Digital Satire

From RhetorClick

Revision as of 13:58, 17 July 2012 by Ahmed Amer (Talk | contribs)
Jump to: navigation, search

Contents

Rhetoric, Satire, and Digital Media

Rhetoric

Aristotle taught that rhetoric is the art of persuasion consisting of various methods used in attempting to persuade an audience.[1] A persuasive argument can be measured by the effectiveness of its rhetorical devices. Such devices may or may not be fact based, and may employ humorous ridicule, hyperbole, sarcasm, or cynicism. Rhetoric utilizing this technique is often called satire.[2] Aristotle lists three persuasive audience appeals: Logos, Pathos, and Ethos - the logical, emotional, and ethical appeal to the audience, respectively. It is essential to understand how to use logos, pathos, and ethos in order to effectively persuade your audience. There are five cannons of rhetoric: Invention, Arrangement, Style, Memory, and Delivery. Using the five canons of rhetoric you can build an effective argument.

Satire

Satire being a more literary genre which is seen to use more of a sense of criticism towards a specific person or group[3]. It can also be found in graphic and entertaining arts such as magazine articles and theatrical performances. In satire shortcomings are held up to ridicule for not being in harmony with accepted norms.

Although satire is usually meant to be funny, its greater purpose is often constructive social criticism, using wit as a weapon [4].

A common feature of satire is strong irony or sarcasm—"in satire, irony is militant" (Frye) - but parody, and burlesque are frequently used in satirical speech and writing. This "militant" irony or sarcasm often professes to approve of (or at least accept as natural) the very things the satirist wishes to attack [5].


Satirical works often contain "straight" humour. Laughter is not an essential component of satire,(Corum 175) as in spectrum of satire there are types that are not meant to arise laughter and be "funny".

Conversely, not all humour is necessarily "satirical", even on such topics as politics, religion or art, or even when it uses the satirical tools of irony, parody, and burlesque [6].


Satirical playwright Dario Fo pointed out the difference between satire and teasing. Teasing is the reactionary side of the comic, it limits itself to a shallow parody of physical appearance. Satire instead uses the comic to go against power and its oppressions, has a subversive character, and a moral dimension which draws judgement against its targets [7].


Teasing is an ancient form of simple buffoonery, a form of comedy without satire's subversive edge. Teasing includes light and affectionate parody, good-humoured mockery, simple one-dimensional poking fun, benign spoofs. Teasing typically consists in a impersonation of someone monkeying around with his exterior attributes, tics, physical blemishes, voice and mannerisms, quirks, way of dressing and walking, the phrases he typically repeats. By contrast, teasing never touches on the core issue, never makes a serious criticism judging the target with irony; it never harms the target's conduct, ideology and position of power; it never undermines the perception of his morality and cultural dimension [8].


Critics tend to see irony, parody, and satire as diminishing meaning (by belittling the subject), but as Harold Bloom reminds us, the great ironists such as Shakespeare tended to expand meaning (13). Satire is provocative, not dismissive - a crucial point that critics typically ignore when assessing its role in public discourse [9].


Test argues that play and laughter constitute and define all satiric undertakings and distinguish it from other forms of aesthetic expression with which it is sometimes confused with "humor, comedy, social criticism, parody, burlesque, farce and travesty"(13).


Again, there has been some controversy over whether laughter is a necessary component or distinguishing feature of satire. Laughter is ultimately something satire may or may not produce within the audience. It is not something that resides in the artistic expression itself. Satire does not need to be funny. [10].


Satire relies on rhetorical devices like enthymemes, understated logic, where the audience must draw its own conclusions [11].The meaning of enthymemes has to do with an unanswered statement which is made by a person, which allows someone to find the conclusion of the statement on their own by being able to understand the statement [12]. In this way, satire dismantles an opponent without explicit argumentation for a particular position. Since the audience must finish assembling the argument, satire may at times be more effective than explicit or more traditional rhetoric. Drawing attention to some absurdity or inconsistency may also arouse sympathy for an alternate view, thereby forging inroads with an otherwise disagreeable audience.


