Response to Mary Jennifer Johnston's "Pandering to the Audience".

In her blog entry “Pandering to the Audience”, Mary Jennifer Johnston showcases some of my greatest frustrations with current editorial content. While I feel an author has the unfettered right to editorialized to their heart’s desire, when the message is shrouded in language that automatically excludes anyone with a dissenting opinion, there is little room for common ground. This kind of alienation of the audience doesn’t occur only when the topic is emotionally charged, such as the arena of politics.

When I first started technical writing I realized that any final work product I released must be scrubbed of technical language or jargon that was beyond the base level user.  Jargon includes terminology specialized to a specific industry or technology used to do a job that the ordinary layperson wouldn’t understand with knowing the specialized context.  Encountering terminology that is beyond a reader is the quickest route to boredom and despair. I found most of my readers would rather tinker with a software solution until they figured it out or return it instead of reading a didactic manual with technical speak specific to the software developers and database administrators who created the monster.  Eliminating overly complicated instructions or words that are bound to offend the audience will codify your credibility (ethos) with the audience. Creating the appropriate appeal that does not offend (pathos) will keep them reading.

Unit 3, The Anatomy of a Proposal

When it comes to practical proposals, like a t-shirt order for the swim team, the specifics practically propose themselves. There is a definite set of parameters required to place the order including size, color, quantity, design, fabric, and of course price.  Policy proposals are a more broadly outlined course of action that shapes how society ought to respond to perceived problems. Though a policy proposal may offer more abstract ideas leading to an eventual outcome, the main ingredients of a proposal remain the same: a description of the problem, a proposed solution, and justification (Ramage, 311).

Using the description of the problem as a way to garner audience attention is an appropriate use of pathos. The narration of an alarming tale paired with the use of concerning statistics will grab the attention of anyone listening. Even if the problem is sort of vanilla and there are no vital interests at extreme risk of peril, making the tale of woe personal to yourself or personal to the audience means someone is invested, and someone is listening. Packaging the proposal up in a format that best corresponds to invested audience can help reinforce a particular proposal (Ramage, 325). Solutions for an entertainment media outlet can best be presented in a technically solid multimedia presentation across various platforms such as high definition webcast video. Solutions for a local church should probably be kept to a brochure or Microsoft PowerPoint slide show.

Justification is the supporting reasoning behind a specified proposal. There as many proposed solutions as there are perceived problems in any given room; the justification for one solution over the other may help an audience determine the best choice. Generally if a problem is rooted in a moral dilemma, the justification tends to be morally motivated. When a homeless shelter is full, one proposal may be to add new beds even though shelters are already quite crowded. The justification is that society wants to provide more shelter with just as many resources because it is morally unacceptable not to house people in space that could fit a few more. If the problem is rooted in logical dilemmas, such as the missed quota of a manufacturing and production line, the justification is also apt to be logical… like adding more hours of production. Using tools such as the claim type strategy or the enthymeme like in previous chapters can assist in providing the appropriate justification for a specific proposal (Ramage, 318). Having an issue to tackle with a well matched proposal and justification will give good credence with any audience, even if they don’t yet know they have a problem!

Works Cited

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: Rhetoric with Readings. New York. Pearson, 2010. Print.

Proposal, Argue Thyself

Tom Ammiano, the Democratic state Assemblyman of San Francisco, introduced a bill (AB889) protecting domestic workers during the last legislative session that I found to be one of the most effective proposal arguments I have ever been asked to consider.

Domestic workers include hired nannies, housekeepers, gardeners and other domestic help employed directly by the home. I was immediately engaged with Ammiano’s proposal because on the surface it was simply about protecting workers who are outside the realm of much occupational oversight by agencies that would protect individuals in the workplace. Protecting domestic workers by creating an effectual Bill of Rights for workers in the home that would include basic humane treatment of employees like adequate rest and meal periods, written 21 day notice before layoff, and a minimum wage requirement was an easy sell. As an audience I am already pro-labor so I was ripe for this proposal.

