Certainly, we are in the digital age. Reports vary depending on demographics, but many studies, including this one from Forbes, estimate that the average American spends nearly seven hours a day on some form of digital media (Koetsier, “Global”). This Forbes article describes our usage as “consumption,” which underscores the idea that we are perpetually compelled to engage in digital spaces and that we internalize those digital interactions as we form ideas about what is valuable or normal or true. So much of what we know about the world, from history to current events to every other subject imaginable, comes from the internet in some form. It not only provides information that helps shape our worldviews, beliefs, and identities, but it mediates most of our communication with other people, and it facilitates many of our daily activities, from ordering food to paying bills to finding the fastest route to our next destination. The word “consumption” also highlights the commercial aspect of digital media. Not only is digital content a commodity, but users themselves have become commodities as organizations compete for more views, likes, shares, click-throughs, and subscribers.

It’s no wonder that digital literacy has become such an important topic. In this book, digital literacy is defined as the ability to engage with digital spaces in meaningful, productive, and ethical ways to achieve personal, professional, or civic goals. It includes the strategies we use to find and evaluate information. It also includes our ability to share information and respond to others thoughtfully, strategically, and respectfully. In other words, digital literacy is more than knowing how. Yes, it’s important to know how to publish a website or how to create a social media post. However, it’s equally important to know why you are making certain choices and to what effect. Of particular importance are the ethical consequences of those choices. While many digital writers and designers leverage their rhetorical skills effectively in order to manipulate, dismiss, confuse, and control their audience, this textbook emphasizes digital literacy as an opportunity to develop a deeper awareness of complex power structures and social injustices that are often ignored and to challenge the status quo.

The most recent student learning standards published by the International Society for Technology in Education (ISTE) articulate the goals of digital literacy quite well. In acknowledging how important it is to prepare students “to thrive in a constantly evolving technological landscape,” ISTE identifies seven core objectives:

1. Empowered Learner: Students leverage technology to take an active role in choosing, achieving, and demonstrating competency in their learning goals.
2. Digital Citizen: Students recognize the rights; responsibilities; and opportunities of living, learning, and working in an interconnected digital world, and they act and model in ways that are safe, legal, and ethical.
3. Knowledge Constructor: Students critically curate a variety of resources using digital tools to construct knowledge, produce creative artifacts, and make meaningful learning experiences for themselves and others.
4. Innovative Designer: Students use a variety of technologies within a design process to identify and solve problems by creating new, useful, or imaginative solutions.
5. Computational Thinker: Students develop and employ strategies for understanding and solving problems in ways that leverage the power of technological methods to develop and test solutions.
6. Creative Communicator: Students communicate clearly and express themselves creatively for a variety of purposes using the platforms, tools, styles, formats, and digital media appropriate to their goals.
7. Global Collaborator: Students use digital tools to broaden their perspectives and enrich their learning by collaborating with others and working effectively in teams locally and globally. (International Society for Technology in Education)

These standards underscore the deep critical thinking, developed from a strong sense of social ethics and personal values, that true digital literacy entails. And these skills have never been so important. In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, for instance, everything shifted to the digital realm—classes, jobs, church attendance, doctor appointments, grocery shopping, conversations with family and friends. Digital media became our lifeline to the outside world and helped us maintain some sense of normalcy. Social media platforms exploded with chatter from people who were desperate to make connections with other people and to gain perspective on the ongoing crisis. While some of these interactions were positive, strengthening a sense of community and belonging, many were not. Fueled by the political and financial agendas of powerful media and commercial organizations, confusion, misinformation, conflict, and ultimately division have permeated social media. So many posts are hateful. So many people are unwilling (unable?) to listen to perspectives different from their own. Way too many people automatically accept or reject information that either coincides with or contradicts what they already believe—what they want to believe.

Recently, Tim Berners-Lee, the inventor of the World Wide Web, wrote an open letter about the “sources of dysfunction” on the web. He says, “The fight for the web is one of the most important causes of our time,” advocating for the need to protect human rights, equal access, and the open marketplace of ideas and social progress that the web was designed to provide. It follows, then, that true digital literacy is about much more than scrolling, surfing, liking, posting selfies, gaining followers, influencing buying habits, and spreading your opinions with the intent to shut other people down. It’s also not about being as active as possible on as many platforms as possible. In fact, given the ubiquitous nature of digital media, intentionality and selectivity are crucial. True digital literacy is about meaningful and thoughtful engagement that has a positive impact on you as well as the communities of which you are a part.

Writing for Digital Media was written with these lofty ideals in mind. This first chapter focuses on the historical shift from legacy media to digital media, which gave rise to active participation and personalization by and for everyday citizens, who experienced significantly more control over their media experiences. Even more significant were the fundamental changes to communication patterns and social interactions. The second part of the chapter sets up the remainder of the textbook by describing the overall framework of the remaining chapters and how that framework relates to the definition of digital literacy discussed above.

The History of Digital Media

A brief history lesson is in order to contextualize our digital media use and the opportunities it affords. It’s actually a pretty short history given that the World Wide Web, which precipitated the mass adoption of digital media, is little more than 30 years old. On the other hand, in that short period of time, it has grown at an astronomical rate. According to Broadband Search, 5.25 billion people worldwide are currently connected to the internet, which represents 66.2% of the world’s population, and that number grows by the millions every year. In fact, the percentage of online users grew by 1,355% from 2020 to 2022. The site goes on with statistics about the millions of people who are active on social media, who write blogs, who utilize video streaming services, and who shop online. Perhaps even more significant is the sharp increase in remote working (Saad and Wigert) and remote learning (National Center for Education Statistics) in the U.S., along with the recent spike in e-commerce that continues to claim a higher percentage of our total retail sales every year (U.S. Department of Commerce).

It’s not an exaggeration by any stretch to say that digital media is a central component of our daily lives—or that most of the world would come to a grinding halt without it. Given this reality, it’s even more startling to consider digital media’s humble beginning. Development happened in stages, beginning with the invention of Colossus in 1944 (National Museum of Computing, “Colossus”). As its name suggests, Colossus was enormous, approximately the size of a living room and weighing more than five tons. And in contrast to the multifunctional, general-purpose devices we have today, Colossus had one job: to decode encrypted messages between Hitler and his troops during World War II. It was also incredibly slow: 5,000 characters per second compared with modern computers that process billions of instructions per second (Copeland).

What made Colossus digital was the way that it processed and stored information using Boolean logic. Though it didn’t have software to direct its operations like today’s digital devices, it did have a series of switches and plugs that worked much the same way to create binary values (positive and nonpositive) that told it what to do and could be expanded to create complex functions. Of course, in this early stage as digital technology became faster and held more memory capacity, its use was strictly limited to governmental purposes. In fact, the very existence of Colossus was kept secret until 1975 so that it could remain a secret weapon of the military (National Museum of Computing, “Colossus Decrypts”).

The internet was also developed as a tool for the U.S. military, this time as a mechanism of defense during the Cold War (History.com). Out of growing concerns for what might happen if the Soviet Union figured out how to shut down our telephone system—the crux of long-distance communication at the time—ARPAnet was created in 1965 to enable government computers to share information. Developed by electrical engineers and mathematicians at the Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), ARPAnet was special because it used “packet switching” to break down information into chunks of data that would have unique routing paths to their destination. This made it much less vulnerable to interception or enemy attack. However, development was fairly slow. It wasn’t until 1969 that the first message was sent from one (gigantic) computer to another. The word “login” was sent as a test, but only “lo” made it through before the system crashed. Eventually, electronic mail became one of the most important functions of ARPAnet.

Another challenge was figuring out how to grow the network. In fact, there wasn’t one singular network. ARPAnet, with its handful of computers, became one among several other mini-networks. As the number of packet-switching networks with differing configurations grew and tried to connect to one another, it became increasingly difficult to integrate them into one seamless communication system. As a result, Transmission Control Protocol / Internet Protocol (TCP/IP) was developed in the late 1970s by Vinton Cerf and Robert Kahn, often referred to as the “fathers of the internet” (Nott). TCP/IP was—and still is—the fundamental language that allowed networks with different configurations to communicate, effectively bringing everything together under the umbrella of one global network.

Despite its growing capabilities, the use of the internet was restricted to government officials, military personnel, and university professors throughout the 1980s. The National Science Foundation developed the Computer Science Network (CSNET) for university computer scientists across the country, and as the need for faster communication amid increasing traffic arose, NSFNET was developed in 1986 as the “backbone” of an internet infrastructure that would later support widespread use (National Science Foundation, “A Brief History”). The most popular online communications at the time were email, discussion groups (1979) (Encyclopedia Britannica, “USENET”), Internet Relay Chat (IRC; 1988) (Dominquez), and text-based games (i.e., Multi-User Dungeons [MUDs] and MUD Object-Oriented games [MOOs]).

In other words, functionality as well as access was still fairly limited throughout the 1980s, but all of that changed in 1991 with the advent of the World Wide Web by Tim Berners-Lee. The web allowed use of the internet to go beyond simply sending information from one computer to another. Users could now post and retrieve information that was intended for mass consumption across the web. The web became a mechanism for sharing information among all participants, and with the release of the first popular web browser (Mosaic, later called Netscape) in 1993, the web became accessible for public use (Andreessen). From that moment on, the number of participants in as well as the varying uses of the internet grew exponentially, which precipitated the rapid advancement of digital media devices and platforms that have transformed our everyday lives.

Commercialization of the Internet

If the development of the internet was central to the advancement of digital media, so too was the commercialization of the internet as companies found ways to capitalize on its capabilities for financial gain. This continues to be an issue of debate as large corporations continually pioneer technological advances in order to privatize their services and extend their commercial reach (Goodman). On the one hand, these commercial firms paved the way for mass adoption of the internet and the digital innovations that are fundamental to our personal and professional activities. But on the other hand, the increasing commercialization of the internet has shifted its underlying purpose—from information sharing and collaboration to targeted marketing, clickbait, and commodification of all goods and services. Users themselves have become commodities in the fight to capture attention and increase CTRs (click-through rates) (Hess).

When the National Science Foundation (NSF) developed NSFNET, its purpose was to further the advancement of education and research, not commercial enterprise (Legal Information Institute). In fact, the use of NSFNET for commercial purposes was banned. It was free for academic institutions to share and access information. The NSF also paid for domain names so that it was free for users to register a website. But as the network grew, extending to university libraries, public schools, small-town libraries, and eventually individual households, it became more difficult for the NSF to keep up with the growing demand, and private companies battled for control. Commercialization occurred in stages throughout the 1990s (National Science Foundation, “A Brief History”), which was marked by several pivotal changes:

• “The World” emerged as the first commercial internet service provider (ISP; 1989). Though its dial-up service was incredibly slow by today’s standards, the number of customers multiplied (Schuster).
• The NSF lifted the ban that prevented the commercial use of the internet (1991). Private industries could now use the internet for business and commercial purposes. More commercial ISPs became available, including CompuServe, The Source, and America Online (AOL).
• Tim Berners-Lee created the World Wide Web (1991), which is now commonly known as Web 1.0 because it focused on providing information to users, but pages were static and didn’t allow for much user participation. He later advocated for widespread public use of the web by relinquishing proprietary rights to the code he created (1993) (World Wide Web Foundation). The World Wide Web was the first internet browser, making it possible to search for specific information. Other browsers, including Netscape Navigator and Microsoft’s Internet Explorer, improved the internet’s functionality and prompted increased growth.
• The NSF solicited bids from private companies to manage nonmilitary domain registrations (1993). Network Solutions, Inc. was awarded the five-year contract, and under their management, the number of commercial domains grew rapidly, increasing from 7,500 domain names in 1993 to more than two million at the end of their contract in 1998. In 1995, the NSF began charging a fee for domain registration.
• NSFNET was decommissioned (1995), which allowed for greater public access as private companies made their internet services available (National Science Foundation, “The Internet”). The NSF officially and completely discontinued any direct control it had over the management of the internet (1998).
• Technological advances throughout the 1990s and early 2000s made the internet much faster and more versatile. Broadband services included DSL (Digital Subscriber Line), cable internet, and fiber optic lines, which transferred increasing amounts of data that could travel around the world at the speed of light (Encyclopedia Britannica, “DSL”).
• Google began in 1998 as a search engine and soon offered other services, including email, analytical tools, maps, advertising programs, and a mobile operating system (Google). Of particular importance was the algorithm Google used to rank web pages in order of relevance and credibility (Star). Soon, companies were paying for ads and also “optimizing” their websites to ensure more prominent placement.
• Mobile internet technology became more advanced with the introduction of the 2G cellular network (1991), which allowed users to access media content and communicate via text message (SMS) and multimedia message (MMS). The iPhone 2G was released in 2007, but it was quickly replaced as 3G, 4G, and 5G technology developed, offering higher speeds, more data transfer, higher-quality streaming, and more functionality (Eadicicco).
• Web 2.0 was introduced (2004) with a focus on user-generated content and increased interaction among users (Encyclopedia Britannica, “Web 2.0”). Social media platforms like MySpace (launched in 2003), Facebook (2004), YouTube (2005), and X (2006; formerly known as Twitter) became increasingly popular. However, increased user participation also resulted in more marketing opportunities as well as analytical features that allowed companies to collect information about specific behaviors and buying patterns.

Of course, that was just the beginning. In the last two decades, advancing technologies have made it possible to capture people’s attention at all times of the day and night, even as they move from place to place. A recent article from the Pew Research Center reports that 85% of Americans own a smartphone, a number that is up significantly from just 35% in 2011 (“Mobile Fact Sheet”). What’s more, people’s digital media usage has more than doubled, as evidenced by the chart below by Our World In Data. While people averaged less than three hours a day of digital media usage in 2008, they averaged well above six hours a day by 2018. That number rose above seven hours in 2022, according to Insider Intelligence (Cramer-Flood). More time spent on digital media means more opportunities for companies to advertise to potential consumers, which is why they put so much money into targeted marketing, omnichannel messaging, optimizing their websites, sending push notifications, and tracking users’ online behaviors and buying habits. They want to tap into the digital economy, which rose to a record-breaking $1.09 trillion in 2022 (Koetsier, “E-Commerce Retail”).