Satire is a contemporary of events with the newest satirical internet. The cinema contains political documentaries which consist of a combination of satire and polemic. The media text is a mainstream of political coverage. The 3 prevalent forms: satiric documentary, parodic news show, ironic, and media savvy activism.

In public debate, satire often acts as a critical component to any argument. Often used as a tool to help the public or intended audience develop a powerful political consciousness, satire helps to create a forum of true public opinion from which debate can thrive. A skillful use of satire can engage the audience in a more constructive way by appealing to its imagination as well as engaging the intellect [13]Satire has the ability to enthrall an audience and the media only helps to exploit satirists desires. The audience does not get the opportunity to agree or disagree, but in viewing satire from various media sources, it is clear that public debate can be sparked. In taking a passive approach, satirists are able to call to action, if not to anger a particular set of individuals.


Satire is looked to, for its ability to unmask and to deconstruct, pointing us toward the flaws and the posturings of official policy [14].The image of physically unveiling something or someone is one that recurs again and again in discussions of satire[15]. Also, satire has been feared and banned because it is seen as a powerful force (Feinberg)[16]. I would even argue that contemporary, mediatized political satire is being mobilized in a fairly populist register, as seemingly average Joes attempt to take down the mighty [17]. Satire is effective in its goal to provide social commentary now more than ever because it grabs the attention of its audience. In recent years, a divide has been built between media outlets and the viewers for which they compete. Effective satire, like that of Jon Stewart [18] and Stephen Colbert [19], is very critical of media networks who report with the goal of shock value in mind, rather than balanced news. Constructively criticizing widely untrusted news sources builds an implied trust that the satirist is credible; it also encourages the audience to become more informed so they can understand the humor used in the satire.

According to Hutcheon [20] a more idealistic view holds that satire and irony have "the potential to offer a challenge to the hierarchy of the very 'sites' of discourse." Also, Lillian and Edward Bloom go on to explain, that satire ultimately has little political effect because it does not in itself initiate change and, in fact, rarely encourages it [21].


Satire can play a big role in public debate. There are bloggers that post ideas anonymously on the internet, and there are people that challenge those in power [22]. Also, certain tools lend themselves more fully to digital satire to give back to society. The internet is a good tool based on the fact that anyone can use it [23].


A drawback in political debate is the possibility that audiences view satire as an end in itself rather than as an impetus to act on the message. For this reason, most theorists argue satire is politically impotent, they viewing traditional and more seriously framed debate as the driving force in shaping opinion. Based on Sigmund Freud’s proposal that humor sublimates aggression, theorists argue that satire numbs an audience resulting in their inaction; thus, satire has no useful place in political discourse [24]. Of course, not all theorists agree with this position. In addition, a 2009 study shows a wide difference of opinion among a diverse audience when each was asked what the same satirist had really been advocating, showing that satire is not always equally effective [25]. But satire does play a role, if only to draw attention to an issue. Proponents view it as an important tool leveraged in the modern political debate. As one puts it, "Instead of holding out for monumental change, I am more interested in incremental shifts in influencing public debate and in creating or mobilizing political communities" [26]. Whether or not true creation or mobilization occurs, satire is a tool to reach otherwise disengaged segments of society who have become skeptical of the status quo. 3.

Certain communication techniques lend themselves more to satire than others. For example, irony is the leading literary device which often drives satirical arguments. To assist their arguments even further, satirists often employ the use of exaggeration, innuendo, and paranomasia. Extended similies and metaphors often help to allow an audeience to see a comparison of what is being scorned.

Having the identity as being "anonymous" is seen for people who want to keep their information that they post private, or they could be scared about the backlash of any comments that might be made.But for you to create an identity online you might create a blog, or twitter, or have facebook to have yoourself know for the digital world.