The proposal was even timelier and more convincing because it was released on the heels of the highly dramatic gubernatorial race between now Governor Jerry Brown and Republican front runner in the 2010 election, Meg Whitman. It is no surprise that much of the voting public found this argument to be particularly engaging because of the publicity surrounding Meg Whitman and the treatment of her hired help, which was highlighted during the campaign. Whitman’s family had hired domestic help and then fired the undocumented immigrant worker from Mexico when it was revealed to the press that she was not eligible to work in California. Through reporting in the local paper, I found out that Nicandra Santillan Diaz had been employed by the Whitmans for 9 years prior to the exposure and it was known by the family that she was not a documented citizen. Though Whitman referred to Diaz as a “member of the family”, she was promptly fired and her wages were withheld by Whitman.

Whitman was forced to pay up later on, and Diaz tale of woe doesn’t get much better following the campaign – but Ammiano clearly recognized the tenor and tone of public discourse regarding domestic worker’s rights and capitalized. He didn’t have to convince an audience that a problem existed because Whitman and Diaz clearly gave the problem all of the presence that was needed. AB889 just passed the Labor House Committee in the State Assembly on April 14, 2011, and is headed to appropriations…. so I guess I wasn’t the only one who was convinced.

Response to Mark Evans' "Best Argument"

While reading Mark Evans’ “Best Argument”  blog entry detailing ordeal of a sailor summoned before the Disciplinary Review Board on charges of false enlistment, I have to admit my brain went on its own Perry Mason exposition into the life and times of the SONAR Technician with 16 years in service.  Though Evans described a compelling argument by the sailor’s section Chief which saved the sailor’s career despite falsifying his enlistment, the sailor’s motives and subtexts for bailing on self-defense training in the first place raised more questions for me as a reader, than Evans put to rest with the description of the Chief's testimony of valuable experience and time in service.  

Don’t get me wrong, I am not arm-chair-quarterbacking the Chief or the DRB. However, while I imagined the situation and what kind of evidence might have been presented, I did begin to wonder what made the sailor want to avoid the training in the first place? Was the revealing  a domestic violence conviction worth avoiding the physicality of strenuous training? Did the sailor think the exposure to ground fighting or choke holds might stir his violent past behavior? Could the training spur on a re-introduction of violent behavior that is more detrimental to the family of a past offender than being without a job? All unknowns from my perspective, of course.

For the sake of argument – so to speak - I still agree that the Chief’s argument was convincing, but my mind keeps wandering back to the sailor’s original motivation and I’m not totally sold on his retention as the “best outcome”.

Unit 2, Response to Reading

I recently wrote a letter to Speaker of the House John Bohner about the pejorative use of the word “Obamacare” to describe health care reform. I watch a lot of Sunday morning shows and keep up with my reading in the New York Times but I am not exactly a big fan of the legislation that make up what is collectively known as health care reform under President Obama’s administration. To be sure my letter developed credibility with the reader right away I expressed my knowledge of health care reform, fiscal responsibility, and budget negotiations. This element of ethos prepped the reader for a “trustworthy” persona conveying moderate tone and is clearly informed (Ramage, 111).

At the time I did an extensive amount of rhetorical prep work in compiling my letter, but I didn’t identify a strategy for this kind of work until I read the Unit 2 assigned reading. I knew that to be heard by his office about this strictly non-partisan affair, I would need to plan my argument with an appeal to our shared values. I began by crafting a list of assumptions in my head about values that Speaker Bohner and I share and hold in high esteem such as the Office of the Speaker of the House, the Office of the President, and the promotion of civil discourse. I could be wrong about these assumptions but it would be somewhat embarrassing for the reader of the letter if we were so I stuck with this.