As companies increasingly used digital spaces to compete for people’s attention (and money), several trends emerged in the 2010s:

• Social media marketing. While just 5% of the adult population used social media in 2005, today more than 72% use some sort of social media (Pew Research Center, “Social Media”). In fact, about half of Americans use social media as their primary source of news information (Pew Research Center, “News Consumption”). Social media has also become an important tool for social activists (consider the Arab Spring [Hempel] or the 2019 protests in Hong Kong [Shao], for instance), humanitarian campaigns (e.g., the war in Ukraine [Spotlite]), and political campaigns (Wharton). Most prominent are businesses that use social media to interact with customers and advertise their latest products and services. According to a recent Forbes article, 77% of small businesses use social media regularly (Wong). Many companies use social media as their primary method of marketing, believing that it is the most effective way to reach their target audience (Cision).
• Influencers. Increasingly, businesses hire influencers to engage with potential customers because they already have a large number of social media followers and can leverage those connections to influence people’s buying habits. They test products and make recommendations, and while it might seem that these people have the consumer’s best interest at heart, the reality is sometimes a little different. “On the consumer side, the relationship between influencers and consumers is based on perceived closeness, authenticity, and trust,” according to Michaelsen et al., who go on to discuss the potentially negative impact of influencers on consumers, particularly more vulnerable populations such as children or consumers with low education. Their study found several negative characteristics of influencer marketing, including “lack of transparency and unclear disclosure, lack of separation between advertising and content misleading messages, and targeting vulnerable consumer groups” (Michaelsen et al. 10). While in some instances it’s considered unlawful for an influencer to endorse specific products without fully disclosing that they are being paid to do so—see the anti-touting provision (Section 17b) of the Securities Act (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “Securities”) and the recent charges against Kim Kardashian for using social media to endorse an investment opportunity (U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, “SEC Charges”)—influencers often don’t fully disclose their financial incentives.
• App culture and push notifications. You’re probably familiar with Apple’s catchphrase “There’s an app for that,” which debuted in a 2009 commercial advertising iPhone’s latest capabilities. Since then, app culture has exploded with entertainment, educational, and lifestyle applications, which provide quick and easy access to a variety of activities and information. They also allow for notifications to be pushed out to users, often prompting them to take action to open the application, visit the website, or take advantage of a new product or promotional opportunity. While the Pew Research Center reported in 2010 that fewer than half (43%) of cell phone users had apps on their phones (“The Rise of Apps Culture”), more recent data suggest that the average cell phone user has 40 apps installed on their phone and consistently accesses 18 of those apps (Kataria).
• Gig economy. With more websites, applications, and channels of communication, more businesses and freelancers have emerged in the “gig economy,” which relies mostly on short-term and contract employees who value their independence to accept or decline jobs as they see fit but who also must “produce or perish” (Petriglieri et al.). In 2015, Hillary Clinton forecasted the “exciting” economic opportunities and new innovations that stemmed from the gig economy (qtd. in Sundararajan), but some people point out that on-demand businesses like Uber, Airbnb, Etsy, and TaskRabbit are the true beneficiaries, making money off the labor exchange without having to provide consistent salaries or benefits: “There’s a risk we might devolve into a society in which the on-demand many end up serving the privileged few” (Sundararajan).
• IoT and big data. The Internet of Things (IoT) refers to the emergence of objects and systems that use wireless internet connections to send and receive data, often through the convenience of your phone (Fruhlinger). Think about all of the devices that have emerged in the last 10 years with the word “smart” in front of them—smart watches, smart TVs, smart refrigerators, smart door locks, smart thermostats, smart vacuums. A 2019 article in Priceonomics put it like this:

The growth of Internet of Things in terms of number of devices, revenue generated, and data produced has been stunning, but most predictions expect that growth to accelerate. The number of connected devices is expected to grow to 50 billion in 2020 (from 8.7 billion in 2012) and the annual revenue from IoT sales is forecast to hit $1.6 trillion by 2025 (from just $200 billion today). (Team Recurrency)

The article goes on to discuss the astronomical amount of data (otherwise known as big data) collected by these devices—upward of 4.4 zettabytes in 2020—which is used to track user behaviors and trends, understand consumer needs, make product upgrades, and essentially market more relevant products and services to customers. While this might seem like a benefit in many ways, there are concerns about how closely IoT devices allow large corporations and government entities to track people’s behavior. Josh Fruhlinger used the recent example of a map released by X-Mode (O’Sullivan) in 2020 that was designed to track the location of spring breakers as they left Fort Lauderdale. The purpose was to predict the spread of COVID-19, but it also demonstrated “just how closely IoT devices can track us” (Fruhlinger).

• User tracking. While we’re on the topic of user tracking, it’s another trend that emerged in the 2010s. Although Urchin was an analytics business that formed in the early days of the web (1995), it wasn’t bought out by Google to become Google Analytics until 2005, and there weren’t sophisticated tracking tools until 2014, when Google released Universal Analytics, which could track individual users across multiple devices and platforms (Visualwebz). Once more, the benefit is a more enjoyable user experience, though there are significant concerns about user tracking, data security, and the use of data to not only predict but also compel purchasing decisions (Zuboff).
• Artificial intelligence. You might be surprised to learn that artificial intelligence (AI) dates back to the 1950s as technology advanced allowing computers to more easily store information and use algorithms to complete tasks (Anyoha). However, it wasn’t until the 2010s that AI became commonplace through Alexa devices, GPS, talk-to-text applications, and so on. Most of us encounter AI devices multiple times throughout the day, and our use of those devices (and the data collected as a result) is used in turn to train the AI to become smarter and better at what it does. Many IoT devices use AI to simulate human intelligence and complete tasks. This is called “machine learning,” which David Grossman describes as “exciting and somewhat terrifying” given this potential for complex functionality. Peskoe-Yang explains that as we use AI in our daily lives, “AI is tasked not only with finding the answers to questions about data sets, but with finding the questions themselves; successful deep learning applications require vast amounts of data and the time and computational power to self-test over and over again.” While recent AI technologies like ChatGPT have created some exciting opportunities, there are concerns about the performance accuracy of ChatGPT (Chen et al.) and the ethical implications of relying on AI devices fueled by biased algorithms (UNESCO).
• Scams and security breaches. Let’s not forget about those scammers, hackers, and phishers who are also hoping to profit from advanced technologies and all the user data out there. While viruses and other types of malware became a concern in the early 2000s, cybercrime became much more profound and sophisticated in the 2010s as criminals developed “multi-vector attacks and social engineering” (Chadd). Expensive data breaches have affected not only large corporations and government entities but also individual users, which is why cybersecurity has become such an important (and lucrative) field (Fortune Business Insights).

We now live in a world where the quality of life seems to hinge on the speed of our internet connection as billions of people spend hours every day streaming their favorite shows, scrolling through social media, and browsing Amazon merchandise. User activities are tracked and assessed for the purposes of providing more targeted, personalized ads and creating a more positive user experience that perpetuates increasing dependence on digital technologies. In so many ways, the commercialization of the internet ushered in the digital age that has provided tangible benefits in communication, entertainment, collaboration, access to information, and countless daily conveniences. But at what cost? According to Business Insider, 90% of the information we consume is controlled by a handful of powerful corporations (Lutz). Increased surveillance, misuse of personal data, cyberbullying, addiction, burnout, and self-indulgence are equally prevalent. These are issues that we will examine more closely in the first section of the textbook, which focuses on writing and digital media from a critical perspective.

The Shift to Participatory Media

One last historical shift is especially relevant to the scope of this book: that from traditional media, in which audiences took a passive role in their media consumption, to digital media, in which users are actively searching for the information they want and contributing to the pool of information with their own posts, shares, and comments. While this is such common practice in our current daily lives that it hardly seems remarkable, it’s particularly significant when we consider the larger historical context of censorship, in which institutions with centralized authority—such as the Catholic church in the fourteenth century (Mark) or the American government during the colonial period (Lokey)—controlled the flow of information to the masses. In fact, the invention of the Gutenberg Press in 1445 and the subsequent increase in literacy rates (Ormond) was considered a threat to the centralized authority of the church because people had more direct access to information and could read and interpret that information for themselves—and form their own opinions. You probably already know that literacy is a powerful tool for personal and intellectual growth, independence, and expression, which is why marginalized groups have historically been discouraged from reading (e.g., anti-literacy laws for slaves) and especially from writing about their own experiences and perspectives (Maddox; Monaghan).

We could talk endlessly about how information has been distributed throughout history—penny presses and wire services, for instance (Illinois University Library), as well as more secretive and subversive methods (Coleman; Harriet Tubman Historical Society)—and the social effect this information had, such as yellow journalism (Ferguson III), muckraking (Schiffrin), civic unrest (Green), and social movements (Coleman). What seems most important is that the flow of information had a profound effect on people’s thought patterns and worldviews, and the struggle to control that flow of information escalated as more people—usually professional writers—were able to publish their ideas. Further, as traditional media expanded to include radio and television, the amount of information people had access to grew exponentially. Suddenly, people could tune in from the comfort of their living rooms to watch their favorite show, learn about news events across the globe, and even hear directly from the president himself. However, it was a one-way line of communication. People themselves had very little control over the content that was widely dispersed for public consumption. They could tune in or not tune in, read the morning paper or not, but it made no difference in the content itself, and to miss out on the latest news would mean falling behind in public affairs and being left out of the social discourse.

Importantly, the limitations of traditional media stemmed from the technology that was available. Traditional media, also known as legacy media, included newspapers, books, magazines, radio, and television—all of which were defined by key characteristics:

• Intended for a mass audience. The same information was available to everyone, without distinction, and people couldn’t pick and choose the type of information that seemed most relevant or interesting to them.
• Limited space. A television or radio broadcast could only fit so much information into a 30-minute segment. Newspapers, books, and magazines were likewise limited by the amount of space available on the page.
• Linear format. No matter the publication, there was always a clear beginning and a clear ending, and people consumed the information in straightforward, chronological order.
• Fixed. Once something was published, it was permanently set on the page or the film. It couldn’t be revised.
• Noninteractive. Audience members could only receive information. There was no way to participate in the conversation.
• Limited access. Because of the limitations already listed, the role of producing information was reserved for professionals in the industry—journalists, news anchors, actors/actresses, novelists. There was very little opportunity for everyday people to have their voices heard on a mass scale.

Obviously, digital media ushered in a new era that dramatically altered the relationship between everyday citizens and the flow of information. The emergence of the World Wide Web, cable television, social media, and an onslaught of digital devices that make it possible for people to easily and quickly access the internet from almost anywhere has shifted our role from passive to active. People can actively search for the type of information they are looking for and cultivate an online repertoire of resources that fit their interests and perspectives. They can also contribute to the vast body of information that is available on the internet—without needing special credentials or authorization. In direct contrast to the limitations of traditional media, digital media is defined by qualities that invite user participation:

• Personalized based on online habits, interests, and the ability to customize your news feed.
• Unlimited space. The information available online is immeasurable and continues to expand.
• Nonlinear formatting as information is increasingly hyperlinked and put into chunks that can be viewed in any order.
• Fluid. Information posted to the internet can easily be updated.
• Interactive as people like, share, and comment on the information that is posted and can easily post their own information.

In so many ways, we have come full circle from the era of the Gutenberg Press. As new technologies emerge, they have completely revolutionized the way that we access information, which in turn has a deep and pervasive effect on our ways of thinking, being, and interacting with the world. Once again, as more voices emerge to share new ideas and perspectives, we often sacrifice quality for quantity and must question the credibility of information that is available. And once more, despite the purpose of the World Wide Web to be a marketplace for ideas and social progress, we must recognize the continuing (though certainly evolving) epic battle to control the flow of information and thought patterns for self-serving purposes.

Looking Ahead: The Framework for This Textbook

At first glance, the topic of digital writing seems fairly straightforward. In fact, it’s true in some ways that digital writing is similar to traditional print media and that some writing skills and strategies will be similar. However, digital writing is also different from traditional forms of writing in fundamental ways and, therefore, often requires different strategies and skills, which we’ll explore in-depth throughout this textbook. However, as discussed in the beginning of this chapter, the goal of this textbook is about more than how to apply certain strategies in digital spaces, but also why and to what effect. It’s about having a deeper theoretical and ethical understanding of the communication choices you make, which will afford you greater intentionality and precision, not just in the things you write but in your interactions with other people and in your own literacy practices. To that end, the textbook casts a wider net to include both practice and theory, challenging readers to think critically about the opportunities that digital media affords as well as the challenges it presents to mental health, civil discourse, social justice, privacy, and so on.

The book is divided into three sections, mirroring the organizational structure of Stuart Selber’s Multiliteracies for a Digital Age, which focuses more broadly on computer literacy and targets writing and communication teachers in higher education. However, Selber emphasizes the need to extend conversations about digital literacy far beyond a simple and prescriptive how-to guide. He writes, “It is clear…that computer literacy programs can take a rather monolithic and one-dimensional approach, ignoring the fact that computer technologies are embedded in a wide range of constitutive contexts, as well as entangled in value systems” (22). In other words, an effective educational approach to digital literacy provides critical-thinking tools that can be applied to different situations and guide a more informed decision-making process based on the context at hand. In that spirit, this textbook offers a top-down approach to writing for digital media by examining three different literacies:

1. Critical literacy, which challenges readers to think deeply about the affordances and constraints of digital media, their own practices, and the social ramifications of communication that takes place on digital platforms. In this first section, the word “critical” has two meanings. It relates to critical thinking about relevant theories that can be used as lenses to examine social norms and personal habits of digital media use from a variety of perspectives. It also relates to critical theory, which focuses on power structures and cultural biases that marginalize certain groups of people while privileging others. The chapters in this first section are intended to provide deeper insights and new ways of thinking about digital media use that will inform the rest of the book.
2. Rhetorical literacy, which situates digital media as a communication tool that mediates between writers and their audiences, helping them to convey important ideas and perspectives as clearly as possible. All communication is about forging an understanding. Rhetoric is the study of how language (both verbal and nonverbal) is used in that endeavor, paying special attention to how a message is crafted by a speaker to engage a specific audience to fulfill key purpose(s) in a particular situation. This section of the book focuses on rhetorical considerations and strategies that make a message successful, particularly given the range of digital platforms and tools that are available.
3. Functional literacy, which is the nuts and bolts of digital writing, providing guidelines, best practices, and design strategies for a variety of genres. The last section also gives important information about content strategy, search engine optimization, copyright laws, accessibility considerations, and basic editing rules. In essence, this is the how-to part of the textbook that builds from the theoretical and rhetorical considerations of the previous sections.