For satire to be effective, it must be sincere at the core. Day argues that ironic authenticity is to satire what credibility is to traditional argumentation. Just because satire is comedic does not mean it is not at the same time serious; and since satire is becoming increasingly popular, she asserts, "for many, irony is becoming a new marker of sincerity."[27]

Digital Satire allows collaboration through social networks, with the result being potentially better than a smaller team. This vastly more unlimited vehicle takes advantage of more creative talents at work on a project, and at the same time overthrows the need for an institutionalized structure traditionally required for such collaboration, as Clay Shirky points out."[28] Digital satire created in this way becomes the product of a group effort that potentially maximizes its value in the social marketplace of ideas.

Communities of Satire

Identity vs. Privacy

Danah Boyd looks at the changing faces of “Networked Privacy,” asserting that U.S. privacy laws of the 1970s are not applicable in 2010 and furthermore that there is no current agreement on “what privacy is, or what it means to actually protect it in the first place.” She points to a mother who created a public webpage of her family’s genealogy that included maiden names, the most common internet security question, as an example of the conflict between the desire for social connectedness and privacy.[29]

Some argue that the internet’s public nature must be preserved if it is to act as a medium to enact popular goals. Jillian York talks about how internet connectivity is a major force for public activism, agreeing with blogger Andrew Trench’s estimate that if the 2011 struggles in “Egypt and Tunisia are valid case studies, it looks like internet penetration of around 20%” is the threshold for effective mobilization of ground-level activism.[30]

When we interact in a physical environment our conversations are private by default until we go out of our way to make it very public [31]. Also, online privacy is public by default and private through effort [32].

Privacy isn't about restricting access to information, it's about having that moment of control and agency [33]. Agency should not be taken away, because then people can't achieve privacy.

Danah Boyd asked, “How do you protect privacy?” [34] Public internet is one of the main catalysts in the advancement of the technological era. The internet is the foundation of so many new age markets that its existences are vital. But in saying that nothing on the internet is 100% secure. There are so many potential hazardous users that even those things intended for privacy can be accessed. The right training in the wrong hands could decode any encryption. The YouTube video made the connection that privacy has this individual centric nature and stated, “sharing to be seen but trying to protect themselves to not be seen by certain people” relating to the regulation of the individuals of children. I would make the argument there is no such thing as private internet, the term is a paradox in itself which is globally interconnected can’t be private.

Privacy is the act of controlling what you do or say to others rather than the restriction of information from others. We control how private we want to be by not putting those images you wanted to put up on Facebook [35]. The internet is completely public. Users of the internet decide to make whatever they place on the internet public for anyone to see [36]. Privacy today, and privacy 10 years ago has changed in the sense that you can go online and figure out how to hack into someones computer and find their information thanks to the help of the internet.

Many people take the argument that "if you've got nothing to hide, you've got nothing to fear," which is a common argument in favor of a lack of privacy when it comes to matters of security. However, debate surrounding less devistating or incriminating evidence is much more heated. Privacy encompasses many ideas and it is therefore rather a combination of acts rather than one. The nothing to hide argument however is based on an underlying premise that assumes that what one wants to hide is bad, which is not always the case. In any ineraction it is impossible to keep things completely private, especially once global media is encorporated. [37]

Meanwhile, digital access is the internet, the computer, and mobile access [38].

Next, there are millions of individuals making their own videos for web distribution [39]. These are created at every level of production quality, from shaky camera-phone footage to sophisticated animation [40]. Any indiviual these days can post a video of anything whether their intention is to help or harm you.Being able to block, or track indiviuals who post violent or harmful videos will help people who have been harmed by the hateful video post.

Also, sophisticated natural language processing and the Internet are used to create a data portrait of one's aggregated online identity [41].

Meanwhile, our digital identities are entities that need to be managed, so what appears online tends to be a highly sanitized version of us [42]. Danah Boyle talks about the issue of digital identity [43]; she says: “in any given situation, an individual presents a face, which is the social presentation of one facet of their identity."

