Posted on October 10, 2018
When creating my rhetorical analysis, I initially decided to choose Vongkiatkajorn’s article This article discussed the problem that has shown up in the news over the past few years. The topic of fake news. His essay was structured like a study guide and allowed readers to develop an understanding for the concept of fake news and how to prevent false claims from spreading. I set my sights on analyzing this essay but came to a major obstacle. I felt I could not agree with his argument. I understood there was a need for a solution for preventing fake news, but Vongkiatkajorn methods were extremely flawed. He refused to acknowledge the creation of fake news as well as the spread is only enhanced by how efficient the public has become. Efficiency shows in my mind a sense of sophistication for a population, allowing them to expend less energy to accomplish a task. This is true if the task can still be accomplished. This can be seen at the beginning of man with the domestication of animals. As a species we started are path of becoming efficient, but it made us much more successful in our endeavors. People are now able to express this efficiency by turning to risky electronic newspapers rather than more established and fact checked hard-copy newspapers. Vongkiatkajorn now demands that as a population we move backwards and oppose this efficiency by fact checking everything that we read. This idea is realistically unachievable. The point of news is to introduce new information to the public quickly. The reader wishes for a quick way to be aware of his surroundings. Most people read multiple articles in one sitting, not just the headlining article. Vongkiatkajorn solution would limit the amount of news that can be read. People will be more concerned about one aspect of their surroundings rather than the whole view. While reading the article I struggled between wanting an efficient world that has a well-rounded knowledge of the world. Or as Vongkiatkajorn wants a less efficient world that would be accurate in limited concepts. For this disagreement I couldn’t pick Vongkiatkajorn essay because I kept disagreeing with his solutions rather than analyzing his rhetoric. Also, his essay struggled with keeping the reader connected to his argument because he structured it like a study guide where the reader would pick sections rather than reading the entire article. My next option was to pick my second choice at the time, Nussbaum’s article. This article pleased me with providing ideas that were new to me as well as developing an argument I agreed with. Reading the essay I saw a unique ability to separate emotion and reason in the article which I try to focus on in my essay.