If you are familiar with Selber’s work, you might notice that this organization of sections is different from his as he begins with functional and then moves on to critical and then rhetorical. This book begins with critical literacy (arguably the most complex and theoretical) followed by rhetorical literacy because having this type of deeper awareness and reflection should be foundational in guiding the specific writing choices you make, bringing certain issues into focus and informing strategies that will align with your values and resonate more deeply with your audience.

Obviously, digital media is always evolving. The historical shifts outlined in this first chapter are evidence of how quickly digital media has emerged to transform our daily lives. And there’s no telling what digital innovations will arise in the years to come. The goal of this textbook is to provide a foundation of intellectual processes and rhetorical considerations that are flexible and easily adapted to a variety of circumstances, so that as new technologies evolve, so will you.

The digital panacea is the opposite. It’s an uncritical way of using digital media with the underlying assumption that it is always automatically better. It’s a utopian viewpoint that considers digital technology to be a sign of social progress—as if that progress is inherent in the technology itself and not the way we use it. It’s a mindset that persists in almost every sector of society—health care, journalism, education, business. Some employers believe that digital technology will automatically improve productivity and customer satisfaction. Some viewers believe that the news media is automatically more credible because videos and commentary can be posted in real time. The digital panacea is especially prevalent in the education sector, where some school boards and administrators believe that the more technology that is available, the more children will be engaged, the more they will learn, and the more we can remediate deficiencies for those who have fallen behind. In fact, more young children than ever before have their own tablets and are spending increasing amounts of time in front of a screen every day (Kamenetz). This doesn’t automatically make them smarter or help with their development. In fact, it’s often a hindrance when you consider things like increased anxiety, addiction, disinhibitions, and declining reading scores—all things that are discussed more fully in this chapter.

Of course, on the other side of the utopian perspective is the dystopian viewpoint, promoted by people who tend to think that digital technology is inherently bad. They are the ones quick to point out the addictive qualities of digital media, the lack of in-person interaction, the ways we are increasingly distracted by our devices. From this perspective, digital media is responsible for the erosion of social values and personal freedoms. Similar to the utopian perspective, the people with a dystopian viewpoint focus on qualities they believe are inherent in digital technologies, often ignoring the influence of personal decisions about usage.

While both perspectives have valid points, they both miss the point about critical thinking and the power we have to make choices about how digital technology is used. This chapter examines both the positive and negative outcomes of digital media use and ends with a practical guide for how you can think critically about and engage meaningfully with digital technology. Though this chapter doesn’t focus exclusively on digital writing, the hope is that it will offer big-picture perspectives about digital media use in general, and that the theories and best practices offered here can be adapted and applied to specific situations, including those related to digital writing.

The Good: Benefits and Opportunities for Progress

Let’s start with the good. Without question, digital media has afforded opportunities for some amazing achievements, and in so many ways, it has had a tangible positive effect on our lives. Don’t mistake “critical” for “negative.” A critical look at digital media would absolutely recognize the opportunities it affords—those that have been actualized as well as those that (for now) have only been imagined. Indeed, a critical perspective would think realistically and creatively about the benefits of digital media, often evaluating traditional uses and communication strategies and also thinking outside of the box to forge new ways of thinking and doing (Anderson and Rainie). Let’s look at some examples.

Personal

Probably the most obvious benefits of digital media are the improvements to our personal lives—our personal relationships, our free time, our home projects and personal budgets. It might be hard to believe, but people used to sit down for extended periods of time in order to pay bills, write checks, and balance their checkbooks. They had to take the time to put checks in envelopes, write the address and return address on each one, lick the flap, place the stamp, and then physically take their checks out to the mailbox. It was a tedious and time-consuming process, and it’s just one example of how digital media has made our lives easier. Many people have autopay set up to automatically pay their monthly bills. In other instances, it’s quick to go to a vendor’s website and pay online. We can look at our bank apps anytime to see our current balance. Something that used to take hours now takes almost no time at all.

Here’s another one for you: finding information used to be difficult. To research a topic meant that you had to physically go to the library and look for relevant information using a card catalog or by scrolling through microfilm. Let’s say you identify a book from the card catalog that seems worthwhile. You’d have to write down that call number, go look for the book in the stacks, and then actually read the book to get the information you wanted. Maybe there’d be an index with the specific information listed that you are looking for, so you could quickly flip to the page, but then again, maybe not. You might have to check out the book, bring it home so you could read through it more carefully, and then remember to return it to the library before its due date. It’s hard to believe that anybody went through all that time and trouble, isn’t it? With our handheld digital devices, nearly any type of information we might want to know is accessible instantly. In fact, we’re usually inundated with thousands of results for one simple search, but even then Google has made it easier to pinpoint the exact information we are looking for by highlighting snippets from relevant web pages. Or if even that is too much work, you can always just ask your question to Alexa, who will search the internet for you.

The examples are endless, but here are a few more ways digital media has enhanced our personal lives:

• Communication options. There is a spectrum of convenient communication platforms that allow us to maintain relationships and to communicate at varying attention levels. For instance, FaceTime requires our full attention, and it captures the rich details of facial expressions and vocal inflection that enhance a message and provide a greater sense of intimacy. On the other hand, texts, emails, and social media direct messaging require very little attention. We can quickly send a message without disrupting other tasks, and we can manage multiple conversations at a time.
• Social connection. Similar to the above example, social media platforms provide a sense of connection to friends, family, and acquaintances. It’s much easier to scroll through your feed in order to keep up with people’s lives than it is to make phone calls to everyone every day. Social media has significantly enlarged our social circle and made it easier to support one another through times of crisis and celebration.
• Documentation of key moments. Built-in cameras on our phones and other handheld devices make it easy to take still photos or videos of events both big and small. With phone storage, cloud-based storage, social media archives, and online photo books, we can retrieve and share these memorable moments. We are able to capture much more of our daily lives than ever before.
• DIY projects. YouTube and Pinterest have brought about the popularity of do-it-yourself projects, allowing people to explore new hobbies and do home renovations on their own.
• Dating. Social media and a host of dating apps make it much easier to meet people who align with your interests and get to know them casually and remotely before ever seeing them in person.
• Entertainment. Streaming services let us curate a list of music, podcasts, movies, and shows based on our interests and past selections. Similarly, we can access more books than ever with apps that allow us to purchase/download a digital copy.
• Banking. Mobile banking apps allow us to view our current balance, pay bills, and make immediate transactions.
• Transportation. Applications like Waze and Google Maps track our location to give up-to-the-minute directions to help us get where we want to go and to navigate around accidents, construction delays, and other challenges.
• News. We get news updates throughout the day so that we can keep up with the latest news from anywhere.
• Shopping. Ads are personalized to fit our interests, and online shopping makes it easy to shop for groceries, clothes, electronics, appliances, and other merchandise—literally anything—from the comfort of home. We can also track the progress of our packages in real time to find out when they will arrive.
• Remote access. As more smart appliances emerge, it’s increasingly common to control them from our handheld devices. This includes heating and cooling systems, security systems, overhead garage doors, and a host of other appliances that can be managed from a remote location.
• Health monitoring. Digital devices allow us to track the number of steps we take in a day along with other important information such as heart rate, blood pressure, and even posture. This gives people more access to their own health information and empowers them to make more positive choices. It’s also easy to share this information with a physician, who can offer medical care based on a more complete picture of a person’s health.

Educational

Another obvious sector of our lives that has been enhanced by digital media is education. As already discussed, this isn’t an uncritical celebration of all ed tech, nor is it an argument that digital technology can ever replace the personal care and skilled instruction of teachers. However, as we’ve seen in recent years, particularly at the height of the COVID-19 pandemic, digital media is a useful tool that can be extremely beneficial when used in conjunction with smart lesson planning and individualized instruction. Obviously, the experiences of both teachers and students varied tremendously during the pandemic. While some schools were already offering instruction either partially or fully online and had already worked out many of the kinks, others were forced to shift abruptly to a virtual learning format, and they struggled with things like stable Wi-Fi, student access to digital devices, Zoom fatigue, homework overload, confusion regarding class concepts or instructor feedback, and feelings of isolation.

However, at the end of the 2020 school year, following the shift to virtual learning, many students expressed mostly positive feelings about their online experiences. For instance, this article from Inside Higher Ed reports that when asked whether they agree or disagree with the statement “I could learn at least as much as I did in face-to-face meetings,” the average response on a seven-point scale was 4.89, indicating that they agreed that online education was effective, but there were some things that could be improved (Lederman). Similarly, this study out of Hong Kong points to several educational advantages of virtual learning, including safety, convenience, flexibility, and greater access to resources (Dung).

Because of the pandemic, our reliance on education technology has grown tremendously. In March 2020, UNESCO reported that 1.3 billion students (80% of students worldwide) were affected by school closures during the pandemic and that “all countries are scaling up distance education modalities based on different mixes of technologies” (Chang & Yano). Even as schools have reopened to once again allow face-to-face learning, education technology has continued to expand (“Ed Tech”), and more instructors are utilizing a hybrid approach that leverages the benefits of digital media (Seeley). Though not all populations have benefited equally from the advances in education technology (see “The Bad and the Ugly” below), there have been some positive effects on student learning as a result of digital media:

• Remote coursework. Courses can be completely or partially online. In fact, entire degree programs are built around online courses that are designed to give students flexibility, so they can make progress toward their diploma or degree while also working or taking care of their families. Students can take courses from universities hundreds of miles away. They can travel while keeping up with coursework. Or they can stay home to recover from illness without falling behind.
• Independent and flexible learning. Online learning management systems like Canvas and Moodle provide a space where professors can communicate with students about assignments, provide additional resources, and post grades. So students have a way to access information and take more control of their own learning. There are also platforms like Coursera or Skillshare that allow subscribers to learn a variety of topics completely online and at their own pace.
• Access to resources. Teachers can put important course resources—syllabi, rubrics, assignment sheets, study guides, instructional videos—online for students to access on their own time. This helps students take ownership of their own learning and review important materials that will help them be successful in class.
• Enhanced participation. Many online learning platforms also have discussion boards, which give every student an equal opportunity to participate in course discussions. This can be useful for remote learning as well as in-class discussions, where some students are less likely to speak up.
• Collaboration. With digital platforms like Google Workspace, students can collaborate in real time on the same document. They can also teleconference while they work on the document together, or they can leave comments for one another to be addressed later. Many teleconferencing tools, such as Zoom or Kaltura, allow students to be put into breakout groups so they can work together during class time.
• Organization. Another benefit of cloud-based platforms is that documents are continuously saved—so students can’t “lose” a document they were working on, and they can always revert back to a previous version. The capability to create folders and subfolders is also an important advantage of digital media that helps with organization and overall workflow.
• Engagement. So many of the digital tools and applications that teachers use as part of their lessons or as part of student homework are meant to engage their interest (Hesse). Videos, slides, games, and other interactive tools make it easier to present information in a way that will fit different learning styles, capture students’ attention, and provide opportunities for students to practice important skills and concepts.
• Online tutoring. Students who need additional help outside of the classroom can send and receive emails, post a comment on Canvas, or teleconference with their instructor or a tutor.
• Job training. More recently, digital technology has evolved to allow instructors to provide remote labs for students in nursing, engineering, and other STEM courses (Pegasus Innovation Lab). From the convenience of home, students can access industry-grade equipment to perform experiments and measurements. Virtual reality tools have also been used to help train doctors and surgeons in a low-stakes environment. A recent study indicates that surgeons who are trained with VR software perform better than surgeons trained using more traditional methods (Blumstein).

Professional

Digital media has also had a significant impact on people’s professional lives as well as the ways in which professional organizations conduct business. Many of the personal and educational benefits we’ve already listed also apply to the professional realm. For instance, just as students have access to remote learning options, the advancements in digital technology have provided more opportunities for professionals to work remotely. In fact, following the pandemic, when so many businesses had to switch to a remote model in order to survive, many have continued to offer fully or partially remote positions because they provide flexibility that is conducive to a healthier work-life balance and facilitate higher levels of productivity (New Jersey Institute of Technology). Similarly, digital tools have provided more opportunities for collaboration and communication, often streamlining workflow and allowing for more participation from colleagues and clients. Another similarity is the way that digital media has expanded the job market. Though many positions are still fully in-person, requiring employees to live nearby, remote positions allow employees to work for a company from anywhere in the world, which means they have more job options and more control over their preferred work environment.

Let’s focus on the benefits of digital technology that are specific to the professional realm:

• Job hunting. People don’t look at the want ads in the newspaper anymore. It’s much easier to find a variety of relevant job postings on company websites, social media, and employment websites like Indeed or Zip Recruiter. With these specialized services, you can put in the type of job you are looking for in addition to other search parameters and then scroll through a long list of results. Often, these services will send email alerts when new relevant jobs have been posted. And they make it easy to upload your résumé and/or fill out an application for the job(s) of your choice. It’s a win-win for both employees and employers, who can connect with more people and increase their chances of finding the right fit. The use of digital media to search for prospective jobs has also increased the odds of an employee leaving their employer for one that seems more beneficial (Bizzi).
• Networking. With professional networking apps like LinkedIn as well as online webinars, certifications, and conferences, individuals can quickly grow their professional network of acquaintances throughout an industry, which helps them acquire resources, expert advice, job recommendations, and more. It’s also easier to develop your résumé through some of these online experiences and to leverage online resources (such as LinkedIn or your own professional website) to enhance your own visibility to other professionals and potential employers in your field.
• Training. In addition to online certifications and videos sponsored by experts in your industry, job training has also expanded to include online training manuals, short email updates, videos, and even interactive tools that streamline the process, engage employees, and increase employee understanding and follow-through.
• Communication. It’s obviously easier to send your coworker a quick text than it is to walk to her office down the hall. It’s also much faster to send the president of your company a well-worded email with progress updates, questions, or concerns than it is to call his or her secretary and try to schedule an appointment. Digital media has streamlined the communication process and in many ways has helped flatten hierarchies that used to make collaboration and communication more difficult.
• Organization. Not only can you send emails, participate in instant message chats, or teleconference with your colleagues and clients in order to get work done and foster stronger social connections, but digital media has also made it possible to access things like health insurance information, time sheets, pay stubs, time-off request forms, company policies, and so on. In fact, many organizations have their own mobile app where these resources and more can be easily organized and accessed.
• Marketing. As discussed in the first chapter about commercialization, digital media has had a significant impact on a company’s ability to market directly to target audiences and to identify new markets where they might expand. Though there is more competition, it’s also more effective and often cheaper to advertise on social media or to cultivate an email list of potential customers who have expressed an interest in a particular product or service. Also, while the role of marketing experts and content strategists is more important than ever, it’s also more common for other employees throughout an organization to participate in branding and social media marketing.
• Market expansion. Finally, digital technology has provided more opportunity for market growth as companies use digital platforms to reach potential customers in other areas. With the right infrastructure in place, they can also use digital platforms to provide enhanced customer service, facilitate online ordering, track package shipments, and store customers’ buying histories and preferences for future marketing.