Moreover, a digital identity is created through the use of various social media outlets, the most popular being Facebook, Twitter, and Tumblr. One can also create a digital identity linked to their name if they comment or subscribe to a forum. According to an article by Naumi Haque, a great deal of contrast often exists between our real personalities and our digital identities. Since this is almost always the case, is our so-called digital identity really an identity, or is it more of a digital fingerprint of our true identity? Haque thinks that for now at least the fingerprint metaphor is probably more accurate; but as technology increases, he sees a day when even things we don't know about ourselves will be obvious to our digital selves.[44]

The reason being we're constantly being monitored; our online social presence is constantly being reviewed by supervisors and hiring managers along with the rest of the general public. Therefore, people are advised to not share the same information online that they would in an intimate setting with friends and family.

Your digital identity is created online by what you do, or say, online for others to see. Johari Window created a 2x2 matrix to explain what information is known about you to you and/or others. The Arena describes the information that you and others know about each other while the Unknown describes the information that you and others do not know about you on the internet. There is also the facade, which describes the information that you know but do not what to share with others, while the Blind Spot explains information that you don't know about your own digital identity which others know [45].

Online identity is a rhetorical term itself because to be online means to be recognized by and connected to a server. Hence, for in order to be recognized one is also synonymously identified. Once one ventures on the internet on immediately gains as online identity. Now what create the difference in the types of identities are its usage purposes. The internet is by design, a communication interface where one is giving or exchanging information. The giving and receiving of information can also be considered rhetorical because no answer is required.

Every individual who uses the internet has an online identity. Whether that said individual uses the internet to post on social networking sites, search topics of interest, or to read the news; all of the information that they associate with contributes to their identity. Sometimes, individuals use means within their reach to create a false identity, i.e. setting up a fake account. More often however, individuals er on the side of caution and tend to form their identity in the best light possible. They do this by overestimating their achievements and underestimating their failures. The perception of themselves that is shared with others online is fragmented, meaning that it is missing sometimes often critical components of who a person is or what they believe. Even before social networking took over the internet, indivdiuals presented only materials that they knew about themselves and were willing to share with the general public. In that respect, not much has changed. Except that now indivdiuals should be more aware of the material that they contribute to online, since it is more difficult to erase. Cite error: Closing </ref> missing for <ref> tag. In other words, a public is a space where people can come together for discourse. In the case of satire, writers come together to produce something that is subversive but still humorous. Philosopher Benjamin Barber had a different view when defining the public. Barber saw the public as a people coming together because of their shared discourse, not to create/collaborate [46].

Publics tend to mobolize others to action because writing, speaking, blogging requires indvidiuals to engage in a much larger network. The idea of a public tends to put pressure on a writer, by suggesting that his argument must be framed for a particular audience who have similar or dissimmilar viewpoints; this is dependent upon the goal of the written work. Social constraints also act to play a role in determining the dynamic between the public. Exploring mutuality may create a sense of "we" but also has the danger to create an "us" against "them mentality". [47]

According to Fraser a singular public sphere can never adequately represent all factions within a stratified society, meaning that it has always been essential for subaltern groups to form their own counterpublic spheres [48]. She stresses that these smaller publics are not inevitably about separatism; rather, they function as "bases and training grounds for agitational activities directed toward wider publics" [49].

Counterpublics exist to combat another public. Day uses Michael Warner's definition: [counterpublics are] "those publics constituted through a conflictual relation to the dominant, . . . [and] somehow subordinate to the prevailing culture."[50] An interesting and important qualification, however, is that counterpublics need not necessarily consist of "otherwise marginalized individuals," since the issue, and not the person, is subordinate to the larger public.[51]

The meaning behind "The Public" is to be part of a group that is most comfortable speaking directly and for whom the ideal realtionship among is one of efficiency. Another model for a public focuses on the more traditional medium of writing, as Phyllis Ryder says in her article: "As David Bartholomae and Joseph Harris have long argued that academics are inherently intertextual creatures, so Warner argues that the publics, too, are constituted by the circulation of texts."[52]

