Annotations as a Means of Analysis

At this point, we've now done a practice rhetorical analysis of a particular culture, and worked with our Annotations tool, Hypothesis. For this activity, then, you will now combine the two processes. That is, you will use your annotations tool to perform a rhetorical analysis of people actually communicating on a particular web page within a specific digital culture.

If you need a refresher on how to set up Hypothesis, return to the Week 3 activity video for instructions. Once you're ready to find a conversation to annotate, please complete the following:

1. Find a conversation thread in a particular digital culture or sub-culture of your choosing. This could be a conversation you see on Facebook, an individual's public Twitter essay with responses, or even the comments section of a Youtube video or news story. Regardless of your choice, be sure to choose something that is publicly accessible so I will be able to see your annotations. Note: If you try to document a private Facebook group or something similar, I will not be able to access your annotations. This is the only limiting factor for your choice here.

2. Once you've found a conversation you'd like to analyze, using the Hypothesis tool, find and highlight at least 1 example of each of the following:

Someone using a logical appeal in the conversation
Someone using an ethical appeal in the conversation
Someone using a pathetic appeal in the conversation

Remember, in digital cultures, these appeals are not restricted to text alone. Someone could post a graph or other data visualization as a logical appeal, for instance, or have how long they've played a game show after their username as an ethical appeal. Pathetic (emotional) appeals can even be made by using emojis that may even contradict textual meaning, such as using the <3 symbol after saying something snarky to show that it is playful. In short, your rhetorical appeal examples are not limited to just the text here.

3. Once you've found an example of each of the main rhetorical appeals from Aristotle's rhetorical triangle, use your annotations to complete the following tasks:

Explain how/why the logical appeal was effective or in effective. Why do you think did this person try this particular kind of appeal? Why do you think it was either accepted or rejected, based on what you know about this particular digital culture?
Explain how/why the ethical appeal helped strengthen or weaken the author's credibility. How did the effect on their ethos influence how others responded?
Explain how/why the pathetic appeal worked, or did not work. Explain your reasoning here.

4. Finally, either as one final annotation or in your message to me via Slack, tell me who you think was the most convincing in the conversation, and why. How did this person's ability to be convincing either reinforce or push against some of the cultural "rules" of this digital space?

Once you've completed the activity, please send me the Hypothesis link to your annotations and response.

This activity is due by 11:59 PM EST Sunday 10/4 via Slack.