Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Analyzing Websites

After reviewing your preferences for the Multimodal Rhetorical Analysis assignment and the Online Advocacy Project, two things became clear: First, everyone wants to work together as one big group for our Online Advocacy Project, so I’m willing to give that a shot. Second, many of you wanted to study the same projects for the Multimodal Rhetorical Analysis assignment, so very few of you got your “first choice.” However, I was able to arrange things so everyone got one of their top-four choices, so please check your assignment and begin “following” your organization using as many different channels as possible.

Next week, we will get back on track with the reading assignments I postponed during Week 10, then we will spend a day honing our rhetorical analysis skills. Here’s a quick description of our plans for each day:

Before you come to class on Monday, please read two short essays by Ethan Zuckerman: “Understanding Digital Civics” and “What Ancient Greek Rhetoric Might Teach Us About New Civics.” After you’ve completed the readings, leave a comment on this post pointing to a specific passage or idea you’d like to discuss in class. (Post these by Sunday night, please!) After our reading discussion, we will select a project that the entire class can work on for Unit #4, so please come to class with at least one new idea that you’re excited about. Given that 11 people will be contributing to this project, try to think of problems/issues/causes that could benefit from a big group effort.
On Wednesday, we will spend the entire class period learning how to apply techniques of rhetorical analysis to multimodal artifacts. Before you come to class, please read “Understanding Misunderstandings: How to Do a Rhetorical Analysis,” by Trish Roberts-Miller (if the background color on that site makes it hard to read the article, try “printing” it as a PDF file), “Ethos, Pathos, Logos: Three Ways to Persuade,” by John R. Edlund, and “Basic Questions for Rhetorical Analysis,” by Gideon Burton.

If you would like to talk about ideas for Unit #3 or #4, please let me know — I’d be happy to meet with you during office hours (T 1-4; W 9-12). Otherwise, I’ll see you in class!

10 Responses to "Week 11: Digital Citizenship and Analyzing Websites"

David says:

April 6, 2013 at 4:04 pm

“Legal scholar Larry Lessig suggests we’re in an age of corporate capture of American politics, a form of corruption so deep that there’s no alternative but to strike at the root: public financing for campaigns, end of corporate personhood. He may be right. But there’s another school of thought that sees an evolution of politics in parallel with a shift in dominant media. As we move towards participatory, internet-based media, perhaps we’re moving towards a newly participatory, internet-based democracy.”

We could take so many things away from these articles, but I really liked this section. I agree that we are in a shift within American politics and hopefully an end to an era that has spanned 3 decades. What Lessig is getting at is a basic idea that we have to hit the problems at the roots in order to really see change. In class we talked about how hard this would be with how corrupt government is and how money runs the show. However, I think this could really help us with our project especially if we try to takle a local, community issue here in Blacksburg. We will not only need support, but we will need to address an issue at its roots in order to see change. I know this is easier said than done and that we may not get the results we are hoping for, but the point of the assignment is to try.

Below, I also highlight some key points that we will need to take into consideration.

“When I work with activists around the world, I ask them to think through some of the same questions Graham asks: what is it you want, and who would you need to influence to achieve that change? Once you’ve got a theory of change, tactics tend to fall into place. In my discussions, I’m seeing four primary theories of change at work.”

Asking these very basic questions will help us as a group come up with a plan of action and I also propose that whatever we choose we, as group, need to harness our skills that we’ve learned in this course and in others to really make a difference; whether it is a website, an ad campaign using info-graphics, a video (we all know how to do this now), and utilizing our networks to reach out to others via social media.

Sorry, but I see the potential this project has and I am amped to get it going.
Becca says:

April 7, 2013 at 3:22 pm

“Invisible Children wanted to show that there was a constituency of people who wanted to see Joseph Kony brought to justice, and they unleashed a flood of tweets and Facebook posts to drive people to an online video. The video was watched 100 million times in under a week, nine times as often as the most popular television broadcast in the US. Congress took note and has provided what Invisible Children and allies were asking for: a continued US military presence in Uganda. There’s lots that was wrong with their strategy. For example, it’s unclear if it will ultimately lead to Kony’s arrest, and the focus on the Lord’s Resistance Army has angered many Ugandans who don’t see Kony’s arrest as a major priority for Uganda on the international stage. Still, the campaign was clear evidence that individuals can marshal a great deal of attention and have political influence, perhaps even if the theory of change was no more sophisticated than ‘let’s make noise and someone will give us the change we want.’”

This example reinforces how much more powerful a group is than an individual. This can be applied to smaller scales too, not just with the government. For example, let’s take Virginia Tech. If one professor is the worst teacher you have ever had in your life, and you just do not understand how she was hired, what might you do? You may go to your advisor or even the dean of the school and complain. And what will the dean most likely do? Absolutely nothing. Now let’s take this situation and change it a bit. You go to your advisor or dean complaining about this professor, only to find out you are the 83rd student to do so. Now what does the dean do? He takes action to fix the situation, resulting in a forced early retirement of that awful professor. The dean does not care if one student is having trouble with a professor, but if an entire class is, then he realizes that he has a problem on his hands. Suddenly your one little voice became magnified by a megaphone of students.