With rhetorical commnity it is seen as any group involved in using language to persuade or convince. Such as lawmakers, politcians, stockbrokers, etc. they could be thought as separate communities within society that skilled in using rhetoric[53].

rhetorical communities are not a single unified whole but a mix of numerous limited or local communities and of individuals who typically participate in not one but several of these communities.</ref>http://homepages.rpi.edu/~zappenj/Publications/Texts/rhetoric.html

A rhetorical community builds the creation of public interest, common goods, and active citizens [54].

A public is a group of people that perform in a similar way. It is a group of people that have similar ideas or goals [55].

According to Simon Clark, the best way to create a community is to bond people together by means of a special event or a shared interest (i.e. movie night in your local neighborhood). The importance of creating a community is to not be discouraged by a lack of commitment on the part of others. It is most important to create a plan and stick to it. The point of a community is to bring together people with a common knowledge in which they can share and express their interests among those who they are well acquainted with. [56]

Moreover, "every community needs a focus" [57]. This can be an online peer group [58]. Also, an insert needs to be set up, and everyone in the neighborhood needs to sign up [59].

Richard Millington states that in order to create a good community online you need four steps. The First is to find a metric to measure the success of the community. The second step is to Identify who your first members will be, while doing so you should establish what issues will be discussed and what source of technology will be used and how. After that identifying what type of online community it is and what the big appeal is will be essential to making the community work. Last but not least after all these steps are covered the final step is to launch the community and to devise strategies in order to keep growing. [60]

Meanwhile, the enabling technologies are based on the internet [61].

Finally, the web has changed communities."Google enriches itself by enriching thousands of bloggers through AdSense" [62]. "eBay solved the prisoner's dilemma" [63]. "Wikipedia has used thousands of volunteers to create a free encyclopedia with a million and a half articles in two hundred languages" [64].

Howard Rheingold emphasizes the world of collaboration, collaborative life. Simon Clark states, "every community needs a focus" [65]. Both Rheingold and Clarks information connect; the world of collaboration means a group of people are involved in something. Clark covered that a movie night would be an eventful night for a community of people (pick a night and make sure everyone knows about it). This illustrates the power of collaboration made possible through digital media. Rheingold talked about (in 2005) a coming world of “collaboration, participatory media, and collective action,” and certainly Wikipedia has achieved his model on a global level. He observed that every computer is a printing press, a broadcast booth, and a marketplace. The infrastructure is there, he argued, thus he urged communities to “get the cooperation project started.”[66]

An overview/recap of all the videos: Howard Rheingold talks about “Wikipedia and how it affects the natural instinct of the human people” [67]. . Wikipedia is not there to compete but for people to come together to work on a common project. Craig Newmark says relates a community with transparency and accountability, people need to be able to see what/why your doing it and be accountable for it. Simon Clark states “you need to come together, with a common and shared experience comes a healthy community” [68]. The idea that it is possible to create a community even though there is still a lack of transparency or collaboration but at the same time we could still bring those together and build a community.

Clark's vision shows collaboration and partnership not limited to the digital sphere, as he demonstrates by his organizing of weekly, casual cookouts in his small neighborhood. He reminds us that traditional reality should not be overlooked in lieu of modern cyberspace. As the world moves further and further toward digital communities, it is helpful to remember that we ourselves are physical beings living in physical space, that communities need not be digital to be relevant.[69]

When it comes to personal identity, is there really a real you? This idea of personal identity is closely tied to communities; your actions of personal identity will affect the community. The connection between community and satire can be knowing the audience and as well as the responses. Can satire provide transparency, accountability, or a shared experience? Publics are by a common text, not just a word document or book but an experience. Collaboration, shared experience, transparency or accountability is ways we can try to create communities.

