Number One With a Bullet

Contrary to my expectations, I feel like I have benefited greatly from English 402. I have always enjoyed writing and thought that I would not really learn anything, but I was wrong. Though technical writing may not be the most enjoyable, it is an inevitable necessity, and I now feel much more prepared to communicate in a professional environment. Two of the most important tools I took from our weekly memo writing: titles and bullets.

Titles
Titles are an easy way to quickly convey the organization of your document to your audience. Simply by scanning through the headings, the reader can have a pretty comprehensive idea of what you are writing about. Who could have thought that simply using bold and/or enlarged text would be such a powerful tool?

Bullets
Bullets have multiple advantages in a technical document. When used appropriately they

• convey multiple ideas in a condensed format
  
• are easily identifiable on a cursory reading of the document
  
• organize ideas into a professional and comprehensible format
  

These techniques revolve around the idea that people are too busy in today's business environments to spend time to reading superfluous information. Do not use 5 words when 3 will do, and do not waste time writing long paragraphs when you could use a list or a table. You want to give your message efficiently and professionally, so avoid thinking that you are writing literature.

Publishing

I appreciate the interesting insight Tom Sumner offered into the details behind book publishing. I learned just how involved publishers are in a project from the very beginning discovery of a manuscript, to the editing and formatting, all the way to production and promotion of the final product.

What I found most interesting was the discussion of the rise of alternative publishing sources. Commercial services offering manuscript formatting and printing are far more readily available for aspiring author-publishers, which could potentially limit the need for publishing companies.

Additionally, the advent of the internet and personal computer offer a much more dynamic alternative source of media consumption. Not only can book manuscripts now be easily compiled and distributed in digital format, but the product of written media has completely morphed to fill new market niches. Writing comes to us for free these days directly from the source: blogs, twitter, social networks and other readily available web sources and digital formats.

So do we even need publishers? The answer, for now at least, seems to be yes if we want to put together a professional product that will get lots of readers. But I feel that this might not always be the case. The development of new portable digital book readers like the Kindle, Nook, iPad and dozens of others, shows that there is an increasing shift in trend towards a more versatile delivery method. Nowhere does it say that written words have to be paper words, and I feel this trend for easier access and dynamic versatility will supersede our love of physical media.

Advertising

The Persuaders segment on Frontline was a very interesting examination of just how much machination goes in to selling us a product or service. There is a constant battle going on to get consumers' dollars, and the casualty is our consciousness. In order to shill their products, no arena seems off-limits to advertisers, including subliminal mind control tactics.

Now when people hear 'mind control' they usually think of science fiction or perhaps very powerful hypnotic suggestion (such as the Manchurian Candidate). However, sorry to say, these sorts of fantastical things are not necessary to control our weak minds. This again plays to a major theme I talk about throughout my blog: human brains are susceptible to unconscious influences. These are usually emotional in nature, and they often go unnoticed until some news magazine does a documentary on them.

This very much reminded me of a segment by British illusionist Derren Brown, Subliminal Advertising where he turns the tables on a couple of advertising professionals. I recommend you watch it, its very interesting and somewhat spooky, and shows just how powerful subliminal suggestion can be.

In all I was not entirely surprised by what was revealed of the advertising industry. Their tactics may have changed in delivery and in physical media, but the primary goal of companies selling their products has not changed. They want to do whatever they can to get the consumer to identify with a product. Not just to want or need it, but to feel a bond which co-opts their branding as a small part of your identity. They can do this through the front door with logos, or through the back door through surreptitious subliminal advertising, the effect is the same.

Rose Rules the World

After the recent weeks' classes I have been paying much closer attention to the craft behind journalism writing. And the more the subsurface is uncovered, the more jaded I seem to be with news media in general.

Now I am not so naive as to believe that news sources are ever completely objective and unbiased. And I'm not just talking about the obvious political propaganda that regularly comes from certain slanted sources. Bias comes from everywhere. It leeches up through the very words themselves regardless of even the best intentioned authors. It is manifest in the tone of the writing; the sensationalist headlines or the drab underemphasis; the depth of the details and even the physical placement of the article itself. Even the decision to cover a story rather than not automatically establishes a bias that this information is newsworthy, so pay attention.

This is an unavoidable effect (and affect) of our human nature. We approach the world with a set of beliefs and expectations that shapes our experience of the world and our reactions to it. Therefore it is expected that these same rules apply for those humans who make up the news media.