What Zuckerman says, though, is that social media can allow processes like this to occur in half the time. If all of those students had emailed or physically gone into the deans office to complain, the process would have taken a while. If all of those students had tweeted and posted on Facebook about that professor, causing the news to spread like wildfire through the university, the problem would have been called to the dean’s attention immediately and the action would have happened faster. Social Media makes problems public, faster. While this may be some PR practitioner’s worst nightmare, it is very effective in forcing immediate action in response to any problem. The noise really does instigate a change.
Catherine says:

April 7, 2013 at 5:27 pm

In “Understanding Digital Civics” Zuckerman says, “What if you don’t just want gay and lesbian people to have the right to work and to marry? What if you actually want people to like and accept them? You’re likely to work for cultural change, seeking positive portrayals of gays and lesbians in the news and in entertainment media. It’s helpful to have legislation passed and to get authority figures to say the right things, but cultural change tends to be a media-driven theory of change, designed to slowly win over the hearts and minds of millions.

I’m seeing lots of activism these days that recognizes that it may take a long time to change laws, the attitudes of people in authority or the culture as a whole. In the meantime, can we provide services to people in harm’s way? If gay youth are at risk of bullying, depression and suicide, we might provide hotlines and build support groups. It’s hard to scale this work, but it’s a deeply satisfying and practical way of working, fixing addressable problems in a community. Whether or not our work sets an example for other communities, it was worth doing.”

I really liked this passage because it gets to the heart of what online activism is. He acknowledges that by simply passing a law we won’t solve all that much. Activism is more than just laws, it’s fighting for something you’re passionate about and doing whatever it takes to make things better for whatever your cause of choice is. Change doesn’t happen over night. Change happens when a group of people dedicate time and energy towards a common goal of making the world a better place, and convince other people to do the same.
Brittany says:

April 7, 2013 at 7:35 pm

“Invisible Children needed to get Kony onto the political agenda, which they accomplished by putting Kony on the media agenda. The goal of the Kony2012 campaign – to make Kony famous – is a classic cultural theory of change using social media as the primary tactic for spreading attention. With a deeply manipulative viral video and a very smart campaign that used students already committed to the movement to build social media buzz, lobbying celebrities to throw their attention to the movement, Invisible Children generated 100 million views of their video in six days and caught the attention of political leaders who may have been unaware of the issues previously. Was the campaign a success? If the goal was to get millions of Americans focused on the LRA on an ongoing basis, the answer is no – Invisible Children’s call to action, a night where students would take to the streets and spread information about Kony, received far less attention than the initial video. But it’s likely that the campaign succeeded as a more traditional legislative campaign, as Congress has reaffirmed support for an ongoing US troop presence in Uganda to pursue Kony.”

This shows that a group of people can make a change. Social media is persuasive and can get things accomplished. Through Twitter, Facebook, and Youtube this group of people helped Uganda. I remember holding fundraisers for Invisible Children in high school and the only way we found out about it was through social media. This shows that we do have the power to make a difference. Start out small and if enough people help support the cause it can grow into positive change.

I agree with Becca social media has a loud voice that can be heard all over the world very fast. It’s effective and now the ultimate way to get your words heard.
Zuckerman give us proof that social media is effective (the viral video gained more attention than the campaign). Social media is a form of news that anyone can write. With that being said there is a chance that our class can make a positive difference in and around Virginia Tech.
1. Jordan says:
  
  April 7, 2013 at 10:03 pm
  
  I agree but I also thinks their comes a point where social media can only do so much. In the case of the Kony campaign they had no real action that needed to be down. You can build awareness but that can only go but so far. A plan of action must be ready to be put in place for an issue to really make an impact.
Jordan says:

April 7, 2013 at 10:07 pm

I think that Zuckerman makes a good point with each case he brings up. Politics, it is no longer a discussion or debate on beliefs of certain topics but a race on who can make and spend the most money on their over all campaign. Social media is powerful and while it is free advertisement, it really is solely built on building awareness and potentially has an interactive campaign involved. We as the future geeration need to figure out a way to make sure social media builds on the idea on interactive media and the people do not just donate donate donate but give and then DO something because being human is more then just giving a few dollars, but giving a helping hand in the flesh.
1. Sangji says:
  
  April 8, 2013 at 12:01 am
  
  I agree with Jordan’s point that physically doing something for a cause is more helpful than raising awareness, which has been the primary purpose of social media. However, I think raising awareness is better than nothing and it definitely still contributes to the cause, although it is not in a concrete way. Higher figures are also aware of the power of grassroots awareness movements, which is why they have changed the way that they approach social media. As Zuckerman wrote, “Politicians quickly became aware of these unseen audiences and changed their rhetoric to appeal to these wider audiences.” Whether it is a business or a government, the rapidly growing influence of social media cannot be ignored and representatives have all been making changes in the past decade to become more internet-friendly.
  1. Kimberly says:
    
    April 8, 2013 at 12:17 pm
    
    In his article Zuckerman make’s two points that resonate with me. In the first he states: “as we move towards participatory, internet-based media, perhaps we’re moving towards a newly participatory, internet-based democracy.” In the second he states: “what a communications medium makes possible has a shaping influence on civic life.”
    
