 |
| The crossroads between science and blogging |
Misrepresentation is an issue I found quite prevalent in the
350.org blog. I found the overall concept of fixing the “climate crisis” to be
heroic, yet too generic to sufficiently/accurately communicate its stance to the
viewers, and potential supporters, of the blog. This blog seemed to operate on the
concept of “less being more”-- in the hopes of not excluding any potential
supporter, they kept the statements and stances broad. Yet, I believe readers
could be led to support the idea of helping to solve the climate crisis without
actually understanding what it is that they are fighting to change. This blog
focuses on the change aspect rather than what specifically needs to be done to institute this change. Even their
specific, title-inspired, stance on the maximum parts per million of CO2 in the
atmosphere being at 350 instead of the current 392 simply tells us what needs to change and not necessarily
how to change it. In looking through
their archives, I have deduced that their true purpose is to simply raise
awareness and not actually institute/generate the change themselves. This fact,
alone, would seem to complicate Fahnestock/Secor’s stasis levels for an
argument in that it operates at both the levels of evaluation and proposal. Yet,
their argument does not fully commit to either, but exists in a state of limbo
between analyzing the negatives of the issue [rather “sourcelessly”] and
suggesting [generic] ideas of change.
The mission of this blog is “building a global
grassroots movement to solve the climate crisis.” Yet, it is difficult to
pinpoint exactly what is specifically meant by “climate crisis.” This is never
solely and definitively defined as being one issue with the climate and not
another. This is not based on specific scientific research but rather a general
rally to solve “issues” concerning the climate as a whole. This blog relies on
the readers’ implementation of their own relationships with the term “climate
crisis” to create their own specific definition for the word, which refers
directly to Bazerman’s 4th Level
of Intertextuality. This concept refers to the usage of text that “may rely
on beliefs, issues, ideas, statements generally circulated and likely familiar
to readers . . . [as] common knowledge.” Without analysis, it would be rather
easy to discern that we all know what “climate crisis” means to each of us.
Yet, if these responses were compared they may in fact vary greatly, which is
where some misrepresentation could develop concerning this blog.
Referencing the “four factor test,” that developed as a result
of the 1997 Conference on Fair Use (CONFU), confusion/misuse in this blog can
be seen in both the nature of the work (creative pieces passed off as factual),
and its effect on the potential market for the text (increasing sale-ability
due to wider audience parameters).
One blog post, entitled “As If We All Were Hobbits,” uses a
quote from The Lord of the Rings to
comment on global warming. It treats this creative text as a direct comparison
to the real world. This would be adequate if some sort of scientific work were
referenced, but this post is solely based on comparing the United Nations to
the Elrond Council of Middle Earth. I take this as an alternative type of
passing off “creative as factual,” because usually this refers to
self-generated facts used to gain the support of readers. Yet, in this
instance, the blogger is using this running metaphor of Middle Earth to blur
the readers’ boundaries between what they know
and what they feel. The United Nations
may feel similar in some way to the
Eldrond Council but it does not actually resemble it. This confusion between
impressions and facts is another point of misuse and misrepresentation existing
in this blog. It is also this idea of restraints that comes into play with this
battle between feeling and knowing. Constraints can be defined as
encompassing all factors that have the potential to guide the audience to be
more or less sympathetic with the discourse at hand. There are several
instances, like this one, present in the blog that toy with this idea of using
devices, including vague references, to implement change in its readers. http://350.org/en/about/blogs/if-we-all-were-hobbits
Another instance of this “four factor test” is evident in this
blog’s 350 Science page, where its take on CO2 gas is delved into more deeply. My
problem is not with the argument itself but with the vagueness that surrounds
these findings. This vagueness falls under the confusion/misuse of the potential
market for this text because this wording has taken specific tests completed in
specific areas and applied them to the earth as a whole with such generalized
statements as “Glaciers everywhere are melting and disappearing fast . . . and
Mosquitos are spreading into lots of new places, etc.” This changes the
potential market for the audience because it takes what could in actuality be a
regional argument to a global scale, making it a problem for every man – thus
making their global reach all the more appropriate/affective. http://www.350.org/en/about/science
Finally,
it is troublesome to me that I cannot directly reference the scientific studies
mentioned in these posts. There are studies mentioned but nowhere for me to
click to read more in depth about the study that was done by “Scientists,” as
is so often quoted on this blog. Some of these posts rely on first hand witness
accounts. Yet, that alone is not sufficient enough evidence to support the
claims that are being made and does not fully ensure the blog’s credibility
with readers. Overall, I find this blog to be enlightening but not in a
well-qualified sense. Blogs of a scientific nature rely on their credibility
with readers, and this blog seems to lack in the documentation behind its
claims.
Sources:
Bazerman,
Charles. Intertextuality: How Texts Rely on Other Texts’
Grant-Davie,
Keith. Rhetorical Situations and Their Constraints
Fahnestock,
Jeanne and Secor, Marie. The Stases in Scientific and Literary Argument.
Image: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/01/magazine/01FOB-medium-t.html?_r=0
No comments:
Post a Comment