10/14

Corbett and Eberly in The Elements of Reasoning work to describe what it means to be a citizen critic and then try to outline the pitfalls that many citizen critics encounter when trying to employ reason.  A citizen critic can effectively criticize someone’s reasoning without attacking them personally. Being a critic is extremely easy with such ease of access to entire digital communities open for discussion and debate. Most texts posted on the internet don’t just allow people to respond but need it to fully function in its fullest manner in the mediated public sphere. However, because it is so easy to share ideas and critiques, Corbett and Eberly stress that it is the responsibility of the individual to use sound reasoning and to identify when someone else is not using sound reasoning. Corbett and Eberly seem to think that a responsible citizen critique can help keep the internet a little more democratic. Unfortunately there are always out to thwart democracy. 

In Jason Parham's "It's Time We Treat Police Brutality as a National Crisis" there is an entire section dedicated to responses from readers. Many of the readers just simply give their support for the writer’s arguments while others attempt to deconstruct the problems present in the author’s original writing. One responder in particular never necessarily disagreed with the author, however, he presented the idea that presenting the argument as a race issue would then somewhat incriminate ALL police officers as being racist, which just isn’t true despite any number of evidence that is given. Eventually, talks broke down and name calling began in the comments section before real discussion began on this subject of employing a false dilemma that Cobertt an Eberly mention

Editing Analysis

This argument is a mess to begin with, however, after some editing I believe it is at least coherent. It would have been simpler for everyone involved if Glenn Beck had never even decided to create this poor excuse for an exigency, but that could just be because I edit with my left hand. However, since I am “ambidextrous” in that sense, I still found it possible to at least edit Beck’s work for clarity above all else while still trying to maintain his signature voice that so many audiences rely on. Beck needs to at least sound like he is making a decent policy argument in order to make up for the gigantic holes in his logic. In Jone’s Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic he mentions:

 “On an average news day, there are entire websites and blogs dedicated to noting ethical, factual, and legal problems with public arguments, especially on the news and radio talk shows. This is not to say that all public arguments set out to mislead their audiences, rather that the discussions they offer masquerading as arguments are often merely opinions or a spin on a particular topic and not carefully considered, quality arguments. What is often missing from these discussions is research, consideration of multiple vantage points, and, quite often, basic logic."

This statement alone entirely defines the fallacies that riddles Glen Becks talk show segment. Jones pretenses this by discussing how it is often the habit of individuals to discuss arguments as “war.” Glenn Beck uses nothing but embattled rhetoric to make his points. He practically challenges the “other side” to kill him. There is mention of a video near the beginning and there originally dialogue parts from James E. Clayburn (aka the “other side,”) however, with these removed Beck only ever points to specific instances of violence from so-called “thugs,” (a conservative jargon favorite for categorizing liberals who use their own commonly used tactics against them.) Essentially, Beck never gives anyone a chance to answer all those rhetorical questions he asks. This “argument” is really just a conversation with himself. Even if there was a dialogue in the original text, it is so short it’s hardly noticeable and he ends the actual conversation part of his argument with an exclamatory “Stop, stop, stop,” in the original radio show.

I could painstakingly go through every single instance where I had to edit for tense, grammar, and the like, however, a lot of those mistakes are just painfully obvious and have to do more with the fact that this was transcribed from spoken word. I figured it would be a better use of my time and practice to try and edit for cohesion for the most part.

Beck’s argument relies on trust from his audience. He needs his audience to believe that if he says that Obama has called someone a racist then that is definitely what has happened at some point. He just starts rattling off the opinions opposite his own in defense of his own opinions. At one point he even just exclaims a name as if that helps to prove that his opinions are more valid. Of course, I deleted that part.  

As a radio announcer myself I understand that without the proper context, transcribing an on-air argument into written word will take away much of the original intent hidden in the tone, voice, and meter. I initially began editing as though I were going to try and form a cohesive essay out of the material, however, this totally stole away from the Glenn Beck character. Much of this character Glenn Beck is provided the necessary context needed to fill in much of the blanks this work just inherently had due to its original nature. I realized earlier on that cutting out every instance of the use of the second-person wasn’t going to be possible. For Beck’s “point” to get across it almost must absolutely be accusatory. 

There are obvious issues with the way in which Beck presents his point, but as I have said his accusatory tone was necessary to maintain his voice which is the sole proprietor of the much needed context of this argument. I looked much to Style in order to really understand the ethics of style that needed to be considered in this piece. “Write to others as you would have others write to you” (Williams & Bizup, pg. 132) is supposed to be the general rule, however, this must really consider audience as well. Beck’s arguments must be effective to someone because of his popularity; someone is buying this stuff. This is because Beck is speaking to others who are like himself. The initial response of mine was to remove such emotionally manipulative language, especially when he uses his faith as evidence to his argument, however, once again, he knows his audience much better than I do. Is this estranging to many audiences? Sure, but not the ones he is concerned about.

Works Cited

Brooks, Brian S., James L. Pinson, and Jean Gaddy. Wilson. "Grammar and Usage." Working with Words: A Handbook for Media Writers and Editors. Boston: Bedford/St. Martins, 2006. N. pag. Print.

Jones, Rebecca. "Finding the Good Argument OR Why Bother With Logic?" Writing Spaces: Readings on Writing. By Charles Lowe. West Lafayette, IN: Parlor, 2010. N. pag. Web.

Williams, Joseph M. "The Ethics of Style." Style: The Basics of Clarity and Grace. New York: Pearson Longman, 2009. 134-35. Print.