But, amidst all the surreptitious, swaying spin, what interests me most is the reconciliation a journalist (and particularly an editor) must make between being simultaneously a news source and a business.

I guess this comes down to a philosophical issue over what you consider the function of the news media to be. We generally have this notion when we are young that journalists strive only to report the news. To give information to the masses and to give it honestly and truthfully. But slowly we learn that newspapers and TV stations are businesses just like any other retailer or service provider. And what a business wants more than anything else, is more business.

I don't want to give the impression that I think that the dollar drives every key stroke on the typewriter; but capturing and maintaining an audience (and subsequently $$$) is undoubtedly the overarching and ubiquitous goal which shapes and molds the product that we consume. Now this in itself is not a bad thing, or a good thing, it is just the popular thing. News sources, just like any other money-making entity in our capitalist economy, tend to give us what we want (or at least what we want to buy).

Tia York touched a little bit on this theme when she spoke to our class. What I found most interesting was her reference to Rose, the quintessential target audience. Rose is an amalgam of all the most important (read: spend happy) demographics. Rose spends the most money so we want to make sure first and foremost that we give Rose what she wants, and that we do not alienate her. Is this a story Rose would like? Where would Rose want this story to be? What advertisements does Rose like? What pictures would Rose like to see? And (like we asked during the ethical dilemmas exercise on Tuesday) what images does Rose not want to see? These are all questions that are seriously considered before any newspaper or broadcast is completed. In this way we can see that our news stations are not always a shining beacon of truth, but more a practice in public pandering.

This all sounds a bit pessimistic, but it is not. It is simply a reality of our world. I read and watch the news routinely and trust its validity. But the lesson I have learned and want to convey, is that we must approach our news with an open, but not a gullible mind. We should verify through corroboration and diversify our exposure to news. And most of all, we should never be under the delusion that what we hear, see or read is an infallible, objective or complete representation of absolute truth, these simply do not exist.

Online Media Kit

Here is a link to BusinessWeek's print media kit.

Technical Writing Exercise Review

I have chosen to review David Shuren's Technical Rewrite.

I like how the beginning starts with a more generalized statement introducing how to share programs and data on a network drive. This makes it clear that these instructions apply to any program or data rather than any specific programs, as might be inferred from the original instructions, which talk about "the program". It is also succinct, yet complete, and does not use excess verbiage which is important in any technical style writing. Contrast

"Perform the following to set up a shared drive: " (Good)

with

"The following must be kept in mind sometimes if you should decide to set up a shared drive:" (Excruciating)

The tone of David's document is also much more professional, and vastly more confident than in the original. I trust that David's instructions are complete, and will get me to where I want to be. It gives clear commands and walks me through the necessary steps to set up a drive. This is dramatically different from the wavering, unsure feel of the original document which uses language like "sometimes... assuming... I guess... try selecting... you may... all the time necessarily". I don't trust a single one of those instructions.

And finally, David's document has the advantage of not calling it's reader an idiot. I can't imagine why that was included in the original instructions if these were actually used in a business communication. Note: calling your colleagues idiots rarely endears you to them, unless you are Don Rickles.

Technical Writing Exercise

Creating Shared Drives Under Windows 95

Personal Statement

In preparation for completing applications and resumes, I have been reading various samples of med school application essays. A good personal statement can do a lot to make your application stand out, and much of that will have to do with your use of rhetoric and voice. I have chosen a specific essay to analyze for the use of rhetoric.

Emergency 911

Of course the predominating rhetorical tools in these sorts of essays will be ethos and pathos. I would imagine it is difficult to deductively reason that someone should accept your application, so usage of logos will be a bit sparse. Instead we can see that the author is trying to build and convey a substantive ethos to his audience by relating his personal experiences. His goal is to leave the essay proctor with an image of an ambitious, experienced, responsible, altruistic leader and medical asset using nothing but his words.

I like how this essay starts out racing; stomping the pathos pedal all the way to the floor. It feels like one of the opening pre-credit sequences to some TV medical drama like House. By narrating his response to a traffic accident with vivid imagery and short, energetic, punctuated sentences, he heightens the sense of anxiety and excitement in this already traumatic event. By the end of the paragraph we almost feel like we have lived through the ordeal with him. The ethos inspired by the image of him desperately trying to breath life into a mangled, dying accident victim is about as heroic as you can get, and it leaves us with a sense that he is up to the nerve-racking challenge that medicine provides.

