ways both in terms of mode of expression and in the form the argument takes. While the video of Al Gore introducing his book The Assault on Reason (source 1) make use of oratorical rhetoric to prove its point, the second source is and academic paper that makes use of mathematical proofs and logic to show the sociological benefits of net neutrality.
One of the most obvious differences between these two sources is technologic mode theses two sources take. The video of a presentation by Al Gore is quite different from the scholarly paper that makes up the second source. This results in different rhetorical effect when viewing or reading these sources. Notably is the difference in the method that ethos of the speakers is generated. The ethos of the video is intrinsic, as there is an arete, or excellence, associated with Al Gore that gives whatever is said by him (of a serious nature) even in generally considered popular modes. Meanwhile, the credibility of the scholarly article is context specific, were the same content in a less scholarly location, the article would have a different rhetorical feel despite having the same content. Furthermore, inherent in the use of a paper rather than a video is a very different message suggesting that the scholarly nature of the piece. However there is a similarity in the two modes as well. That lies in the decision of what mode would be used to create that argument by Al Gore and the two economists, Economides and Tåg, who created the second source. As a well known orator, Gore’s use of video and speech reflects an understanding of the mode within which he carries the most credibility. This meaning that if the two sources were to have their modes reversed, the rhetorical power generated by the two arguments would be lessened. Thus, both sources are similar in mode reflecting the limitations of the credibility of the speaker and authors.
A more in depth analysis of the rhetorical approaches taken by the two sources reveals another level of differences between the two regarding to the form the arguments take within their respective modes. As a video, Al Gore makes use of the spoken word to discuss the need for everyone to take part in the political discussion of ideas within the parlor room of ideas. Meanwhile, the scholarly article makes use of mathematical proofs and equations generated from economics to discuss the need to maintain net neutrality. This has a decided effect on the rhetorical result of the two sources. For example, as a video, Gore’s use of pathos by harkening back to the time immediately preceding our invasion of Iraq in 2003. This use of pathos within a video reflects a clear understanding of the benefits and limitations of using a video, or more specifically a speech, to express an opinion where well spoken pathos can have a powerful effect while numbers and data that may be difficult to take the time to explain likely falls short. Conversely, the scholarly nature of the second source allows for the use of such data and as a result a strong logos argument in lieu of emotional appeals. Thus, though the two sources make use of differing methods to generate their argument within their respective mode, both make use of methods well suited to the modes chosen. As a result, both a have a similar rhetorical effect in their ability to strengthen the effect of their argument through effect choices in the method used in their arguments.
Though both works present the benefit of net neutrality and more generally the benefits both economically and socially of having an open forum (or Parlor room if you will) for which to provide and discuss content, these arguments are achieved while discussing different topic in a more specific sense. In his speech, Al Gore discusses the inequality in the power content providers of television and the media have on the marketplace of ideas. This is achieved by discussing how people were misinformed about the pretense of the Iraq War due to the misleading information presented by the media who did so as a result of pressure from the White House. Meanwhile, the scholarly article discusses that it is in the economic best interest of a society that does not want its power vested in a sole individual or corporation to maintain net neutrality. This comes from mathematical logic that reveals that a two way pay system in which both content providers and content viewers must pay for access to each other is less ideal than a one way system in which only the viewers most pay for access to content. Though these two conclusions seem different, their points are similar in the general view that society benefits when there are as many content producers as possible (stemming from the ease and inexpensive nature of producing content in the internet) which prevents anyone group of content producers from having disproportionate amount of discussion altering power in the parlor room of ideas.
Though sources may be different, that does not mean they cannot be used to strengthen the same argument. These two sources are drastically different both in the technologic mode in which they are presented as well as method within that mode used by the author or speaker to present their argument. Though this may be the case, both sources make a similar argument in the benefit for society that is an open source for discussion among society. This is accomplished by use of emotional appeals by Gore in his video and a clear understanding of their perspective audience as exemplified by method choice on the part of the creators of both sources. These conscious choices not only help connect the argument with its audience but also reflect an excellence and credibility gained by the speaker for showing that they understand the audience to whom they are speaking.
Though sources may be different, that does not mean they cannot be used to strengthen the same argument. These two sources are drastically different both in the technologic mode in which they are presented as well as method within that mode used by the author or speaker to present their argument. Though this may be the case, both sources make a similar argument in the benefit for society that is an open source for discussion among society. This is accomplished by use of emotional appeals by Gore in his video and a clear understanding of their perspective audience as exemplified by method choice on the part of the creators of both sources. These conscious choices not only help connect the argument with its audience but also reflect an excellence and credibility gained by the speaker for showing that they understand the audience to whom they are speaking.
