Extra Credit Key Term: Propaganda

Definition:

The dictionary definition of propaganda defines the term as information that is presented (usually) in a misleading nature in order to publicize or vouch for a certain viewpoint. There is a strong negative connotation with the term and it is mostly referred to information that is biased and intended to support a specific claim over another.

Example:

Any politically charged topic will have some examples of propaganda. Political ad campaigns in which a candidate mentions the voting history of his or her opponent may qualify as propaganda; for example, "S/he voted to raise taxes this many times" without giving any information regarding the circumstances in which they voted is obviously used to highlight the initially negative view of having to pay taxes.

Anti-vaxination is almost entirely propaganda in that it's about persuasion through fear and misleading or incorrect data.

Excerpt from reading:

This comes from the fourth segment regarding the importance to analyze a rhetor according to the time period of the object under analysis rather than what is available in the time of the critic.Here, propaganda is listed alongside other details concerning the popular theories and rhetoricians, illustrating its use as a rhetorical tool, albeit it a more dishonest one considering its uses.

“The principle means that the student of an early nineteenth-century movement will ground his judgments in the theories of Blair and Campbell; that a critic of a movement occurring within the last thirty years, on the other hand will operate within the theoretical atmosphere created by latter-day rhetoricians; that he will acknowledge the presence of the Propagandist, and the various devices of propaganda, in the theoretical atmosphere of the times”

Audience Description Post

The ‘millenial’ demographic and future generations are going to continue to be the most diverse generations in american history, an article by Pew Research that defines Millenials as people born after 1980 claims that “43% of Millennial adults are non-white"(D’Vera and Caumont). Generations have been steadily becoming more and more educated while being hit harder by the recession than other age groups. ("Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.", 2010) As well as being “Less Religiously Active than Older Americans”.

2.      Come up with one specific, representative detail about your imagined reader that helps you understand who they are concretely. i.e. background, education, culture, etc.

However diverse and educated and not religiously active American Millennials are they are still American’s and with that comes a whole multitude of dynamic beliefs and opinions. Each and every last one of them believes that America is the place where, regardless of the political and social climate, they can practice those beliefs and shout those opinions freely. This is what all Americans share, millennial are just coming into they’re own and starting to add to the national voice. This brings forth the question in their mind about what change they would like to see in the world and how to implicate that. Millennials are ready to strike.

3.      List the principles relevant to your issue that you and this person probably share.

Everyone likes Thanksgiving, generally speaking.

We can all agree Native American’s got a raw deal

Mashed potatoes and gravy are good any time of year

4.      List the principles relevant to your issue that you and this person probably do not share.

Tradition is over rated

It’s a necessary change

5.      Do any of the principles in 4 represent insurmountable obstacles to them accepting your argument?

Probably for some people. I really should add to the list. 

6.      Where will you and this reader find common ground?

I’d like to argue that American holidays have been somewhat taken over by capitalism. That tradition really can be proven to be somewhat a myth, especially the myth that Thanksgiving is founded upon. 

7.      Are there any issues on which you are not willing to concede ground to your listener or where you will feel the need to explicitly reject their principles?

Yeah tradition is over rated, specifically this one. I’ve got a few things I need to research before I can fully explicate that argument but I think there’s going to be sufficient historical and hopefully ironic information out there supporting that.

8.      Where in your paper will you explicitly acknowledge and respond to possible objections that this audience might have?

This is going to be like that paper “The Rhetoric of the Streets’ with the amount of acknowledging and responding I’m about to throw down

Cohn, D’Vera, and Andrea Caumont. “10 Demographic Trends That Are Shaping the U.S. and the World.” Pew Research Center, Pew Research Center, 2016, www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/03/31/10-demographic-trends-that-are-shaping-the-u-s-and-the-world/. 

Ryan, Camille L, and Kurt Bauman. “Educational Attainment in the United States: 2015.” Census.gov, US Census Bureau, Mar. 2016, www.census.gov/content/dam/Census/library/publications/2016/demo/p20-578.pdf.

Smith, Samantha. “The Whys and Hows of Generations Research.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Pew Research Center, Mar. 2015, www.people-press.org/2015/09/03/the-whys-and-hows-of-generations-research/.

“Millennials: Confident. Connected. Open to Change.” Pew Research Center for the People and the Press, Pew Research, 24 Feb. 2010, assets.pewresearch.org/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2010/10/millennials-confident-connected-open-to-change.pdf. p. 39

Wormald, Benjamin. “Millennial Generation Less Religiously Active than Older Americans.” Pew Research Center's Religion &Amp; Public Life Project, Pew Research Center, 17 Feb. 2010, www.pewforum.org/2010/02/17/millennial-generation-less-religiously-active-than-older-americans/.