After setting us up with an intense depiction of a fearless, commanding, shirtless first-responder, he then hits us with his vulnerable side. Before our adrenaline can even subside, his next paragraph describes him as "trembling", "disheartened", "desperate" and "demoralized" at not being able to save this man's life. This complete shift in tone helps add a healthy dose of sympathy and compassion to his ethos repertoire. Not only will he be out on the front lines saving lives, but he will be fueled by genuine charity and devotion to mankind.

The remaining paragraphs get a little drab to me. He throws in a bit more pathos by describing his work in rural Mexico and his affinity with the Hispanic culture, but he spends the majority of the remaining essay simply relating the usual obligatory extra curriculars, volunteer and research experience and academic achievements. Each sentence continually adds to his developing ethos as the quintessential magnanimous medical applicant.

Overall, I was impressed by how the author used rhetorical tools to create such a powerful ethos. Using the emotions of his reader, he has distinctly established himself as not merely a list of accomplishments and experiences on an application, but as a dynamic, feeling and caring person. We feel like we trust him and know him. At least as much of him as can be conveyed through a short piece of writing. I hope I can replicate at least a small amount of this ethos in my own future personal statement essays.

Tone

I received a personal message recently from the President of the United States. Well, it might not have been exclusively for me, but I consider myself part of the Union to which Obama was addressing. Plus, when I looked deep into his big, brown, Obama eyes it felt like he was delivering it especially to me, so maybe that counts. Anyway, I realize that this is technically a transcript of a speech, but I assume it was written down at some point before actually being spoken. Here were a few tone-heavy excerpts that stood out to me.

Our Constitution declares that from time to time, the President shall give to Congress information about the state of our union. For 220 years, our leaders have fulfilled this duty. They've done so during periods of prosperity and tranquility. And they've done so in the midst of war and depression; at moments of great strife and great struggle.

This was pretty much the first line, and for some reason it's not what I expected. It immediately establishes a sort of divisive formality, distancing himself from his audience. I imagined he would spend at least a few paragraphs in the beginning on the usual ingratiating political pandering, talking about how honored he is to be here giving his first state of the union and blah blah blah. But instead it almost sounds like he's pissed he has to be there. "Our Constitution declares that ... the President shall give to Congress information" sounds like "since the Constitution is making me, I guess I'll give you guys a head's up." Although I can sympathize with not wanting to be in a room full of congressmen.

One year ago, I took office amid two wars, an economy rocked by a severe recession, a financial system on the verge of collapse, and a government deeply in debt. Experts from across the political spectrum warned that if we did not act, we might face a second depression.

Just in case you forgot. Wow, I don't like this new downer Obama. Again, he continues to distance himself, this time by reminding us that "it's not my fault, it was broke when I found it." Though, of course, everything he said was true, the bluntness of these opening remarks almost came across as defensive to me.

For these Americans and so many others, change has not come fast enough. Some are frustrated; some are angry. They don't understand why it seems like bad behavior on Wall Street is rewarded, but hard work on Main Street isn't.

Here Obama is trying to establish some rapport and solidarity by building himself up as the hero of the downtrodden. By talking about Americans in the third person it almost seems as if he's not speaking to us anymore, but that he's speaking for us, defending us against the evil forces that threaten our livelihood. I only wish he would have stayed away from the Wall Street/Main Street dichotomy. It's just too clichéd and too easy. Let's just blame it all on a street. As if focusing all our rage on one symbolic scapegoat of an industry will resolve all of our problems.

Our administration has had some political setbacks this year, and some of them were deserved. But I wake up every day knowing that they are nothing compared to the setbacks that families all across this country have faced this year. And what keeps me going -– what keeps me fighting -– is that despite all these setbacks, that spirit of determination and optimism, that fundamental decency that has always been at the core of the American people, that lives on.

I notice that he chose not to elaborate on what the "deserved setbacks" were, but I appreciate that he made this admission. It contributed to a tone of sincerity and humility, that he could admit to mistakes. And at the end he again takes on the role of our tireless champion, pledging to keep "fighting" to preserve the American spirit.

What was your favorite line of the SOTU?

