Finally, we have moved away from the topic of invention and are focusing on a new aspect of rhetoric! Not that I dislike invention, of course. It’s probably the most important part of discourse, so long as you’re able to communicate somewhat effectively.
What’s just as refreshing as a switch in rhetorical focus is the difference between the ancient’s way of viewing arrangement as opposed to the rhetoricians of today. Crowley & Hawhee illustrate that on the second page of the chapter when they discuss the less formal and more audience-centered views the ancients had on arrangement. It reminded me of when I formerly wrote for the Williamsport Sun-Gazette.
I wrote two styles of pieces with two separate arrangements: one in the print edition (more geared towards the casual reader) and another on my blog on the paper’s website (geared more towards the hardcore user, as they had to seek the content out). I had much more fun writing the blog, as I could dispense with the formality of making sure everyone followed along and just write for an audience I knew both understood what I was saying and had a desire to go beyond the surface-level of information presented in the paper. It made me happy to know I didn’t have to cater to everyone and could write for those who weren’t outsiders or just reading me by chance.
That was why I was somewhat disheartened to read some of the tips in the lists of topics in this chapter. Crowley & Hawhee state that one topic that can make an audience more receptive was to “Show respect for audience” (302). Now, that seems an easy one for most to agree with, but I think a little negativity towards the audience can absolutely have its place. Otherwise, how can they be expected to believe we are being truly honest? Your audience can’t think there’s any level of objectivity if blame is always on someone else and never on them.
There are endless real-world examples. Politics where a president with a horrible approval rating was elected, as was the case with both Obama and Bush. Scientist who write to the general public on the effects of their own carbon footprints. These audiences need to be held accountable for their choices, and too often “respecting an audience” means to absolve them of any fault whatsoever. That’s certainly the case in today’s media, at the very least.
I’ll use an example that’s a more focused one than the ones above. Many times when I read fantasy sports advice columns, they cite percentage owned or percentage started figures for players in the fantasy universe. Sometimes weeks or even months go by where the author’s recommendations go ignored and those percentage stay either ridiculously high or low. The author often (and rightfully so) criticizes his readers for not taking his advice. And why shouldn’t he? He’s paid to assist them with his opinions. If they don’t take his advice, how much respect can you really give them as an audience?
The argument, of course, can be made that he lacks a quality they can empathize with as a rhetor and that is why they don’t take his advice. Or perhaps they succeed in spite of him, though I sincerely doubt it, at least in the majority of cases. I just dislike the “it’s all about you” mentality we’ve come to as a society. It permeates every level of media, from newspapers to radio to television. The entitlement of everyday people is at an appalling level, and to continue to preach “respect for audience” does nothing to diminish that.
Again, I’m not saying to tell the audience to go f--- themselves (provided they don’t deserve it, of course). I’d just like for accountability to become prevalent once again, something that’s been missing among the common man and woman in this county for a long, long time.
No comments:
Post a Comment