Problem Frame -- Gun Control

While gun violence has een a contentious issue for much longer than the past 5 years, the recent influx of mass shootings and increased media coverage of them has revived the conversation and has prompted politicians to begin discussing forms of gun control that are in line with the current state of affairs. There is a continuum of perspectives on this issue, ranging from light regulation to more drastic forms, but a common desired end in the discussion is to have a safety net for individuals to fall back on in cases of self defense; for many Americans, this involves the use of fire arms in some capacity, by some sort of agent. The costs and consequences of these viewpoints seem very distinctly from each other, with gun-owners arguing firearm use as a more direct, quick solution in emergencies, while gun-control proponents generally argue that with less guns on the streets and a higher level of restriction on owning guns, that many crimes involving their use would cease altogether with the lack of convenience a firearm will provide in committing them. For example, armed robberies of convenience stores would be more difficult to pull off bladed weapons, and the extent of destruction would be less with a weapon of lower risk.Surely, some sort of resolution can be found somewhere in the middle of these two rhetorical encampments, with a heightened focus on registration and buyer screening as opposed to am obligatory disarming of a massive population.

Audience description post: Deafness is not a Disability

Audience description post: Deafness is not a Disability

                The initial audience members for this persuasive open letter are the audiologists and doctors that insist that deafness is an issue that needs to be treated by medical intervention.  These individuals are not locally confined and are highly educated.  Some of these medical professionals may even be deaf or hard of hearing themselves. Interestingly, females make up a large percentage of this profession: http://www.asha.org/uploadedFiles/2014-Audiology-Survey-Number-Type-Responses.pdf. However, my secondary (but still intended audience) is the general public that may see a digital copy of this letter posted on popular social media sites.  Ideally, this letter will have enough quantitative and substantial evidence to be published in the ‘News’ section of Science Magazine but will carry enough emotional weight that it may tug at the heartstrings of such female audiologist who has recently had a child.

1.       Shared Principles

a.       Medical/scientific background

b.      Acceptance of evidence based research

c.       Understanding of Hippocratic oath

d.      Passion for helping people

2.       Differentiating Principles

a.       Deafness as a disability vs deafness as a linguistic minority

b.      Deafness as a cultural identifier vs deafness as an issue that needs to be fixed

Because the argument, “Deafness is not a Disability” will be made as a suggestion for a shift in perspective as opposed to an abrupt accusation of the ‘right vs. wrong’ way to look at things, I do not think that any of the differentiating principles are insurmountable. In addition, the scientific audience, by definition must always be willing to consider alternate theories.  Science is much more about proving many things wrong than proving one thing correct.  Evidence works to prove that the null hypothesis is incorrect rather than prove that the hypothesis is correct.  This point is where I will find common ground with the scientific/medical reader; by identifying and citing concrete evidence that supports the notion that deafness=disability is wrong (morally/in violation of proper upbringing and development and therefore a violation of the Hippocratic oath) I can indirectly suggest that the novel idea (Deafness is a linguistic minority) should be accepted.

However, the same logic goes either way; I must also be willing to accept any evidence that may directly conflict with my principles.  I would not consider this granting compromise but rather understanding how science based arguments work.  Keeping this in mind, I will begin my essay by acknowledging the literature that directly opposes my own principles: similar to how a scientific article about a new drug may cite data from existing medications to make a point.   

Audience Description Post

1.           Audience: My direct addressee is President Park Geun-hye of South Korea. My indirect audience includes Koreans living in and outside South Korea (but more focused on Koreans living in the U.S.). These people are of all ages (elders, adults, their children, and youth) who are interested in the moral problem of political bribery and abuse of power.

2.           Representative detail: Young adult (age 20), Korean living in the U.S.

3.           Shared principles: Korean, young adult, living in the U.S., relatives living in South Korea, naturalized U.S. citizen

4.           Unshared principles: Doesn’t believe in the importance (and the impact) of grassroots political activism; doesn’t believe that the voice of youth/younger generation is impactful

5.           Perhaps the idea of protesting here in the States as opposed to partaking in public protest in South Korea (where this political scandal is actually taking place) may be viewed as a fruitless attempt 

6.           Common ground: We want the country that we were born in and cherish to be as stable as possible, and to have a President in office who promises to faithfully execute the position instead of a ruler admitting to wrongful (criminal) activities committed throughout her presidency.

7.           Political activism is something that is important. (Make this a fixed argument.) 

8.           I will anticipate possible objections (most likely before my arguments/near the beginning of the paper) or as I explain/articulate on my arguments.