My thoughts on Digital Rhetoric.

Sadly, due to a random illness that popped up before class on Tuesday, I was unable to attend. Because of this, I will admit that my understanding of digital rhetoric is more limited than I would like. However, I am going to try and give my own thoughts and views on the topic.

So through my understanding, digital rhetoric is the way that articles, posts, and other topics are written online. As we have discussed in the class, the way things are written digitally tend to be a tad bit different than the way we write in print media. When I try to think of the best example of this, I’d have to say Deadspin works pretty well. Deadspin is Gawker’s sports website, and the way that they write and argue is much different than any other sports site I follow. They are almost a mix between a blog and an actual online news source. Because of this, the interaction between the reader and the writer is going to be different.

For starters, Deadspin has a tendency to be pretty vulgar in their writing, something that a normal non digital magazine probably wouldn’t do. This in turn is basic permission for it’s readers to be vulgar back to the authors. I will fully admit that vulgarity seems to be part of digital rhetoric when it comes to websites that are not funded or related to main network sources. This tends to be the case on social media websites such as twitter and tumblr as well. Vulgarity and informality in digital rhetoric is something that I find almost too common in online writing. I wonder if this will continue as digital and online writing becomes more prominent.

Clarence Stone

A sports fanatic from Detroit Michigan. The moment I put a pencil to paper, I realized that writing was something that I cared about, and I can't wait to become better.

3 thoughts to “My thoughts on Digital Rhetoric.”

  1. Hi CJ!

    I was actually excited to read your blog post, from the perspective of someone who wasn’t involved in the discussion on Tuesday. We defined digital rhetoric mostly through the perspective of academics and Wikipedia, so it’s nice to hear about it from a student perspective.

    Deadspin sounds like a pretty accurate example of digital rhetoric! A lot of what we discussed in class revolved around a more open interaction between the writer and reader in digital than print rhetoric. Why do you think readers feel more liberal towards being vulgar on DeadSpin? Is it the way authors invite them to ask questions? Is it the tone of the overall website?

  2. Hope you are feeling better now. I think this example points out the very details about digital rhetoric that makes it different from traditional rhetoric. The informality is a representative characteristic of most digital rhetoric because digital platform is accessible for a broader audience who are varied in knowledge base. In this sense, digital rhetoric like this provides a comfortable place for audience with different background. The author -audience interaction adds to the informality and leaves room for further discussion and development about the content. I think these features of digital rhetoric especially work for sports-related platforms like this because sports fans need interaction and sports itself is about interaction.

  3. Great point CJ. Vulgarity is everywhere online nowadays, and while it doesn’t need to be used every time, I think it works for Deadspin because of the culture of sports in general. When you have grown men competing against one another, all fueled by surges of adrenaline, they are going to be passionate and swearing is a part of that passion. This is why I think Deadspin’s vulgarity works, because they are one of the only sites that publishes full, unedited quotes and videos. ESPN can’t show the Julius Thomas TD where he said “It’s so f****** easy,” but Deadspin is able to report on that. Deadspin’s use of vulgarity is a great example of digital rhetoric.

Leave a Reply