Communities form through four ideas; collaboration, shared experience, transparency, and accountability. People need to have a shared representation of what their community stands for while everyone included in the community needs to know what is going on in their community and account for what the community is doing as a whole [70].

Community specific irony can function in an elitest manner. This creates a form of competency and knowledge that goes hand in hand with economic competency. While online communities have learned much from education and exposure they also acknoweldge that in becoming so, online communities trade a form of distinction for a more public and general coomunity. Developments in technology have made it easier to pick up and take apart media around us, individuals have a new forum upon which hey can enter into public discussion, free from mainstream media. These new technologies link average citizens, professionals, and activists to exchange in discourse that may have not been available in any other form. [71]

Institutions

"The remix becomes an act of social creativity."[72] "It potentially changes the way we relate to each other."[73] "All of our normal social interactions become an invitation to collective expression."[74] It's our real social lives that are transformed into art.[75]

The remix refers to individuals who use shared culture as a kind of language to communicate something to an audience. [76] Also, the social remix is used to mediate people's relationships with each other.[77] Lawrence Lessig shows how Republicans have been more open to creative sharing than Democrats, owing he argues to Republicans' shared ideology that separates out the creative potential of the individual from the collective corporatist structure, thus having more of a respect for creators' rights to remix a copyrighted endeavor for the collective good.[78]

Coorination costs are the financial difficulties in arranging group output. if you want to coordinate the work of people you create an institution which brings resources together and coordinate the activity of the groups. Cooperation needs to be put into the infastructure without regard to institutional models. There are a large number of people on the internet, but not everyone has what you need to create an infastructure. You need to draw them in to create a way to make an institution to meet a certain goal. This creates a need for management and structure (economic, physical, legal), as well as breaking down exlcusionary matters. Essentially, in creating cooperation into infastructure to create institutions, closed groups and companies will give way to looser networks where small contributors have big roles and fluid cooperation replaces rigid planning. [79]

According to Howard Rheingold, we live a collaborative life. For Example: Wikipedia is a natural instinct of people working as a group. Wikipedia is not there to compete but people coming together to work on a common project. The print press came along within decades and millions of people became literate, new forms of collective actions emerged within the spheres of knowledge, religion, politics, and wealth.

Audience

A rhetorical situation can act as as a natural context of persons, events, objects, and relations which strongly invites utterance. This therefore occurs naturally in the rhetorical situation, and is in many instances necessary to the completion of situational activity. This helps to define rhetorical character of which the three requirements of audience, constraints, and exigence are necessarily important for rhetorical discourse. [80]

The audience has the ability to set the discourse, to focus on cues from the writer. Therefore, the audience has assumed power in that it is regarded as having attitudes, beliefs, and expectations that are known to the writer. Others feel that writers can never truly know their audience but can invoke emotion from them, or imagine for their audience. However, this model seems to put more emphasis on the writer than on the discourse or the dynamic between the writer and audience that acts to facilitate a rhetorical situation. The appropriate rhetorical situation has a balance of creativity from the writer and the creativity of the reader. By understanding the needs of an audience, and whether that audience is addressed (assumed) or invoked (imagined), a communicator has a better chance of reaching that audience.[81]

An audience is (universal/particular -- those capable of being influenced and those capable of influencing) [82] Lloyd F. Bitzer defines rhetorical situation as "a natural context of persons, events, objects, relations, and an exigence which strongly invites utterance."[83] Thus defined, since such a confluence of parts is naturally changing, an effective speaker should recognize and adapt to these changes in order to effectively reach that audience.