Civic

One final—but maybe the most important—area to consider when it comes to the benefits of digital media relates to civic engagement. Lots of recent examples come to mind in which relief organizations were able to rally immediate and substantive support for people in the midst of crisis. For instance, at the time of this writing, CARE.org is actively raising money for humanitarian crises in Ukraine, South Sudan, Afghanistan, and Yemen; for earthquake victims in Haiti; for Hurricane Ida victims in the U.S.; for Syrian and Burmese refugees; for people in Somalia suffering from food insecurity; and more. With a few clicks, people can read updates about these tragedies, build empathy for people who are suffering, and donate money to aid in relief efforts. Similar organizations include TechSoup, Idealist.org, and Kiva.org.

Obviously, as we will explore later in this chapter, there is an “ugly” side to civic engagement, and it usually revolves around political division. However, at its core, politics isn’t really about taking sides. It’s about communication, cooperation, and problem-solving in order to function as a community—whether at the local, state, national, or global level. It means being open to understanding the needs of other people in your community and taking on a participatory role to help meet those needs. In that case, digital media has become an essential part of the process to facilitate public awareness and support for a variety of important issues we wouldn’t have known about otherwise.

Clay Shirky is a strong advocate for the potential of digital media to help in the fight against injustices of all kinds. In his book Cognitive Surplus, he argues that following educational and industrial advancements, people have spent less time working and far more time watching television—a national average of two hundred billion hours each year (10). That’s the “surplus” where the book got its name. However, the good news, according to Shirky, is that people are increasingly using digital media platforms for productive purposes, including social justice and civic philanthropy. He cites fundraising efforts for disabled youth, websites (including the ones listed above) that focus on development and relief efforts, coordinated efforts to pick up trash on the street, online communities of patients who can connect with and support other people with the same illness, and a Facebook campaign to support women’s rights in southwestern India in the face of fundamentalism and oppression. Such profound opportunities exist when we see the potential of digital media beyond personal entertainment and satisfaction:

• Increased awareness of social issues around the world
• Heightened sense of empathy for people in crisis, particularly through pictures, videos, testimonials, and so on
• More capabilities to organize support and relief efforts
• Increased financial participation as well as other forms of support from people around the world
• Greater sense of community and goodwill
• More resources that make a tangible difference in people’s lives

As a brief conclusion to this section on the benefits of digital media, it should be clear that technology has so much potential to free up our time, foster deeper relationships, enhance our learning and productivity, and engage in civic activities that make a difference in our communities. On a fundamental level, digital media has a profound influence on who we can be and what we can do, and depending on how and why we leverage these technologies, the difference can be extremely positive.

The Bad and the Ugly: The Downsides of Digital Spaces

But. Realistically, there is always a “but” when it comes to digital media because the reality doesn’t usually match the ideal. For every benefit listed in the previous section, we could flip it on its head to expose the negative consequences. Digital media allows for more civic engagement? It also provides a space for people to argue, spouting their own perspectives and priorities without listening to others. It allows for more engaging educational tools? It also pulls students’ attention away when they should be listening in class. It facilitates more social connections? It also hinders in-person communication and often brings about feelings of isolation when we scroll through other people’s social media posts. And so on.

This section is not intended to be exhaustive. It would take a whole separate textbook to tease out all of the negative implications of digital media and its pervasiveness in our everyday lives. Anyway, as already stated, the point of having a critical perspective isn’t to be negative. The point is to have a fuller understanding of both the advantages and disadvantages so that you can make informed decisions about—and potentially put limits on—your own digital media use. To that end, we’ll look broadly in this section at three important areas where unrestricted, imprudent use can have the most damaging effects: social, emotional, and cognitive.

Social

It’s ironic that social media and so many other platforms that are intended to help us forge new connections, maintain relationships, and participate in larger civic activities and conversations could do so much damage in those very same areas. In this instance, the word “social” is about more than your “social life,” the people that you spend time with, or that part of your personality that makes you want to (or not want to) interact with other people. In this context, “social” is about the way that relationships are organized in society—how we are taught to interact with other people and how those interactions become central in our lived experiences. For instance, learning is largely a social process—it’s built around your interactions with your parents, your teachers, and your peers, and without those relationships, you wouldn’t learn. By the same token, all communication is inherently social; it takes place between people with the shared goal of reaching a common understanding. Digital media is a communication tool, which means it’s largely a social tool. It mediates our interactions with other people, and while it often enhances those interactions and our abilities to relate to other people, sometimes it makes things worse.

• Distractions. An obvious place to start might be the fact that many people become so dependent on their phones or iPads as forms of entertainment or distractions during their downtime that they can’t tear themselves away during in-person conversations or activities that merit their full attention. Maybe you’ve been to dinner with someone who spent half of the meal looking at their phone, which hindered any conversation you might have had. People do the same thing during class, walking down the street, standing in line at the grocery store, during commercial breaks, and even while driving. The habit of being constantly engaged with our phones prevents us from engaging meaningfully in things that are happening right in front of us. Instead of enriching our social interactions, our reliance on digital media depletes them.
• Posturing. Certainly, the argument can be made that all of our social interactions are performances and that we are constantly constructing (and reconstructing) our identities. We could also debate postmodern theories about the very existence of a core identity and whether any of us have a “true” core self. The point is that social media and other web-based platforms can further complicate—or even subvert—our identities. We spend so much time curating the perfect pictures of ourselves online—in a new bathing suit, at a fun or picturesque vacation spot, with our smiling family, or at the table with a gourmet meal in front of us—that we sometimes lose sight of or fail to appreciate the complex reality. For instance, we probably all know people online who constantly post selfies, and they aren’t usually candid, spontaneous photos. Chances are a single photo was carefully staged and that it took several minutes and several versions of the picture before they captured the “right” one. And even then, they probably put a filter over the photo to make their skin brighter or their eyes bigger—to cover up any potential flaws. Their profile presents a false identity, and while their posts might be impressive, they don’t enhance social connectedness. Quite the opposite, they create barriers designed to shield parts of ourselves and our lived experiences so people won’t really get to know us. What’s more, so much energy and focus often goes into constructing our ideal selves online that it gets harder to distinguish what’s “real.”
• Oversharing. In contrast to the point above, sometimes people don’t spend enough time filtering the content they put online. Much of their feed is inappropriate and off-putting because they divulge too much personal information, they give too many political opinions that create tension, or they post jokes that are crude and offensive. Once more, the result of oversharing online isn’t usually deeper relationships. It creates dissociations as their online “friends” block their feed or unfriend them altogether.
• Narrow-mindedness. Despite the fact that digital media has created more access than ever before to different perspectives and experiences, the reality is that instead of being sensitive to and reflective of other viewpoints that might expand their own ways of seeing and thinking, many people become more entrenched in their own opinions. In some ways, this is a consequence of personalization and the recommendation algorithms designed to “learn” what type of content people like and provide “super curated content” that fits those preferences and will therefore keep people online for longer periods of time (Farrar). Much of their online experience becomes an echo chamber in which their own viewpoints are constantly validated as more accurate and more virtuous. They learn to view opposing opinions as “wrong” and refuse to engage. In fact, Farrar points out that recommendation algorithms “can also spread misinformation, disinformation and propaganda.… Content that is emotionally charged tends to go viral because a lot of users engage with the content. There are also reports that users get sucked into radicalization rabbit holes as algorithms serve up more and more extreme content.”
• Uncivil discourse. On a related note, though digital media provides the opportunity for productive dialogue about important issues, that’s often not what happens. As noted above, some people refuse to meaningfully engage, which means that instead of trying to understand new perspectives, they often use online platforms to push their own opinions (backed by “credible” news sources that align with their political perspectives). Meanwhile, they are dismissive of and downright hateful toward other people, which is a common online phenomenon called the disinhibition effect, in which “people self-disclose or act out more frequently or intensely” when they are online (Suler). This might also be a good place to mention common occurrences like social media shaming, cyberbullying, trolling to intentionally create discord (GCFGlobal), and even creating “bot-driven” social media accounts that “manipulate” voters with “animosity-stoking messages” (Baraniuk). None of these practices are about mutual understanding or social justice. They are intended to diminish other people while solidifying our own social standing and self-validation.
• Predatory behaviors. We can’t explore the dark side of digital media without recognizing the dangers that lurk online. Wreaking havoc on our sense of “community” are the hackers, stalkers, identity thieves, scammers, child predators, and human traffickers who have truly malicious intentions and can leverage the affordances of digital media to harm other people. Our digital experiences are always laced with concerns for privacy and security because of the dangers that exist.
• Inequalities. Finally, despite predictions that digital media would promote equality for various minority groups who, in theory, can participate equally in digital spaces where their voices can be heard, digital media has largely reinforced the status quo. For one thing, the digital divide continues to be a significant problem in which populations of a lower socioeconomic status don’t have constant access to digital devices (van Dijk). As a result of this inexperience, they don’t have the digital literacies that are necessary to navigate the digital realm and participate meaningfully in online spaces. What’s more, the pervasiveness of online echo chambers that separate people into like-minded groups based on similarities in political perspective, class, race, ethnicity, and so on has reinforced the status quo in online spaces by limiting people’s social network and therefore limiting their access to resources and opportunities (Dong et al.). There’s also the reality that while we’re all being monitored on a daily basis by algorithms trained to predict our behavior and “control access to resources” (Eubanks 10), the algorithms themselves are biased, often perpetuating social inequalities: “Marginalized groups face higher levels of data collection when they access public benefits, walk through highly policed neighborhoods, enter the health-care system, or cross national borders. The data acts to reinforce their marginality when it is used to target them for suspicion and extra scrutiny” (Eubanks 11). Cade Metz makes a similar point in a New York Times article about AI machines created by and for dominant groups that further marginalize women and people of color.

Emotional

In conjunction with the negative social effects of digital media listed above, many studies have demonstrated that overexposure to certain types of content on digital media can have negative emotional effects. Again, it’s all about context. More positive experiences on digital media can have positive emotional effects, but it’s probably easy to overlook the significant emotional effects that come from our more negative experiences.

• Addiction. It’s easy to see how habit-forming things like social media and video games can be when usage goes unchecked. In 2018, the World Health Organization listed digital gaming disorder as a medical condition. Other studies have compared the addictiveness of social media and iPhone use to that of cigarettes, drugs, and gambling. A recent blog article by Harvard University explains that, like other addictive behaviors, positive digital media experiences trigger the release of dopamine, a chemical in our brain that invokes feelings of pleasure and motivates us to repeat certain behaviors (Haynes). Over time, a “reward pathway” forms. The neurons in our brain respond more quickly and intensely to a specific stimulus. According to the Harvard article, “Every notification, whether it’s a text message, a ‘like’ on Instagram, or a Facebook notification, has the potential to be a positive social stimulus and dopamine influx.” It’s the reason people check their phones so often, struggle to delay responding to a text, spend hours focused on a screen, and get so upset when they are apart from their devices (Hernandez and Howerton). What’s more, it’s by design that users react this way (Andersson).
• Feelings of isolation. For many people, the more time they spend on social media, the more isolated and disconnected they feel. A recent study found that young adults ages 19–32 experienced deeper feelings of isolation when they had higher levels of social media use (Primack et al.). This might be because they were interacting with people online and in fairly superficial ways instead of having enriched in-person interactions. Additionally, feelings of isolation can stem from scrolling through pictures of other people’s seemingly perfect lives and thinking our own lives pale in comparison.
• Anxiety/depression. The blog post by the Harvard research technician referenced above estimates that on average, all of the tapping and swiping that we do with our electronic devices adds up to 2,600 touches per day (Hernandez and Howerton). In conjunction with the compulsion to constantly be on our phones so that we can respond to the latest message, watch the latest viral video, and generally be “in the loop” comes a higher level of anxiety. Anxiety also increases as a result of our shift in perspective when we use digital media, focusing more on how other people will perceive us and constantly seeking their positive evaluation (Annoni et al.). This leads to nervousness, fear of disapproval, and hostility from others. There are also connections between digital media use and problems sleeping (Ellis) as well as other mental health problems like depression and lower levels of self-esteem (Miller). This is particularly true for people who constantly encounter negative content online or for victims of cyberbullying.
• Work-life balance difficulties. While digital media has made many of our professional tasks easier through handheld devices and cloud-based systems, it has also made it more difficult to set clear boundaries between “work” and “home” (Ciolfi and Lockley). Through email, texts, and social media, we are in constant connection with colleagues from work as well as our family and friends, but it’s exhausting and debilitating to be available all the time to everyone. It’s also more difficult to get out of “work mode” when we come home, which can lead to fatigue, burnout, and stress.
• Other addictive behaviors. We’ve already mentioned the addiction to digital media itself, but another negative aspect of digital media is that it facilitates other addictive behaviors, such as pornography (Love et al.) and gambling (Kruger) addictions. While a person could certainly engage in these behaviors without digital technology, handheld devices and laptops make these activities much more accessible, leading to an increase in the prevalence and severity of these types of addictions.

Cognitive

Obviously, the negative effects we’ve listed above are cause for concern, but there’s also something uniquely terrifying about the ways digital technology has affected our cognition—the ways that we perceive, process, and respond to information. Some recent studies have used neuroimaging to demonstrate that the very structure of our brains has changed, leading to a decline in cognitive function. For instance, a six-week study of participants in online roleplaying found that gamers who disengaged from the real world to focus on virtual gameplay had a significant decline in the gray matter in their orbitofrontal cortex, the part of the brain that helps with sensory integration, participation in learning, impulse control, and decision-making (Zhou et al.)—after just six weeks! Though the cognitive effects of digital media are complex, and research is continuing, some of the negative effects of frequent use, especially in young children whose brains are still forming, are startling.