Letters to Congressional offices are typically read by staffers so I knew my message would need to be short, sweet, and on point to be effective with the initial reader. It did end up going on for an entire page. Right away I asked myself “what’s your beef with Speaker Bohner” in order to frame my argument most succinctly. In the text I discovered the “enthymeme”, or the core of an argument. The enthymeme is a general claim of an argument and the reason the claim should be supported, but the reader must be in accord with the underlying assumptions (Ramage, 74) like our shared appreciation of civil discourse. Though the core of the argument may seem like the obvious ingredient, logical appeal can be overrun with emotional appeals for a purpose. Crafting the logos, or reasoning for my argument, can be managed with the enthymeme. My enthymeme consisted of a claim that House members stop referring to health care reform parts as “Obamacare” because it would promote a more civil public discourse. The underlying assumption the reader/audience supplied in this case was that promoting more civil public discourse is an important part of healthy democracy.

In order to fully develop an argument for a reader/audience that doesn’t already agree with me, the Toulmin System asks a writer/speaker to identify the audience’s buy in to certain grounds or “warrants”, (Ramage, 76). To convince Speaker Bohner to back costly legislation I might provide grounds such as statistics and data or testimony from an expert about why he must act. My cause is on the cheap side but could cost him political capital so I kept my grounds limited to giving a personal narrative which included three declarations: use of the term “Obamacare” was disrespectful and dismissive of actual reforms needed to bring down the high cost of health care and make actual budget and deficit impacts; I did not always support some of the foreign and fiscal policies of past Congress and President George W. Bush, but as a soldier demonstrated a professional image; my opinion that promoting civil discourse was important to the relationship between the State and those who consent to be governed. I was sure Speaker Bohner would accept my grounds, so accepting my argument shouldn’t be far off.  Identifying myself as a veteran and civic minded were shared in order spark Speaker Bohner’s beliefs and (profound) emotions about our civic responsibility. This layer of pathos is a legitimate appeal to “deepen response to an issue” (Ramage, 112).

The Rhetorical context of my letter to the Office of the Speaker required little hard evidence to be representative of typical moderate voters and get my patriotic point across. Though I never presented any data or testimony, I did identify the use of the Fulkerson’s STAR criteria after the fact to evaluate whether or not evidence I supplied was sufficient, typical, accurate, and relevant (Ramage, 90). My personal experience as a veteran and a voter familiar with current health care reforms might be sufficient evidence for a personal appeal, but generally personal experiences are considered to be unverifiable and subject to hasty generalizations (Ramage, 91). Data from field or observational research enhances the credibility of the author but could be criticized as atypical or insufficient (Ramage, 92). Data from interviews or surveys expand experiences and give a lot more credibility to an argument, and interviews might add to pathos with personal stories but critics will always point out that methodology and design could be flawed in survey type evidence (Ramage, 92). Testimony from experts would be applicable to my letter if I could find an expert that could provide some context for the negative impact of pejorative language on civil discourse, but critics will always question an “expert” credentials. Statistical data probably doesn’t exist for my case-scenario, but numbers that demonstrated an increase in domestic political violence would provide a snapshot of cause-effect relationship between speech and violence – which is weakened by subjective interpretation (Ramage, 93). Hypothetical arguments or case-scenarios have a strong imaginative appeal. It would be easy to narrate a situation like the attempted assassination of Congresswoman Gabriel Giffords, however, conveying in “inevitability” of violence or using hyperbole would be counter to the core of my argument: a call to civility in speech. Skeptics of hypotheticals will always have a counter scenario argument so this is among the weaker types of evidence.

Framing the evidence to support a claim requires an ethical balance of the necessary evidence to prove a claim and persuade and audience based on their potential pre-existing assumptions and values (Ramage, 97). Logical appeal and the appropriate evidence to support claims of the author/speaker and to persuade the audience is housed here in the “angle of vision” (Ramage, 94). All of these considerations helped me to craft an effective letter, but I can’t helping thinking I could have presented more evidence and in a more effective manner after absorbing the text.

 Works Cited

Ramage, John D., et al. Writing Arguments: Rhetoric with Readings. New York. Pearson, 2010. Print.