Defining Objectives

Defining Objectives Worksheet

Rhetoric

Because of our modern societies' vast scientific achievements, we might tend to think that facts and deductive reasoning completely govern how we think. We imagine we are intelligent beings who can tell a truth from a falsity and are only swayed by evidence. Unfortunately this is not always the case. Deduction is only one tool in a powerful field of persuasion called rhetoric. All rhetorical arguments can be divided into three categories: logos, pathos and ethos.

Logos is what many of us would assume is the most persuasive argumentative technique. This is the purely logical. Facts and beliefs are arrived at through untainted deductive reasoning. In this manner, we can reduce statements to a binary true or false. This is the field of rhetoric we hope our world is governed by.
Mathematicians, engineers, judges and public officials we trust deal only in logos. They are swayed only by facts and logic. However, this is often not the case as logical arguments can become shrouded by the fog of the remaining two rhetorical categories.

No man can be an expert in all things. In today's complicated world there is simply too much information for one lowly human to accumulate. This is why we specialize, and why we defer to the judgment and expertise of other people. We take a statement from these experts as likely to be accurate because we assume they have analyzed the logical arguments and reached the proper conclusion. We then adopt their conclusions as our beliefs based on our faith in their reputation. We have outsourced our logical thinking to other humans and trust their conclusions are correct. This is the rhetorical category of ethos: when we are persuaded by certain arguments, not because of their inherent worth, but because of the status of those making them.

Unfortunately, neither of these rhetorical methods can safeguard us from illogical thinking. This is due in large part to the extremely persuasive powers of pathos. Pathos arguments function by manipulating us through our emotions. They persuade not because they are logical, but because they inspire a particular feeling within us. It may make us happy or frightened or patriotic or nostalgic. In this way it subverts our logical mind. We may not even be able to identify exactly what emotions it plays to, but nevertheless it can use our subconscious against us. This is an instinctual response which has served mankind well throughout our evolutionary history. Without emotional thinking we would never have been able to survive to invent logic. Avoiding things that frightened us and pursuing things that made us happy proved very advantageous to our development as a species. However today our susceptibility to pathos serves to further the agenda in the arena of marketers, political hopefuls, religious leaders, and anywhere else irrational thinking rules.

Writing

Writing is a magnificent tool. It allows us to externalize our internal thoughts and knowledge in a way that can be disseminated all over the world and understood by other humans. In this almost magical way, we can literally convey our thoughts to other people as if they have stepped into our mind and taken on our ideas. Furthermore, thanks to writing, we can benefit from the knowledge of thousands of previous generations, and subsequently leave our influence for all future readers.

Writing is flexible and is used in all areas of life. We need it to keep our records and preserve our history. With it, we can share our feelings and describe our internal subjective experience. We need writing for math and for engineering. In fact, there is most likely not one facet of our modern society that one could point to that would have been possible were it not for the invention of writing.

However, it is not because of its utilitarian functions that I find writing so profound. Writing fascinates me most because of its ability to elucidate the fundamental nature of the human mind. Our use of writing, past and present, serves as a mirror through which all of humanity can examine itself. Not just current events and trends, but a deep reflection of the whole of human civilization, and a dim outline of the inner workings of our conscious minds.

Linguist Noam Chomsky is famous for arguing the Universal Theory of Grammar, which postulates that the grammatical structure and systematic composition of our languages belies an inborn nature in which the human mind functions. Though seemingly distinct languages may have superficial differences, they are all scaffolded by the same a priori framework of human cognition. As if each language is grown from the same seed, but disparate environments lead to variations in the plumage. It is Chomsky's theory that by understanding how languages are fundamentally put together, we can come to more fully understand how our minds are put together.

Other linguistic theories dealing with human cognition assert that it may be the other way around. That we only learn to think and communicate a certain way because it reflects the codified rules previously established by our society. The rules become ingrained in our subconscious, not because of genetic predisposition, but because we are taught them through imitation and education.

I believe that to simplify the interaction between human thought and our use of writing to one of two distinct and isolated causes is insufficient. Like all things, it is much more complex and involves interplay and feedback from many forces. Human thought and language are virtually inseparable, as they constantly influence each other through mutual evolution and co-delineation; a single seething organism fluctuating, pulsating, and changing in many ways. This is why I feel writing is such a precious gift, because it is so crucial to the functioning and understanding of our mind.

Welcome to 402.

First test post for English 402.