• Diminished attention span. With so many digital technologies and online platforms, combined with our own tendencies to multitask across multiple devices, respond instantly to notifications, skim web pages, and follow hyperlinks, research shows that our attention spans are diminishing (Purcell et al.). We struggle to stay focused on a single task, switching from one digital task to another every 19 seconds on average (Yeykelis et al.). A meta-analysis of 41 studies demonstrates a significant reduction in cognitive ability because of media multitasking (Firth et al.). Over time, people are more easily distracted and less able to concentrate for extended periods of time or think deeply about a topic. Similarly, we are less likely to engage with longer, more complicated texts, more likely to skim instead of read, and less engaged by ideas that are represented in alphabetic text than by pictures, sounds, and videos. One longitudinal study has found a direct connection between attentional deficits in younger adolescents and multitasking activities on electronic devices (Baumgartner et al.). Other experts question whether the increase in digital media has resulted in lower reading scores (Sparks). There are also the indirect effects of devices that take time away from homework, class engagement, and social activities.
• Decline in memory. No longer do we need to memorize information about history, geography, math, and so on. Information is constantly accessible at the click of a button, which means that we are far more reliant on digital devices to store this information instead of our own brains. For instance, this study by Sparrow et al. found that because of Google and other search engines, people are more likely to remember where to find the information they need than the actual information. It’s a form of “cognitive offloading” that some might argue frees up intellectual space for other tasks and ideas, though it seems just as likely that our collective memory about information that at one time was considered foundational to our lived experience is quickly eroding. A more recent study shows that while many people are adept at finding information online, we are less likely to commit the information to long-term memory when we use digital devices (Dong and Potenza). What’s more, the practice of searching the internet for answers becomes habit-forming, so we are more likely to ask Google when we are confronted with a challenge than think it through for ourselves (Wang et al.).
• Developmental delays. Depending on the amount of screen time and the content they watch, infants and toddlers can experience developmental delays, particularly those associated with language acquisition and executive function (Anderson and Subrahmanyam).
• Sleep disruptions. Finally, digital media can have a negative effect on our sleep because the blue light inhibits the production of melatonin, which helps us fall asleep (Gratton). Over time, it can disrupt our normal sleep cycles, leading to lower quality of sleep and other related problems like fatigue, difficulty focusing, difficulty with problem-solving, and so on.

It’s worth pointing out that not all studies confirm the negative cognitive effects of digital media. Some, like this one, show that the correlation between social media use and cognition is insignificant (Lara and Bokoch). Other studies, like this one, point to positive effects of gaming and other online activities on intelligence (Sauce et al.). The point of this section is that not all digital media experiences are positive and that overexposure to digital technology can have a variety of negative effects. It’s important to be intentional to understand our goals when we engage with digital media, evaluate the effects, and set healthy boundaries. We focus on how you can engage critically with digital technologies in the next section.

Setting Your Own Goals and Boundaries

Hopefully, it’s clear that digital media affords incredible opportunities that benefit our personal and professional lives as well as society as a whole, but those benefits aren’t automatic nor unqualified. If we are not intentional about our practices, digital media can have significant negative consequences. This last section of the chapter is about setting your own intentions. While there are some general guidelines when it comes to digital media use, it’s really up to you as an individual to understand your purpose(s) when you engage with digital media, reflect on the various effects, and maintain healthy boundaries.

Below is a list of factors that are fundamental to the ways that you engage with digital media. Each one has a profound impact—either positive or negative—on your own social/emotional health as well as the health of the people with whom you engage. Each one offers the opportunity for you to think critically about your personal goals and social ethics so that you can make positive choices in all the digital spaces you navigate.

• Big-Picture Goals
  • Identify your purpose(s). When you engage in digital media, whether you are receiving or sending information, you always have a purpose. Is it to get specific information? To make social connections? To network with other professionals? To market your business? To relax and enjoy a show or a video game with your friends? Take time to reflect on what your objectives are when you engage in digital media activities.
  • Identify positive experiences. Based on the objectives you identified above, which ones do you feel are generally successful? Why? What are some of the unexpected benefits you’ve experienced?
  • Identify negative experiences. Now consider the objectives that aren’t being fully met based on your current practice. Why do you think that is? What are some of the negative consequences you hadn’t expected? What are some adjustments you can make to diminish these negative outcomes?
  • Set time limits. This one is tricky, since so much of our work lives (and school lives) take place in the digital realm. Sometimes it’s difficult to control how much screen time we get when we are expected to engage in digital activities for work and school. Additionally, like this Time article suggests, the type of content you consume online is just as, if not more, important than the amount of time you spend online (Serrano). However, considering the addictive nature of digital media and the negative emotional, social, and cognitive effects discussed in the previous section, it’s a good idea to limit your screen time, particularly when it comes to personal use (e.g., scrolling your social media feed or binging Netflix). See if you can identify a reasonable time limit per day or per week that allows you to enjoy these activities while still making room for other types of activities.
  • Set timing limits. This is a bit different than the last one about limiting the amount of time you spend in front of a screen. This is about timing—establishing situations when it is appropriate and beneficial to be on digital media (e.g., when you are doing homework or relaxing after dinner) and when it is inappropriate (e.g., during dinner with your family or while you are driving). This category also requires you to be discerning about which types of digital media are appropriate in different contexts. While you are doing your homework, it’s completely appropriate for you to use Google Drive or some other homework app that has been assigned. It’s not the time to respond to a bunch of texts, check your TikTok feed, or watch Netflix. This category is about having discipline to limit certain types of digital media activities when they distract you from your key focus/purpose.
• Content You Consume
  • Make a list of the digital spaces where you receive information—websites, social media apps, and maybe even texts and emails that you receive from businesses and news organizations.
  • What types of digital content do you consume regularly?
  • Which types of content and digital spaces have a positive effect because they help you reach key objectives or they create positive feelings and connections?
  • Which types of content and digital spaces have a negative effect because they distract you from key objectives or they are detrimental to your social/emotional health in some way?
  • How can you eliminate the negative content? Admittedly, it might not always be possible to disassociate from content that inspires negative feelings. For instance, homework can be stressful, but it wouldn’t be beneficial if you stopped paying attention to emails from your professor or the assignment listings in Canvas. However, there are probably places where you can make a break. Unsubscribe to spam emails that fill up your inbox. Break away from social media groups that are toxic in some way. And maybe take a second look at the news feed you subscribe to or the friends on your social media who are consistently negative.
  • How can you balance the information you receive? Particularly when it comes to news articles, blog posts, and even scientific studies, we tend to accept what we read online as fact. However, as we’ll discuss in the next chapter, there is always another side to every issue. Do you research the information you receive online to verify it from more than one credible source? Is the information you receive balanced and accepting of different viewpoints? Do you purposely engage with people who have different experiences and perspectives than you so that you can challenge your own biases?
• Content You Share
  • Make a list of all of the digital spaces where you share information—websites and social media apps as well as texts and email, if applicable. Also include places where you regularly make comments on other people’s posts.
  • What types of content do you regularly share? Work- or school-related information? Posts about family and personal experiences? How-to videos?
  • What types of information do you share that have a positive effect on yourself and others? Consider the type of content as well as the tone that you use. Which messages help you meet the underlying objectives you listed above? Which ones demonstrate respect and care for people both inside and outside of your audience?
  • What types of information do you share that have a negative effect on yourself and others? This is where you have to take an honest look at your recent messages and consider whether they align with your underlying digital media goals and personal ethics or whether they undermine those things because you are uncivil, disrespectful, or careless toward people both inside and outside of your audience.
  • How can you eliminate the content you share that has a negative effect, either on your own reputation and mental health or on the well-being of others? Maybe consider first what might trigger some of your more negative messages and what might be a healthier, more productive way to resolve those issues. In some cases, it might help to disconnect completely from digital spaces that have become toxic.
  • How can you be even more thoughtful about the messages that you share? This might have to do with verifying “facts” by multiple credible sources, or it might be more about being considerate of people whose experiences and perspectives are different from yours.

Probably the most important part of engaging critically with digital media is to reflect honestly and deeply about your own practices, to consistently assess your experiences and outcomes, and to be willing to make effective adjustments and set healthy boundaries. It’s also important to take a “both/and” approach to digital media. It’s not entirely good, and it’s not entirely bad. It’s complex, imbued with both positive and negative effects that can’t be easily untangled. But you should still try, and you should consider what it might look like for you to embrace an approach to digital media that is both critically sensitive and appropriately moderate. Though it might seem insignificant in comparison to some of the negative consequences mentioned earlier, gaining control over your own practices will have a big impact on you and set a positive example for those with whom you come in contact.

The downside of the web’s infinite capacity for information sharing is just that. It’s infinite, and anybody can contribute. There is no gatekeeper or quality control specialist who makes sure that information posted on the internet is accurate. A Forbes article published in 2003 reported that roughly 53% of Americans believe that the internet is “reliable and accurate” (“For 53%”). Mind you, that was before the iPhone was invented, before it was common to have constant access to the internet through our phones and other handheld devices. Even then, as the article reports, internet use among average Americans was climbing, while their confidence in online information was on the decline.

Now compare those findings with a more recent Gallup poll from 2018. This survey is a little more complex, as it doesn’t lump all online information into a single category. Instead, it focuses more specifically on Americans’ perception of the news media, reporting that 62% of respondents believe that much of the news they receive from traditional sources (television, newspaper, radio) is biased, inaccurate, and purposely misleading (Jones). Respondents were even more skeptical of the news they encountered online or on social media.

As the Gallup poll suggests, there are reasons to be wary of information you encounter online, particularly in our current political environment in which people are quick to latch onto articles and studies that seem to validate their existing beliefs while people on the other side of the aisle are quick to label it as “fake news” (University of Michigan Library). Even more complex are the screens and biases that we bring to a message, drawing from personal experiences and our unique ways of seeing and thinking, which impact how we interpret that information. As many theorists argue, the meaning of a message isn’t inherent in the text itself; meaning is always found in the interpretation(s) of the receiver(s), which may or may not align with the intention of the sender.

Clearly, discerning “fact” from “fake news” is tricky business, especially in the digital realm where there is so much contradictory information, and it’s sometimes difficult to know who authored (or better yet, who sponsored) the information being presented. In some instances, digital messages lack the rich details—nonverbal nuances like body language, facial expression, tone, and so on—that help us interpret a message. At other times, digital tools make it possible to enhance or completely fabricate those same details. The goal of this chapter is to dive into some of those complexities to provide a deeper, more nuanced understanding of “truth”—both in general and online. We’ll also look at tools you can use to verify the information you encounter online and to guard yourself against the “fake news” that you might encounter.

Terministic Screens and Perceptions of Reality

Have you ever walked away from a conversation with a friend, feeling like it was a really positive encounter, only to discover later that your friend was upset by something that was said? It’s a common phenomenon. Here’s a more specific example to demonstrate the point: Let’s say you pass one of your friends on the sidewalk. You’re in a rush to get where you’re going, so you don’t stop to chat. Instead you give a little wave and say, “I’ll talk to you later!” In your mind, perhaps, that was a positive exchange. You acknowledged your friend and made plans to catch up some other time. But your friend has a different impression. Maybe they just left a job interview that didn’t go well, and they’re already feeling down. Or maybe, their date for tonight just canceled on them, and they’re already feeling rejected. So to your friend, your quick greeting seemed halfhearted and insincere.

Misunderstandings are just that easy. Actually, they are even more prevalent when the message gets more complex and when we are communicating with people we don’t know or who are different from us in a significant way. That’s because all communication—both verbal and nonverbal—is subject to our individual interpretation. Every message has a text or a symbol—the thing that is actually said or the nonverbal cue that is displayed. In the above example, it’s the wave and the phrase, “I’ll talk to you later!” It’s the part of the message that you observe that is clearly true because everyone else can observe it, too. All the other bystanders on the sidewalk, for instance, would agree that you said, “I’ll talk to you later!” It’s a fact. They would also probably agree that “talk to you later” literally means that you plan to communicate with your friend again in the future. The denotation, or the literal meaning of a text or symbol, also tends to be fairly obvious to everyone involved, though not always.

Things get tricky when you interpret what is said—the implied meaning. In other words, the person sending this message has a purpose, a meaning that they intend for you to receive based on their selection of symbols. But it is up to you to encode the message to arrive at that same shared meaning. All too often, we don’t receive information the way that it was intended, and we arrive at a different meaning. To you, your greeting to your friend on the street meant “I care about you, but I’m too busy to talk right now.” To your friend, it meant “I don’t care about you that much. You’re not a priority.” Even more concerning is that if you don’t clear up the misunderstanding, your friend will accept it as fact that you aren’t as good of friends as they thought, and it will probably create a lot more misunderstandings in the future.

A good way to think about the way we interpret information is a term coined by Kenneth Burke in 1966 called our terministic screen (Stob). Burke was a philosopher and rhetorical theorist responsible for developing a deeper understanding of how people use language and the social effect that usage has. According to Burke, reality isn’t something that is stable or fixed. It’s in constant flux, varying from one person to another depending on their terministic screen, or the lens they use to process information. Put another way, your terministic screen is your way of seeing and thinking about the world, and it develops over time based on a complicated web of experiences and relationships. In Burke’s words, a terministic screen is “a screen composed of terms through which humans perceive the world, and that direct attention away from some interpretations and toward others.” Factors such as gender, sexuality, race, ethnicity, family structure, socioeconomic status, existing beliefs, and personal biases have a complex and fundamental effect on the way that we view the world and how we receive new information.

Burke also references our use of selection, based on our terministic screen, when we send and receive information. Language is always a selection. When we describe an event, for example, it would be impossible to share every single detail about that event. We would select details that we think are important to the meaning of that event, and we would select words that we think most accurately capture those details. And by default, if we are selecting details and words to craft a message, we are automatically deselecting other details and words that don’t align with our perspective. Maybe you’ve heard people make the argument that language is never neutral or objective. This is what they mean. All language is a selection based on individual values and perspectives.