Response to Myron Oliver's "It's Alive!"

In Myron Oliver's "It's Alive!", Myron takes us on a playful journey through logic, sensory, and emotions by introducing us to the concepts of Logos, Ethos, and Pathos in a three cornered fantasy land where the parts of the rhetorical triangle take on human like form eliciting audience appeal just by being who they are. This post reminded me a lot of a book I read about geometry called “Flatland” by Edwin Abbot in which the author tries to introduce the reader to complex concepts like spacial relation and perspective by giving human elements to lines, edges, other shapes, and plains in space.

In “It’s Alive!” Myron encounters Logos the Lumberjack and conceptualizes Logos for Myron right away by demonstrating that all things are possible through knowledge and understanding which - obviously has an impact on Myron. Paula Pathos tells the harrowing emotional story of survival which engages Myron’s heart. Barak Ethos engaged Myron by creating credibility because he could see and hear the elements in Barak’s wooden landscape. Before Myron meets the Lumberjack, Barack, or Paula he finds the landscape barren and frightful. Once he gets to know these folks, it seems like Myron is more at ease with the Rhetorical Triangle.

Works Cited

Oliver, Myron. "It's Alive!." N.p. 2011. Web. 18 April 2011. Myron's Log. 2011. http://myronslog.blogspot.com/2011/04/its-alive.html



Unit 2, Rhetorical Triangle

In a recent White House blog entry introducing President Obama’s Plain Writing Act of 2010, Cass Sunstein, the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, wrote an appealing call for the use of plain language to streamline communications and cut costs throughout the Federal Government.

The introduction quickly applied pathos in a particularly timely way for me. I just finished my taxes and identified with the writer/speaker because I have been decoding tax schedules without much luck and relying a lot on computer software to decide things for me while wishing the language was presented more plainly. This blog entry was posted the day after tax day when it seems like everyone around me is reeling against the complexity of the tax code, so perhaps the consideration of Kairos (timing) in this post isn’t as innocent as it appears. Putting any supposed agenda aside, language in government documents touches everyone so this was a good attention grabbing introduction. I could see right away that the author was familiar with my discomfort with government documents.

According to a recent government project that was overhauled in plain language, communicating more clearly cut down on waste and spending. Sunstein cites a recent example within the Federal Communications Commission in which plain language replaced jargon about how HAM radio was regulated by the FCC. With the new language a single regulator could answer all of the questions about the rules that previously took the work of five FCC employees (Sunstein). In the first part of the entry there isn’t a ton of data presented about how much more efficient this process is overall – whether additional tasks were created in other FCC downstream departments regarding HAM radio operation. Since the bill was only enacted in October of 2010 there is unlikely much data confirming these savings, but it doesn’t matter because of the balance deployment of the rhetorical triangle.

Overall, the blog entry contains a good mix of narrative and data, both identifying with a reader’s personal difficulty with understanding Federal regulations and compliance standards when language is especially technical or specific and showing specific examples of cost-savings benefit in the numbers. These appeals to reason and logic (logos) and suggested sympathy for just plain folks who have to deal with complicated jargon (pathos) are effective.

To codify the evidence that using plain language works, Sunstein briefly calls out a study in the journal of the Indiana University’s Kelley School of Business by claiming that this outside source found up to $73 million in savings on wasted reading time in the US Navy’s standard memorandum writing format (Sunstein). Including this reference resonated with me because it created a lot of credibility by demonstrating an outside source could confirm the type of savings that Sunstein was claiming about the FCC and their own work. Because the necessary elements of ethos is layered throughout the entry, Sunstein is able to execute the argument effectively despite not presenting a lot of data because as the Administrator of the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Sunstein has credibility with an audience that bothers read the White House blog.

Works Cited

Sunstein, Cass. “Putting it Plainly”. White House 2011. Web. Accessed April 19, 2011.             <http://www.whitehouse.gov/blog/2011/04/19/putting-it-plainly>