Rhetorical Situations K Wong

Who(Author, Audience)?
Author: Suzanne LaBarre
Published: Popular Science
(Only Online publication- more of an open variation of audience)
Noting that the place published is a website called Popular Science. This website itself may already have a fan base (Targeted Audience/Followers) As you scroll through the website there are specific tags (tags are interests/related subjects to article).

Tags in article: Science, Spam, Popular Science, Climate Change, Evolution, Comments

Intended audience those who spark comments/debates regarding false information being spread or debates over what's right/wrong/current/false. As Suzzane LaBarre stated "Uncivil comments not only polarized readers, but they often changed a participant's interpretation of the news story itself." When regarding scientific studies such as evolution many people have different views upon how evolution has come to be. (Example: There can be a scientific aspect or a religious aspect.) Evolution is based on ones belief/knowledge; there are no right or wrong answers to what evolution may have came to be. But because of the wide spread of spark in comments/debates it can cause an article to create bias. It changes the way the reader can perceive the information. (Ex. Media influence) Those who posts comments value their knowledge/belief to an extent it may cause arguments over the comments page. The audience targeted are people who are interested in tags (as noted above), with a large knowledge of vocabulary, possibly understand what trolls & spambots are (internet uses), and people who follow Popular Science.

What and How (Subj. Matter, Argument, and Style)

The argument itself does seem to consist an implied thesis. Comments are bad for science. It merely brings up a statement on why comments will no longer be accepted into new posts because of many trolls and spambots. When regarding the internet there are many false reports/blogs/articles where it can create a false spread of information on to articles posted in websites such as Popular Science. There are very little information regarding the author, Suzanne LaBarre. When you press her name under the article title, past articles written by her will pop up. At the end of the article it states that Suzanne LaBarre is an online content director of Popular Science. The arguments and evidence are organized by breaking the article into two different sections. The first section merely introduces the situation at hand. "Comments can be bad for science. That's why, here at PopularScience.com, we're shutting them off." (LaBarre, Suzanne 1) After introducing the situation she goes on to explain why Popular Science have decided all new articles will no longer accept comments. Even though there are many commenters who provide a valid statement regarding their opinion on the article/subjects at hand there are still an overwhelming comments from trolls and spambots causing the ability of article to provide information lose it's purpose. The second section of the text provides an example of why and how false comment/spread of information in comment boxes would change the way a reader would feel about the information given. Suzanne LaBarre uses examples such as evolution because there is no right or wrong answer; comments can convince a reader to change opinions not based on the information given but based on how a majority may feel. The text establishes that the author is an online director of Popular Science. The tone is serious and scholarly because of the fact that this is a major issue for the comments box within Popular Science. Some words that stick out of the argument/article is that the author tends to emphasize trolls and spambots and skewing of a readers perception of a story. The argument is formal yet informal when providing for the argument and reasons why. There is a large image of a possible microscopic organism to possibly catch a readers attention. Within the second section the author provides other ways of connecting with the website itself. (Ex.:Facebook, Twitter, etc.)

When and Where (Context)?

The text was published online. (Popular Science)
By having the article online it provides more of an open variation of audience
Noting that the place published is a website called Popular Science. This website itself may already have a fan base (Targeted Audience/Followers) As you scroll through the website there are specific tags (tags are interests/related subjects to article). Outside links/sources are provided.

Why (the Writer's Motivation-So What?)
Purpose: Comments no longer accepted in new articles.
Catalyst/Motivation: Overwhelming vex commenters of trolls and spambots.
It is an important topic because those who are used to commenting on articles on their thoughts/what they've gained from the story will now not be able to comment. The audience won't be able to interact with one another whether it is false or correct information.

Unless otherwise stated, the content of this page is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 License