By the same token, when we receive information, we are also selecting details we think are most important to the overall meaning, which is why you and a friend could read the same book or watch the same movie and come away with different ideas about the overall theme. The more dissimilar your background is, the more likely it is that you will make different selections and form different interpretations. It’s like that movie What Women Want, in which Mel Gibson’s character is suddenly given the ability to read women’s minds. He is confronted with the stark contrast between how he and the women around him interpret information based on their lived experiences and personal values, and over time, he begins to see things through their lens a little more clearly. Admittedly, it’s an oversimplification of terministic screens, which are complex accumulations of all of our lived experiences and aspects of our identities, but it brings home the point about perspective.

Similar to Burke’s concept of terministic screens are two related theories that will deepen our understanding of “interpretation”—sociocultural theory and social constructivist theory. Both theories emphasize the way that meaning is negotiated as people interact. There isn’t one clear meaning that is inherent in our communication; it’s always subject to interpretation based on a variety of factors. Sociocultural theory relates more to the social context of a message and how cultural and historical factors might influence meaning (Mcleod). Lev Vygotsky was particularly interested in how children develop cognitively through speech, which mediates activity and organizes information in new and culturally significant ways. According to Vygotsky, behavior is an “interweaving” of both the biological reception of external stimuli and the psychological processing of information through a sociocultural lens. In other words, communication and how to interpret meaning are things we learn through relationships with other people, and often the way that we communicate changes when we interact with different groups of people—different discourse communities (University of Central Florida). Jean Lave and Etienne Wenger emphasize the idea that all learning is “situated” within complex systems where learning is “relational,” “negotiated,” “dilemma-driven,” and informed by “relations of power” (33, 36).

Social constructivist theory looks more at the individual within a social context—how an individual person might interpret information based on their unique perspectives, experiences, and ways of thinking and knowing. Using the social constructivist framework, “multiple realities” emerge as individuals organize and reconcile new information with their existing experiences and beliefs. Learning, therefore, is an active process as “the learner constructs his or her own knowledge” (Gipps 372). Social constructivism emphasizes the idea that, while communication is a collaboration that takes place in a social context, meanings are ultimately interpreted and internalized by an individual based on their connections and thought processes (Onore; Probst). There is still room for individual variations based on personal experiences, attitudes, and perceptions (Dweck; Powell and Driscoll). So even in the same social community with a shared communication system, one person might still interpret a message differently than someone else. In fact, chances are that two people won’t understand the meaning of a message in exactly the same way.

How does all of this relate to digital media? Quite simply, digital media is often what mediates our communication with people. To “mediate” means to go between two things or to “facilitate interaction” (Jones and Hafner 2). Jones and Hafner point out that while we tend to think of a “medium” as being something like a computer screen or a “mass medium” like a newspaper or radio, “all human action is in some way mediated” (2, original emphasis). By this definition, language itself is a medium that links people together to bring about a shared understanding, but as we’ve already discussed, coming to that place of mutual understanding can be difficult, and that’s especially true when messages are filtered through a screen, which increases the likelihood of misunderstanding (Sermaxhaj). Texts and emails offer very little by way of rich detail and contextual cues that would inform our interpretation of the message (Jones and Hafner). It’s hard to know sometimes if a message is meant to be funny, sarcastic, or angry. Subtle nuances are often absent or difficult to identify. What’s more, the language of digital media has evolved at a rapid pace—think about slang terms, SMS abbreviations, memes—which made it even harder for some people to fully grasp the meaning of a message (Kleinmen). Things like font choice, pictures, videos, and charts/graphs (things that aren’t available through spoken communication) can all be really helpful in adding clarity or depth to the meaning of a message, particularly when messages are crafted with readers’ perspectives in mind. Even so, it’s sometimes difficult to predict how a message might be misinterpreted or misconstrued, which is perhaps the biggest takeaway. It’s also impossible to pinpoint which interpretation is “correct.” Not every interpretation is equally valid. We’re all at times guilty of jumping to (false) conclusions at times or harboring biases that distort our perception of a message. However, nobody can stand outside of their individual perspective to access the “right” meaning. Communication is about negotiating meaning through open dialogue and mutual respect. It’s just as much about listening to other people’s perspectives as it is sharing your own (Edwards).

Underlying Agendas and Media Spins

Hopefully, it’s clear by now that online communication isn’t always easy. Language is often insufficient as a mediation tool that brings clarity and mutual understanding. Misunderstandings and disagreements are bound to happen, and so you might have to work a little harder to understand someone else’s ideas or help someone else understand your own. What makes everything even more difficult is the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, perpetuated by economic and political agendas and media spins that add to the confusion and widen the chasm of political division. In many cases, false news stories and social media rumors have sparked civil discord and even violence as people get worked up over events that never happened or didn’t happen the way they were presented (CITS, “The Danger”). Even more disheartening is that many disinformation campaigns are intentional misdirections with the sole purpose of making money (Herasimenka). It’s tricky to navigate online spaces and distinguish fact from fiction, but since media stories and your interactions with other people surrounding these stories help shape your beliefs, worldviews, and relationships, having effective digital literacy means being more discerning about the stories you read and your reactions to the information you encounter.

Let’s start with a fundamental principle of how knowledge develops. Obviously, we accrue “knowledge” over time based on our interactions with the world and the “evidence” that we collect. Evidence might be our own experiences and the things that we witness firsthand, or as you might have guessed, evidence can also be secondhand based on what we learn from other sources—parents, teachers, friends, colleagues, books, news media, and so on. As we encounter new evidence that either confirms, contradicts, or extends our existing beliefs, we undergo a cognitive process of examining the evidence to either accept it as true or reject it as false. And that knowledge shapes our behaviors in specific ways. For instance, you (hopefully) brush your teeth every day (the action) based on the belief that it’s good for your teeth and breath, which is probably based on firsthand experience as well as information from your parents, your dentist, and so on (the evidence). You probably never sat down and really investigated your underlying beliefs about toothpaste; your beliefs developed subconsciously over time and solidified as you encountered more consistent evidence.

The formal term for how knowledge develops over time is called “epistemology” or the study of knowledge. This entry in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy examines the reason or rationale inherent in the cognitive process of adopting information as knowledge, also known as “cognitive success” (Steup and Neta). However, there are potential constraints that could lead to cognitive failure, in which we don’t adopt the information as knowledge, either because of the evidence itself or because of existing beliefs/values that contradict the new information. When existing evidence contradicts existing beliefs, we experience cognitive dissonance, a mental discomfort resulting from conflicting information (Kerwer and Rosman). Interestingly, the stronger our prior beliefs or the more grounded those beliefs are in our personal values, the less cognitive dissonance we experience because we are so quick to reject the new evidence. This is also known as the “backfire effect” as people “double down” on their beliefs even in the face of contradictory information (Wills).

Does that sound familiar? It might help to explain why people are so entrenched in their beliefs, why they are so quick to adopt information that confirms those beliefs, and why they are equally quick to reject anything that conflicts. They haven’t gone through the sometimes painful process of examining their current beliefs, where they come from, how valid they are, and how this new information might fit into or even change their beliefs and behaviors. However, the growing buzz about “fake news” and the idea that we are living in a “post-truth” era have created more skepticism among ordinary citizens (Schwarzenegger). However, most people are overly confident in their ability to detect fake news while believing that other people are fooled by media spins and fabrications (Jang and Kim). As Schwarzenegger put it in his study of media beliefs and personal use, “Users know that it is essential and socially favorable to be critical of information, but they rarely invest the energy and motivation to actually criticize it. Moreover, awareness of the need for information skepticism does not equate to being competent in critical practices.”

One thing to consider is the inherent connection between bias and a person’s vulnerability to fake news. Otherwise known as confirmation bias, this happens when information that we receive lines up with what we already believe—or want to believe. So we are quick to adopt that information as true. Ciampaglia and Menczer from Scientific American explain, “The fact that low-credibility content spreads so quickly and easily suggests that people and the algorithms behind social media platforms are vulnerable to manipulation.” In fact, often salacious, emotionally charged false information spreads more rapidly than information that is true (Vosoughi et al.). Ciampaglia and Menczer go on to identify three different types of bias that cause people to latch onto fake information: 1. Cognitive bias, resulting from “tricks” the brain uses to quickly sift through large amounts of information. The shortcuts bypass the more logical methods a person might use to decipher the credibility of a source. 2. Social bias, pertaining to the people we are around and the way information is filtered through friend groups. People tend to have a more positive impression of information if it comes from people in their social circle (another form of the echo chamber). “This helps explain why so many online conversations devolve into ‘us versus them’ confrontations” (Ciampaglia and Menczer). 3. Algorithm bias, utilizing what social media platforms and search engines consider to be the most compelling content for an individual user. However, the authors note, “But in doing so, it may end up reinforcing the cognitive and social biases of users, thus making them more vulnerable to manipulation” (Ciampaglia and Menczer).

There are obvious reasons to be skeptical of news sources. Even legitimate news organizations are made up of people with their own political values and beliefs, and there are external pressures from government agencies, advertisers, and interest groups that influence which stories are covered and the angles that are adopted. Going back to Burke’s concept of the terministic screen, all news stories are made up of selected details and descriptions. That doesn’t necessarily mean that the information provided is untrue, but it does mean that news stories aren’t 100% objective. They reflect a perspective that highlights certain details while ignoring others, and these selections always relate to underlying values and beliefs.

Then there is the prevalence of misinformation and disinformation, which create additional layers of confusion and chaos. The difference is about intent. Misinformation is inaccurate or misleading in some way, but it’s not intentional. Some people believe the false news stories they read online and promote them as fact because they are misinformed. They have been misled in some ways, but they aren’t trying to mislead others. Similarly, news outlets sometimes publish inaccurate information because they fail to verify the facts. This is particularly true following some sort of tragedy in which emotional tensions are high and news stations rush to post a story. Disinformation, on the other hand, is the intentional distortion of information or outright fabrications, often for the purpose of inciting panic, anger, or excitement. Tabloids, for instance, are known for sensationalized stories meant to grab readers’ attention and manipulate their emotions with little regard for accuracy or balance. Similarly, even reputable news organizations utilize sensational tactics to push ratings and political agendas (Vanacore). Even more scary are organizations that purposely promote fake news for the purpose of creating chaos and distractions (PBS News). This article from the Center of Information Technology and Society (CITS), gives several examples of fake news stories that have gone viral, demonstrating how easy it is (CITS, “Where Does”). In fact, Politifact.com, working with Facebook, put together a list of 330 fake or impostor news sites that either sound like legitimate news (ABCnews.com.co, for instance) or that target people whose political orientations make them less likely to question the information presented (AngryPatriotMovement.com, for example).

To make matters worse, there are two things to keep in mind. First, fact-checking sites exist to provide balanced information and help to either verify or debunk questionable information, but these organizations have their limits (CITS, “Protecting”). We’ve already established that “truth” isn’t fixed or stable, but beyond that, when looking into the details of a situation, fact-checkers often have no legitimate source other than the politician or organization in question. They can verify what the politician said, but they can’t verify the accuracy of that information. There are also inconsistencies between fact-checking sites when it comes to standards of truth or the verification process itself.

Second, even scientific studies, which are considered to be the standard of credibility and are used as the basis for many of our beliefs about the world, are prone to error, misinterpretation, and personal agendas. Though studies are designed intentionally to reduce bias and increase validity, no study is free from bias. They are all rooted in selections that the researchers make in terms of the study of the design, selection of participants, interpretation of the findings, and the language in reporting those findings. In fact, people often overlook the rhetorical nature of studies, in which researchers have a clear stake in promoting their own professional ethos and the importance of their findings. Furthermore, studies are all conducted and their results are interpreted by people who have their own ways of seeing and thinking about the world. Not only are news sites often guilty of distorting scientific studies to suit their own agendas (Woolston), but the studies themselves are sometimes flawed because they are purposely or inadvertently set up to reach a specific conclusion (Ioannidis). That’s why studies sometimes contradict one another and why they are often repeated. The more studies that come to the same conclusion, the more credible that conclusion becomes.

The Dangers of the Echo Chamber

Given the uncertainty surrounding the information that we encounter online, it’s no wonder people are skeptical. In fact, many people are so turned off by the prevalence of fake news and political division that they avoid news media altogether (Edgerly et al.), which means that they’re not informed about current events or issues, and they aren’t participating in the conversations or the solutions. However, equally problematic are people who retreat to the safety of like-minded people and the (one-sided) information that supports their preexisting beliefs (also known as confirmation bias). As noted above, the more strongly people feel about particular beliefs, the less likely they are to examine the validity of those beliefs and to wrestle with conflicting evidence, no matter how valid it might be. Instead, they reflexively fall back on news sites and social media groups that validate their perspectives, and they become further entrenched in their own worldview instead of trying to understand the worldviews of others, find common ground, and negotiate solutions that are mutually beneficial.

In fact, one of the dangers of the echo chamber, besides the fact that it stifles personal growth, is that it prohibits original thinking (Pazzanese). Nobody is thinking critically or productively about the problems that exist, and even if they were, their ideas would immediately be dismissed because they don’t conform to the group mentality. Instead, it leads to confirmation bias and a deepening division that encourages people to think only of themselves. The previous chapter discussed some of the possibilities of civic engagement and progress that digital media affords. However, all too often, people are sucked into an online echo chamber that prohibits outward thinking, which can have devastating effects on public policy, random acts of violence by extremists, and the lived experiences of marginalized communities. In fact, Harvard law Professor Cass Sunstein points out the discrepancy between the ideal that the internet would be a place that celebrates diverse perspectives in the spirit of democracy and reality. He cites the “Daily Me,” a reference to how the echo chamber insulates us against other realities and normalizes our indulgence in personal interests, perspectives, feelings, and so on. (Pazzanese) It’s the opposite of social progress, and without digital literacies that encourage self-awareness and critical thinking, things will only get worse.

What Can You Do?

Originally, this section was going to be titled “How to Spot Fake News,” which is a significant aspect of digital literacy and an important countermeasure against the echo chamber mentality that actively suppresses information that isn’t personally beneficial. However, like much of the information presented in this chapter suggests, the problem lies a little deeper than a checklist that you might use to discern the “credibility” of a source (though there is one provided below as a starting point). We’re all predisposed in various ways to react positively or negatively to information that either reinforces or contradicts our existing beliefs. And besides, lots of credible sources contradict one another on important issues and seemingly fact-based events. To engage meaningfully with new information that you encounter—whether online or in person, on social media or in a scientific journal—first requires a little self-inventory.

