(You is used in the general second-person sense in this essay, rather than in any specific reference to any particular website. It is also used to address the readers of this essay.)
If any of you have read a book called The Republican Noise Machine by David Brock, you might recognize some of the commentary tactics being used by the website The Write Agenda. I am always leery of a group where I have to really dig to find who is the organizer/author/creator of a site. I also hate people masquerading as logicians when they’re not. I suspect that the The Write Agenda could learn more about this technique from the Heritage Foundation.
A short summary of The Noise Machine’s basic point is that much discourse in the United States is unsubstantiated argumentatively. Yet, there is a growing movement to accept unsubstantiated discourse as just as valid as the substantiated kind. We can see this in the growth of opinion-based journalism. I think that’s what’s going on with both of these web sites. I use the Heritage Foundation, as Brock uses it as an illustrative example in his book. Sometimes it helps to have a comparison when one has trouble seeing the trees in the forest individually.
Under the guise of logic, rhetoric and discourse in the field of publishing, The Write Agenda is launching a biased campaign against a variety of targets. The site purports that this is a logical exchange of ideas. If it were, would The Write Agenda feel the need to threaten readers if they disagreed with the site and agreed with the people TWA is writing against?
Bottomline? Keep an open mind, review all facts and above all . . . be careful what you post . . . it’s getting litigious out there! Lawsuits and Cease & Desist Letters against authors are on the rise. Loyalty to some self-proclaimed publishing “watchdogs” may have a price.
Pretty subtle, that. It looks like they want you to consider all the facts, but then they suggest that if you are for the people they are against, well, who knows what could happen to you…that’s pretty clear. I’m not sure how else I can read that sentence. If there is another intent, it’s time for a rewrite.
Let’s do an analysis of argumentative technique. At TWA, you can read a post about Yog’s Law. Let’s take a look at a tiny part of it. I could do this all day at the site, but I have a life, so we will only deal with one illustrative point. However, feel free to play this game yourself. It helps avert Alzheimer’s. So you can see the sentence in situ, it’s linked.
Moreover, Yog’s Law, and it’s author, have created the false assurance in authors that devotion to its concept is some form of an entitlement program. It’s not. It is this false belief in Yog’s Law that has spawned the despicable cult-like following that has resulted in many of the negative postings regarding alternative and/or non-traditional publishing.
Now, let’s break that down a bit. The paragraph starts with a statement you have to accept as a given in order for the rest of the paragraph to work. Can you prove that authors believe this entitlement? Have you polled authors? Do you have any statistics? How do I know this cult exists? You want me to believe it? I can’t until you logically show me evidence that your first sentence is true, and that you dispel the counterarguments that suggest it’s not. Ergo, you are working from a false premise, right? Not good argumentation technique.
Moving on…spawn, despicable, cult. Not exactly neutral language. Kind of loaded. The assumption that we’re on this train and we approve? Not if we’re arguing logically. This sets off bias alarms for a reader, and casts what you say into question further, especially as you’ve given me no convincing facts to help me accept the first premise.
Finally, my question as a rhetorician about the last sentence: are there any negative posts on these subjects not by cultists? Are they the only cause? Are any of these negative posts for valid reasons? I need my evidence so I can be convinced of your posts.
Similarly, let’s take a look at the Heritage Foundation and their section on entitlements. It’s remarkably similar.
Entitlements are the greatest domestic challenge the nation faces. The middle class retirement programs, Social Security, Medicaid and Medicare, will cause federal spending to jump by half, from the historical average of twenty percent of the economy to thirty percent by 2033.
Looks pretty authoritative. Break it down. Why are entitlements are greatest challenge? Can you make me believe that by showing me evidence? I understand why the last three points in the second sentences would be argued against. They are government programs, technically called entitlement programs. But the first point? Not all middle class retirement programs are entitlements. Many are tied to private business and investing. Mine is. So why is that there? What is your agenda in including them? Is the Heritage Foundation biased.
Finally, that last sentence. What are the sources of your statistics? Are there any contrary statistics? How do you discount them?
In both cases, all I’m saying is apply the basic principles your composition teacher taught you when you are writing research papers. Don’t know them? Learn them. It will make your arguments more effective.
Use and stick to sound rhetorical argumentative principles to succeed. You can’t accuse someone of ad hominem or biased arguing when you yourself are doing it. You can’t expect people to buy your assertions unless you back them up with evidence and show counter-evidence that you dispel. Only then are you practicing the kind of argumentation the Western rhetorical tradition teaches and respects. The kind I respect anyway, which is why neither of these excerpts work for me.
I’m afraid, then, after analyzing these excerpts, that I have to regard The Write Agenda as a biased site with its own agenda, until it can show me that it is willing to write without bias, coercion, and substantiation. Yup, the Heritage Foundation too. And both sites are using a time-honored, ancient technique that sometimes works. Use big words and sentences that look like facts or the views rational people hold on the surface, but don’t do any real scaffolding, just in case your views might not hold up so well.
If either site would like to show me a better rhetorical technique, send it along. When my students write like this, I encourage them to rewrite. I’m encouraging you as well.
Catherine