    The interactive nature of web 2.0 is a game changer. I think we often think of online advocacy primarily as awareness raising of an issue, when in fact the impact is so much greater. Online participation IS changing the outcomes of real world issues everyday. Awareness raising is likely the most critical step in getting anything changed or analyzed critically. For instance, during the most recent presidential campaign a concerned citizen (Scott Prouty) released a video of Romney speaking on the now infamous 47%. This video, released first in clips and then in full, did more than simply raise awareness on Romney’s perception of America; it translated into the solidification of opinions and ultimately resulted in the loss of votes.
    
    I think we underestimate the power that social media has come to have. It opens doors for debate, thought and most importantly the dissemination of ideas that spread virally and change the world.
Jonathan says:

April 7, 2013 at 11:58 pm

“If we want to prepare people to be effective citizens, we need to think about teaching this new civics as well as older forms of civic participation. Citizens need to do more than watch or read about the issues and then vote. They need to know how to report, to advocate, to coordinate, to propose and test solutions. In the open government movement, we often focus on bringing the best practices from the US and the UK to the developing world. In the world of new civics, it’s possible that the lessons we need to learn come primarily from the developing world and from closed societies, where people have been forced to learn these tactics and techniques.”
(Ethan Zuckerman, “What Ancient Greek Rhetoric Might Teach Us About New Civics”)

I chose this paragraph because I think it summarizes all the points made earlier in the article as well as hitting on the points which his other article discusses. Learning to advocate and communicate our motives in the physical realm provides the basis for our communication in the digital frontier as well. We cannot hope to pursue truth in conjunction with others, if we are unable to do so on our own first; so it remains an important character feature to foster within ourselves the capacity for rational thought, argumentation, and rhetorical analysis. Each of these digital civics (Occupy, Anonymous, and Wikileaks) have at their core the hope to provide the truth of some matter to the public at large or to improve society for the better; however, their ability to accomplish such a task relies heavily upon their combined efforts and skills of “older forms of civic participation” such as argumentation and reason.

On a side note, the aspect of civil participation which I’ve always struggled with online and that has prevented me from being dubbed an “effective citizen” is, well, the very act of participation. I’ve participated online when it suits me or if I am particularly enthusiastic about a subject of interest, but other than that it takes a lot for me to dedicate my time towards something–even when it’s an entirely worthy cause–and then it is very rare that I maintain my involvement. The apprehension that I have towards online participation stems mainly from the belief that I could be realistically be spending my time elsewhere and that it takes a tremendous amount of time to contribute and maintain an active community (daily / hourly checking of the online medium). I also spend ninety percent of my time engaging in an online community writing, revising, revising my revision, revising the revision of my revision, etc. ad infinitum. Consequently, I am disinclined to actively engage online on a regular basis.
Curtis Stanford says:

April 8, 2013 at 1:27 am

“The rise of four popular movements suggests that activists to the left and the right aren’t looking to Congress for change. Consider these four groups – the Tea Party, the Occupy Movement, Anonymous and Wikileaks.”

This isn’t so much of an educated comment as a confession of ignorance. Here’s what I think and know about those four movements:

Tea Party: ????
Occupy Movement: hippies
Anonymous: V for Vendetta
Wikileaks: Didn’t that guy rape someone?

While that’s a bit exaggerated, it’s only a bit. Sure, I understand that Occupy wants to bring down corporations, Anonymous wants to protect our online freedoms, and Wikileaks wants the whole truth and nothing but the truth. But I don’t really know why, and I don’t know what the right side to be on is. It’s hard to get involved in civics when you don’t fully understand the issues, and it’s hard to understand the issues when the only source outlets are biased news stations and the endlessssss back and forth drivel of online discussion. For every article I find in favor of Wikileaks, there is an equally convincing article discrediting. And then there’s ten more issues talking about Julian Assange’s rape allegations, to do what?–distract? confuse the issue? The only reason I trust these two articles is because our professor recommended them. How do I know what’s a credible source? How do I know what side to be on? What do i believe in and choose to get involved in when everything online is ran by EVERYONE online. What happened to the importance of qualified teachers? I’m not saying I want to be a follower, but some instruction from time to time would be nice.

Basically, I would like to focus on the actual civic issues.

Comments are closed.