For instance, when you encounter information that you immediately reject as false, take some time to consider why. What is it specifically about the information that you find untrustworthy? Can you pinpoint anything in particular about the writer, the news organization, the details that are presented, the writing style? List them out, but try to resist the urge to be dismissive or argumentative. Simply list them out for yourself so you can interrogate each item. Remember first off that information can be complex, full of major and minor details. A news article might have an inaccuracy or even a misspelling, but that doesn’t mean the entire article is false. Some items on your list might be valid reasons to be skeptical about the information (an underlying agenda, for instance, or a number of other articles that present conflicting information), and some aren’t (because the author is loyal to a different political party, for example, or because the author is different from you in some other fundamental way). The most dangerous item on your list might be “I don’t believe X because I already know Y.” So then, take some time to think more deeply—and honestly—about that. How do you know Y (whatever fact or belief that stands in contradiction to the new information presented)? Where did this information come from and why do you believe it so fervently? How valid are those experiences or other sources of information? And is the evidence mutually exclusive? In other words, is it possible that while your experiences are valid, it might also be possible that other viewpoints and experiences are also valid? It’s really not about being “right” or unraveling everything you think you know about the world. It’s about thinking critically and authentically.

Peter Elbow was an English professor and essayist whose ideas about teaching writing and subverting authority in the classroom had a pivotal effect on the composition field. In his writings in the 1970s and 1980s, he advocated for the “believing game,” which even then wasn’t popular, as most people like to play the “doubting game” (Elbow, “The Believing Game”). In contrast to our initial gut reactions to challenge something we hear, the believing game is a call to start out believing what you hear. You would look for the positives in others’ ideas and consider first what it means if they are true. Of course, it doesn’t mean that you have to agree with everything you hear or read, but it does open you up to engage more openly with other perspectives and to challenge yourself to see their value. As Elbow said in his 1986 book Embracing Contradictions: Explorations in Learning and Teaching, “The truth is often complex and…different people often catch different aspects of it.” When we embrace contradictions, we begin to understand that “certainty is rarely if ever possible and that we increase the likelihood of getting things wrong if we succumb to the hunger for it.”

The challenging part of self-inventory might be when you have to interrogate your reactions to information that you are inclined to believe, which you wouldn’t normally question at all because it seems so obviously true. Once again, you’d think about why. What is it about the author, the publishing organization, the information itself, the writing style, and so on that makes it seem credible? What are the underlying beliefs and assumptions that you have that might predispose you to believe or agree with this information? Can you pinpoint where those beliefs and assumptions might come from? What if you didn’t hold those underlying beliefs? What about the article might you question then? Again, it’s not about undoing all of your core beliefs; it’s simply an exercise in self-reflection where you think more critically about where your beliefs and attitudes come from. It might lead to some adjustments in your thinking, but the ultimate goal is self-understanding and reasoning based on logic instead of high emotion. It might also help you see that there is room for alternative viewpoints that are also logical and valid.

Of course, there are also strategies that you can use to discern the credibility of a source. A classic acronym that is easy to remember as you’re assessing a source of information is the CRAAP test:

• Currency: Is the information up to date? Of course, this criterion would be applied differently in different situations. Some topics like medicine or technology are constantly evolving, so it would be crucial to find a source that is current. For other topics—historical information, for instance—it might be okay, even preferred, to use sources that are a bit older.
• Relevance: Is the information relevant to your research question? This criterion is probably more useful for students in research courses, working to piece together a compelling research paper. Too often, students use sources that only loosely connect to their topic, resulting in a paper that is choppy and hard to follow. The point is to make sure that the source you use is focused on the same research question you are asking.
• Authority: Who is the person that is providing this information? What authority do they have on this topic? Something that is written by a credentialed expert in a particular field will have more authority on a related topic than a journalist or blogger without that specialized knowledge. Another thing that relates to authority is the research that the source presents. Where are they getting their information, and are they providing those sources as hyperlinks or citations? Does their own research look sound?
• Accuracy: Is the information accurate? Does it make sense and align with other information you’ve received on this topic? It might be a red flag if the information is contrary to everything else that you’ve learned on this topic. Again, you’d look more closely at their source of information or the methods they used to come to a conclusion (if it’s a study, for instance). Remember that a single study isn’t enough to prove that the conclusion is correct. Multiple studies that all arrive at the same conclusion have more weight.
• Purpose: What is the intention behind the source? What does it want you to think or do? How is it using information to be persuasive? At the very least, someone who has gone through the trouble of publishing information wants to catch your attention and wants you to agree that the topic is important. As we’ll discuss below, even academic studies have a rhetorical purpose beyond simply providing useful information that progresses our knowledge in a particular area. It’s always helpful for you to consider the financial or political motives of a source.

Though these guidelines don’t guarantee that the information is 100% accurate, they do help you gauge the credibility of a source. You should also be on the lookout for fake news stories with these other red flags:

• URLs that are created to look similar to a more established, credible news source
• Unique information/events that aren’t confirmed on other news sites
• Claims that are outlandish and provoke strong emotional reactions

Digital literacy and the quality of your digital writing hinge on your ability to navigate your way through the endless sea of online information, to distinguish credible information from fake news, to engage with other ideas, to understand the complexities of multiple realities, and to wrestle with your own attitudes and personal biases that might hold you back from genuine and productive discourse.

It’s a pretty simple concept, but information wasn’t always organized this way, and as we’ll discuss in this chapter, this type of data collection isn’t always beneficial to everyone. In fact, it seems fitting that the manila folder is often considered a symbol of imperialism and oppression. Invented in the United States in the early nineteenth century, manila paper originally came from a type of banana tree called acaba, which grew predominantly in the Philippines. When the United States colonized the Philippines, it took control of the acaba trade to ensure that it—not the Filipinos—would profit (Lui). The U.S. used the wood for a variety of purposes, including manila envelopes and paper.

In its most basic form, surveillance is about collecting information about people so it can be easily retrieved and analyzed. Before filing cabinets were invented in 1890, information was written in ledger books or in loose bundles of paper, which made information less accessible because it was difficult to find specific information. The filing cabinet revolutionized record management practices by making it possible to quickly retrieve a single document (Bristow). Soon, filing cabinets were a must in businesses across the country, and large storage facilities emerged with the singular purpose of securing large amounts of data. In other words, filing cabinets became foundational to the way that institutions managed systems—and people. They were used to document identities, relationships, events, and transactions.

Now think about all of the folders out there somewhere that contain information about you—medical records, academic transcripts and other test scores, employment evaluations, bank information, credit scores, tax records. It’s obvious why privacy has become such an important issue. Everyone has personal information stored in files across various institutions. Sometimes we don’t even know these files exist. Rarely do we know all of the information that the files contain or how the information was collected. It’s a form of institutional power because it increases our visibility (and vulnerability). Individuals are provided opportunities—or not—based on the information in their files. Data collection also has the power to control behaviors. Think about standard employment practices that require workers to clock in and out, that mandate an annual employee evaluation, that put surveillance cameras in parking lots and workstations, or that require random drug testing. These are all ways of monitoring and managing the behaviors of employees, of creating systems of rewards and punishments based on the information in a person’s file.

The digital age of computers, web browsers, and cloud-based computing and data storage expanded data collection practices. It’s even easier to store and retrieve vast amounts of personal data. It’s also possible to collect all kinds of user information without the users’ explicit knowledge. That’s what “cookies” do. When you visit a website and it requires you to “accept cookies,” a code is embedded in your browser’s software that allows the website to collect information about your online activities and to recognize your computer when you revisit the site (Google, “How Google”). Information about your preferences, profile information, browsing history, past purchases, and even your navigation path and time spent on individual pages is collected. Cookies also allow websites to track your activities across the internet, even when you aren’t on that specific website. A robust user profile is developed about you—your interests, activities, and identifying information—all so that companies can create targeted ads and online experiences that will increase your chances of buying certain products and services.

The term “surveillance capitalism” refers to this collection of personal data for the purpose of financial gain or some other benefit related to power and control. In the introduction of Surveillance Capitalism, Josh Lauer and Kenneth Lipartito define surveillance capitalism as a

broad range of strategies and techniques, both formal and informal, that commercial actors—including lenders, merchants, employers, managers, service providers, and others—deploy to observe, record, predict, and control human behavior and relationships. The targets of such commercial surveillance typically include clients and customers, borrowers and buyers, staff and laborers (free and unfree), markets and competitors (5).

It’s a broad definition because surveillance is so prevalent throughout our daily lives. We’re reminded in many parking lots, stores, schools, and government buildings that we are being recorded. Cameras also exist at many intersections and toll booths to ensure that people follow the rules. Many people have cameras on their doorbells and inside their homes so they can monitor the activities of visitors or maybe even their own pets or family members and prevent negative behaviors. Then there are the smartphones, smart watches, and GPS apps that track your location throughout the day. Our Siris, Alexas, and Google Assistants are listening devices that record our dialogue, which can be reviewed by tech companies themselves or third-party contractors (Metz). There is even some fear that our devices are listening to our conversations when we aren’t using them. For instance, this study examined 81 different Internet of Things devices and found that many of them surreptitiously transmit information to tech companies like Netflix, Amazon, and Google, even when the device isn’t being used (Ren et al.).

Advancements in digital technology have made it easier than ever for organizations to secretly collect information, which has created a number of privacy concerns. This chapter explores the history of surveillance capitalism, identifies common surveillance practices, and examines how surveillance is often used not only to predict but also to control human behaviors. The chapter ends with basic guidelines for protecting your private information.

The History of Surveillance Capitalism

As discussed in the previous section, the practice of compiling information into personal files has a long history that predates the advent of digital technology. Surveillance practices have an even longer, more complex history. Michel Foucault’s 1975 book Discipline and Punish: The Birth of the Prison has had a profound influence on our understanding of surveillance practices and the social consequences throughout history. In it, Foucault traces the rise of the prison system in eighteenth-century Europe. Before prisons emerged as the standard form of punishment for criminal behavior, people who were convicted of a crime were typically subjected to some sort of public torture or punishment. For instance, criminals might be put in the pillory or in stocks in the town square, which was intended to deter future crime from the individual as well as everyone else in town. When prisons emerged, however, punishment shifted from being mostly physical to being mostly psychological. Within the confines of the prison, every aspect of the prisoner’s life was regimented, monitored, and controlled.

The panopticon is what made surveillance possible. Defined by its circular structure and a system of backlighting in each prison cell, the panopticon made it possible for a guard in the tower to monitor every movement that the prisoners made. They were constantly visible. The guard in the tower, on the other hand, was hidden. There were no lights in the tower to let prisoners know whether or not they were being watched; however, they knew it was always a possibility. So they had to constantly be on their best behavior to avoid punishment. Over time, the prisoners began to internalize the gaze of the guard and to monitor their own behaviors.

The panopticon serves as a poignant metaphor for current surveillance practices. Just like the prisoners in the cells, everyone in society is subjected to different forms of surveillance that force their exposure—making their behaviors, identities, and relationships visible. Meanwhile, the organizations that collect this information about us (the metaphorical guards in the tower) are largely invisible. We don’t often see who specifically is collecting information about us, what that information is, or how it’s being used. Even more significant is the psychological effect this surveillance has. Like the prisoners in their cells, most people don’t know if they are being watched. They just know that it’s always possible, so they also internalize the gaze of authority to monitor their own behaviors.

A classic example might relate to traffic laws. Most of us monitor our own speed. We come to a full stop at a stop sign. We sit at an intersection waiting for the light to turn green even if there are no other cars at the intersection. It’s always possible that a cop might be stationed nearby or that we are being filmed by a traffic camera somewhere, and because we don’t want to get a speeding ticket or have our license revoked, we drive a little slower. We make the full stop. We wait for the light to turn at the empty intersection. Often we don’t even consciously make these choices because the behaviors—and often the underlying message about safety and good driving—have become ingrained in our minds. The same is true for lots of activities we do all day long, even parts of our identities that we might typically think of as inherent. Foucault would argue that a complex system of surveillance, rewards, punishments, self-monitoring, and internalization is responsible for nearly all of our behaviors.

While surveillance itself isn’t new, the term “surveillance capitalism” typically refers to more recent practices related to digital technology and data collection, which emerged gradually once the internet shifted to a commercial enterprise run by a few private companies. You might recall from the first chapter that the World Wide Web was created with a focus on information sharing. The NSFNET, developed by the National Science Foundation, was dedicated to educational advancement and had initially banned the commercial use of the internet. That changed in the mid-1990s as the number of users grew beyond what the NSF could manage. Private companies provided internet services, and more and more businesses registered their websites with the purpose of attracting new customers.

One of the key events that perpetuated the development of surveillance capitalism was the invention of cookies, which would record the unique navigation paths of individual users as they visited particular websites. According to Meg Leta Jones in “Surveillance Capitalism Online,” these paths were called “clickstreams,” which allowed web creators to understand how users were navigating their site and to use that information to evaluate the website’s effectiveness. This technology was not built into the original design of the World Wide Web. In fact, Tim Berners-Lee intended for the web to be “stateless,” meaning that it would retrieve the information that a user is looking for, but nothing about the transaction would be recorded or documented. For companies looking to understand the user journey, they called this original design the “memory” problem (Jones 186). The cookie, invented by computer scientist Lou Montulli, created a unique session ID that began when a user accessed a specific website. The server for that website would place the text code into the memory of the user’s browser, which is then stored on the hard drive and allows the website to recognize that user each time they return to the website.

Importantly, Jones points out that the cookie is an “opaque” memory, meaning that it’s invisible to the user (187). The code could include anything, to collect any sort of data, and the user wouldn’t know, which connects directly to the idea of surveillance. The user becomes more visible while the companies collecting the data are largely hidden. This obviously raised concerns about user privacy, which then prompted Montulli to adjust the process so that users could manage their own cookie preferences and receive notifications before a cookie was placed on their computer. They could accept or reject the cookie, though the default was set so that all cookies were accepted. He argued that this was a technique that actually protected users because it kept their identities anonymous and it allowed them a measure of control over whether information was collected, though they still wouldn’t know what type of information was collected or how it was being used.

And then as the Clinton administration ushered in self-regulation policies that removed commercial restrictions online (White House) and as only a handful of large tech companies survived the dot-com crash in the early 2000s, new practices emerged that worked against the privacy of users (Salvucci). Whereas companies had originally tracked user data only when they were on a particular page, now they began tracking the users themselves as they traveled across the internet, and they began selling user data to interested third parties who could now market their products and services directly to users based on their past behaviors.