"There are three constituents of any rhetorical situation: the first is the exigence; the second and third are elements of the complex, namely the audience to be constrained in decision and action, and the constraints which influence the rhetor and can be brought to bear upon the audience."[84] Discourse is Situated: 1) For audience, possibly pairing with content course 2) against hypothetical or physical audience and instead focuses on "cues" that writers use.[85] But Ede and Lunsford state that this oversimplifies the complexities of audience in the rhetorical situation. [86]

There is an indefinite amount of information for the rhetor to choose from in a situation. [87] Meaning that the rhetor can select the information he or she feels is relevant to the argument they are making in their satire. This view is opposite of Lloyd F. Bitzer's, who defines a rhetorical situation as "natural and objective." [88] However, if rhetorical situations were objective, then there would not be much room for discourse let alone satire. Richard E. Vatz makes the same argument against Bitzer in the following article. [89]

Crowdsourced Satire

Open Source

Memes

References

  1. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhetoric
  2. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  3. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  4. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  5. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  6. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  7. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  8. ↑ <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satire
  9. ↑ <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg
  10. ↑ <https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxkaWdpdGFsc2F0aXJlc3dpZnR8Z3g6MmI5MTFlMzVkZTA2NDcyYg
  11. ↑ http://rhetoric.byu.edu/figures/E/enthymeme.htm
  12. ↑ http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enthymeme
  13. ↑ http://www.dunneandraby.co.uk/content/bydandr/13/0
  14. ↑ Day 12
  15. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent p.12
  16. ↑ http://www.democracynow.org/resources/63/263/The_Irony_of_Satire.pdf
  17. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent p.9
  18. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aFQFB5YpDZE
  19. ↑ http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-869183917758574879
  20. ↑ Day 12
  21. ↑ Day 12
  22. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html
  23. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/evgeny_morozov_is_the_internet_what_orwell_feared.html
  24. ↑ Day, Amber. Satire and Dissent (Bloomington & Indianapolis: Indiana University Press, 2011), pp. 11-13.
  25. ↑ http://hij.sagepub.com/content/14/2/212.abstract
  26. ↑ Day 21
  27. ↑ Day 42
  28. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
  29. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  30. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be
  31. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  32. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  33. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  34. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  35. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  36. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8yOz8u4PBw&feature=youtu.be
  37. ↑ http://chronicle.com/article/Why-Privacy-Matters-Even-if/127461/
  38. ↑ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8UiU7nm7XHk&feature=youtu.be
  39. ↑ Day 25
  40. ↑ Day 25
  41. ↑ http://personas.media.mit.edu/
  42. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
  43. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
  44. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
  45. ↑ http://www.wikinomics.com/blog/index.php/2009/08/20/the-digital-identity-divide/
  46. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
  47. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
  48. ↑ Day 132
  49. ↑ Day 132
  50. ↑ Day 132
  51. ↑ Day 132
  52. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
  53. ↑ http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_a_rhetorical_community
  54. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
  55. ↑ http://enculturation.gmu.edu/6.1/ryder
  56. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  57. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  58. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  59. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  60. ↑ http://www.feverbee.com/2008/12/how-do-you-build-an-online-community.html
  61. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  62. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  63. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  64. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  65. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  66. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  67. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  68. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  69. ↑ http://igniteshow.com/videos/hacking-hood-simple-ways-turn-neighborhood-community
  70. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/howard_rheingold_on_collaboration.html
  71. ↑ Day, 40-42
  72. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  73. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  74. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  75. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  76. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  77. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  78. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/lessig_nyed.html
  79. ↑ http://www.ted.com/talks/clay_shirky_on_institutions_versus_collaboration.html
  80. ↑ http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/
  81. ↑ http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/
  82. ↑ http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html
  83. ↑ http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/
  84. ↑ http://bradley.bradley.edu/~ell/Bitzer1.html
  85. ↑ http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/
  86. ↑ http://comprhession.wordpress.com/2007/09/11/ede-and-lunsfords-audience-addressedaudience-invoked/
  87. ↑ http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/
  88. ↑ http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/
  89. ↑ http://michaeljfaris.com/blog/2007/04/what-is-the-rhetorical-situation/
Retrieved from "https://rhetorclick.com/wiki/Digital_Satire"
Personal tools
Namespaces
Variants
Actions
Site Navigation
Wiki Help
Toolbox