Interestingly, Jones points out that surveillance capitalism didn’t begin with the cookie. As far back as the 1970s, direct mail companies would buy mailing lists from varying companies with the explicit purpose of targeting them with mail advertisements. For instance, one medical lab sold patient information to a direct mail service, which could then target those patients with ads for specific products. One woman received diaper coupons because her medical information revealed that she was pregnant. Jones explains, “Data breaches, sexual privacy, informational asymmetries, and racial bias were issues with direct marketing expressed by members of Congress in 1970” (197). However, when given the chance to take their names off all mailing lists, very few people responded. Though direct mail was considered a minor nuisance, the opt-out method was deemed sufficient to protect consumer information, which Jones argues is what set the precedent for increased surveillance capitalism once cookies were established.

Another important component in the history of surveillance capitalism was the emergence of Google, which improved search results by creating a system that collected information about users, their search queries, and their online behaviors. As Shoshana Zuboff points out in The Age of Surveillance Capitalism, the system was initially about enhancing the user experience and providing the most relevant queries. However, it didn’t take long for Google to realize the value of the massive amounts of user data it was collecting, which could be used for targeted advertising that profits off people’s personal data. Zuboff also points to Facebook as a pioneer in surveillance capitalism through its collection of user data and targeted advertising. Zuboff argues that increasingly, users are treated as commodities as every click is recorded as some sort of metric for enhanced analytics and profit. Businesses obviously profit off this sort of data, but so too do political organizations that have a stake in influencing voter opinions and behaviors. The last chapter discussed the power of media spins and echo chambers to direct people’s perceptions of reality. By collecting data about these users, political entities could target their ads to individuals who are more likely to respond favorably to their message—because they are predisposed to certain beliefs and values. For example, the Cambridge Analytica scandal in 2016 revealed that the data firm had acquired data from 50 million Facebook users and then sold that data to political campaigns so they could build voter profiles and create targeted ads that would sway voter sentiment (Confessore). This data was used to assist the Ted Cruz and Donald Trump campaigns in 2016 and to promote public support for Brexit.

Surveillance Practices

Remember that word “ubiquitous” from the first chapter? If our use of technology is ubiquitous, so too is surveillance. Hardly a moment of the day goes by when we don’t have our phones nearby, tracking our location. And as mentioned in the previous section, many companies are tracking our activities across the internet, gathering data about sites we’ve visited, hyperlinks we’ve followed, products we’ve purchased, and so on. But the ways in which we are surveilled and the (known) uses of this information extend much further. Though it’s impossible to identify every surveillance tactic and though government organizations and large tech companies aren’t always forthcoming about the types of information they are collecting, this section will look at some of the more common surveillance strategies made possible through a variety of technologies.

Video surveillance. Video cameras are increasingly common, particularly in public spaces such as busy intersections, parking lots, street corners, schools, shopping centers, and restaurants. Often, there will be a sign alerting the public that they are being recorded, but not always. Sometimes the cameras themselves are easy to spot, but not always. As you might imagine, cameras are used in many circumstances to help prevent crime and other unwanted behaviors. They’re also helpful once a crime or some other incident has occurred because they provide footage of what happened and who was involved. Facial recognition software and license plate scanners make it even easier to identify individuals in specific places and visibly track their movements.

The concern many people have relates to the abuse of video surveillance—tracking and recording someone’s movements for the sake of spying or using video surveillance in deceptive or inappropriate ways. For instance, people of color are typically monitored more closely, and video surveillance makes it easy to target/scrutinize these individuals while they are buying groceries, pumping gas, eating dinner, and so on (Lee and Chin). There have also been incidents where video cameras have been discovered in inappropriate places, demonstrating a gross abuse of power. In 2003, a middle school in Tennessee was sued by parents after they found out there were video cameras in the locker rooms that had recorded their children undressing, and because of a lack of security, the footage had been accessed by unauthorized users outside of the school system (ABC News).

Laptops and cell phones also have built-in video cameras, which is a cause for concern. During the COVID-19 pandemic as schools shifted to online learning, many people were concerned about platforms like Zoom that gave viewers access to students’ homes, including their bedrooms and other activities that occurred in the background (Lieberman). Similarly, it became common practice to use remote proctors and other surveillance technologies to monitor students’ behaviors while they were taking tests. In many instances, students felt the monitoring was unfair and overly aggressive. And then there are the typical concerns about hackers who gain access to video feeds from laptops, phones, and personal home surveillance systems, usually with the intention of gaining bank account information or spying on users’ personal activities (Erickson).

Voice recognition. Many technologies also have a microphone, including your phone, your computer, and many of your household devices like Siri or Alexa. There’s been concern for some time that the government spies on personal conversations in order to collect personal information (Weinstein). However, tech companies are also leveraging voice recognition technology in order to identify who we are and build a profile about us. Google says that it uses snippets of voice recordings in order to get aggregate data about user preferences and how the device can be improved, but it says it doesn’t connect specific conversations with specific users (Tucker). Of particular concern is the fact that these smart devices are listening all the time that they are on, even when they haven’t been activated (King). What’s more, the recordings are sometimes sent to third-party reviewers, which puts personal data at an increased risk.

Emails and texts. If you have an email account or a cell phone provided by your employer, they have the right to view that information. In fact, many employers have monitoring software installed on employee computers that allows them to view emails and other online activities (West). Cell phone companies retain records pertaining to text messages and when they were sent. Though most say that they retain the messages themselves for only a short time after they have been delivered, some do store the data for several days or even months after delivery (Evans). Likewise, up until 2017, Google would scan Gmail customers’ emails for the purpose of having them analyzed for direct marketing purposes. Though Google no longer scans emails, it is still able to track users across multiple Google apps, including Gmail, Google Chrome, Google Analytics, and Double Click. In fact, Google recently published its privacy label for the Gmail app, which reports on all of the types of data Google will collect, including location, purchase history, contacts, user content, search history, identifiers, and “other data” (Google, “Gmail”).

Social media. Social media companies like Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, and YouTube can also collect information about you. This includes the information you provide in your profile as well as your posts. It also includes your list of contacts and the things that you like and share. All of this is information that can be used to provide targeted ads across multiple web platforms—not just your feed on that particular site. Many social media sites also collect information about your location, phone and email contacts, text and email messages, payment information, online views, and more. These social media companies not only use the information to better their own platforms, but they also make a lot of money by selling user information to advertisers (Vigderman and Turnera).

Digital records. In the digital age, most of the private information about you is stored on a digital server somewhere—your health care history, the medications you take, your bank account information, your grades, your credit score, your legal record. For instance, think about the type of information that most colleges collect about individual students—high school transcripts, income information, bank information, individual test scores and homework activities, attendance records, disciplinary files, physical or mental health information, specific disabilities, and so on. Likewise, doctor’s offices, government organizations, merchants, and others all collect private information about you.

Big data. On a larger scale, more businesses as well as educational and governmental organizations are able to collect big data—massive amounts of information from a lot of different users that help them see big-picture trends. It’s less about the individual user and more about analytics. To put it into context, this article in the Harvard Business Review says that Walmart collects 2.5 petabytes of information every hour based solely on customer transactions (McAfee and Brynjolfsson). Since a petabyte is “20 million filing cabinets worth of text,” that means Walmart can fill 50 million filing cabinets in the course of an hour, and that doesn’t count the information collected through cookies and other surveillance tools.

IoT. Let’s look at one last category—Internet of Things devices. These are smart devices that connect to the internet and can then be controlled by our phones. Home security systems, garage doors, heating and cooling systems, medical sensors, smart watches, digital assistants like Alexa, doorbell cameras, and so on are all IoT devices that collect data. Some of the information is logged right away when you initialize the product and create a user profile, but most of the information is created through your ongoing use of the product (McFadin). This includes information about the product and its status, the surrounding environment, and usage.

Commercialization and Behavior Modification

By now it’s probably pretty clear that surveillance capitalism is about power and profit. Thinking back to Foucault’s theory of the panopticon and the psychological effects that surveillance has on an individual, surveillance is a mechanism of control because it creates “docile” bodies who have become conditioned to behave in desirable ways, typically submitting to authority and accepting certain behaviors (and identities) as “normal.” Once people are conditioned in this way, it’s easy to capitalize on their perceptions and values to create market demand for certain products and to influence buying behaviors. Organizations in every industry collect information about people’s experiences and turn it into data that can be leveraged to make predictions about what they will do. The more relevant the advertising is to an individual, based on their demographics, interests, location, and so on, the more likely they are to buy the product. In an interview about her book on surveillance capitalism, Zuboff explains,

The opportunities to align supply and demand around the needs of individuals were overtaken by a new economic logic that offered a fast track to monetization.…This economic logic has now spread beyond the tech companies to new surveillance-based ecosystems in virtually every economic sector, from insurance to automobiles to health, education, finance, to every product described as “smart” and every service described as “personalized.”

Zuboff demonstrates the pervasiveness of surveillance capitalism with the recent discovery that even breathing machines are collecting data about people with sleep apnea. Health insurance companies receive that data and then use it for their own benefit, usually to deny or reduce coverage.

It would be impossible to trace all of the ways that surveillance capitalism either makes or saves (as in the example above) companies money, but a few statistics might help put the growth of surveillance capitalism and digital advertising in perspective:

• From 2001 to 2020, digital advertising has grown by more than 40% (Ebsworth et al.).
• In 2021, digital advertising rose nearly 30% from the previous year, making the largest annual growth in history (Oberlo). The total spent on digital advertising that year was more than $520 billion worldwide.
• Google, Amazon, and Facebook receive the bulk (two-thirds) of these advertising dollars.
• Amazon’s income from advertising doubles every two years ($14.1 billion in 2019). In 2020, Google made $147 billion in advertising. In that same year, Facebook made $86 billion, totaling 98% of its income (Ebsworth et al.).

Certainly, surveillance capitalism has proven to be popular, which is why it has grown so quickly. However, the major concern stems from two interrelated issues:

• Invasion of privacy. As much of this chapter has demonstrated, surveillance capitalism is clandestine (Andrew et al.). While people create Facebook and Google accounts because they believe these services are created for their benefit, they are often unaware that their profile information and online activities are tracked so that commercial entities can commodity their experiences and inundate them with advertising. Lots of different applications and smart devices have access to data that many people couldn’t imagine, and much of it is sensitive data that they wouldn’t want to be collected—and they certainly wouldn’t want it to be shared and exploited.
• Behavior modification. Researchers like Zuboff claim that surveillance capitalism not only predicts what we will do but it can actually alter the choices that we make through consistent yet subtle messaging that rewards us for certain behaviors and thus conditions us toward preset outcomes. Zuboff puts it this way: “The shift is from monitoring to what the data scientists call “actuating.” Surveillance capitalists now develop “economies of action,” as they learn to tune, herd, and condition our behavior with subtle and subliminal cues, rewards, and punishments that shunt us toward their most profitable outcomes.”

Behavior modification goes hand in hand with surveillance. As companies collect more data about us, they are able to create better algorithms and ultimately make better predictions. This is largely dependent, however, on people’s increasing engagement with digital media. Nir Eyal’s book Hooked: How to Build Habit-Forming Products explains the way that companies intentionally create addictions to products through a system of “triggers” (prompting users to use the product) and “rewards” (based on the user’s compliance with the trigger). As Ebsworth et al. explain, “Increasing engagement via the hook model provides both a constant source of behavioural data and a committed audience for advertisements.” In other words, as engagement (and addiction) increase, free will and freedom of thought would diminish as people are “conditioned,” “tuned,” and “herded” to make specific buying choices. As Foucault would say, they have become “docile” bodies.

Importantly, the concern about behavior modification is about more than just how people spend their money. It’s also about ideologies and political choices. Political parties and interest groups can use data collection to steer people toward certain websites and information and use a similar system of rewards and punishments to direct their attention as well as their ways of thinking. “Political partisans, including shadowy private interests and foreign governments, promise to swing voters and elections with microtargeted social media campaigns” (Lauer and Lipartito 1). Some notable examples include the Cambridge Analytica scandal noted above and also more recent attempts to influence Cuban voters in South Florida with propaganda that positions Democrats as communists (Kapnick; O’Sullivan and Sands).

Employers also use surveillance technologies to control behaviors. Systems for clocking in and out, video cameras in public workspaces, and software that monitors employee activities on work computers and cell phones all have the effect of keeping employees in line so that they can keep their jobs and perhaps be rewarded with promotions or pay increases. This is exactly the kind of surveillance and control that ties directly to Foucault’s panopticon. People modify their behaviors to avoid punishment (or gain a reward), and over time as they internalize the gaze of the “guard” (in this case, the employer, but it could also be a teacher, government official, religious leader, etc.), their ways of thinking and being begin to shift in ways that benefit the authorities in charge.

Importantly, while everyone in society is surveilled to some degree, it is always the populations with the least amount of power—those who are already marginalized—who are surveilled to the greatest extreme: welfare recipients, people of color, immigrants, working-class employees, criminals, and women. Gellman and Adler-Bell explain it like this:

Privacy scholars speak of philosophical rights and hypothetical risks; privacy-minded middle class Americans fear allowing the government too much access to their electronic trails. But there is nothing abstract about the physical, often menacing, intrusions into less fortunate neighborhoods, where mere presence in a “high-crime” area is grounds for detention, search, and questioning by police. At age sixty-five, tens of millions of Americans claim their Medicare benefits with nothing more eventful than completion of some forms. (Medicare.gov even promises to “protect your privacy by getting rid of the information you give us when you close the browser.”) An impoverished single mother on Medicaid faces mortifying questions, face-to-face with benefit managers, about her lovers, hygiene, parental shortcomings, and personal habits.

Their point is that surveillance capitalism affects everyone but not to the same degree. Its prevalence in our society has had real consequences for minorities, putting them under higher levels of scrutiny, finding reasons to inflict “punishments,” and perpetuating discriminatory practices and injustices.

You might wonder what all of this has to do with digital writing. In some ways, it’s maybe more geared toward digital literacy, understanding how to use digital media and the consequences of your choices. This critical unit is about complicating the overly simplistic and utopian views of digital media as unequivocally progressive and beneficial. It’s about lifting the veil to examine the more negative effects of digital media, which will hopefully lead to more informed and intentional engagement. Also, as we’ll see in the third section of the book related to functional literacy, digital writers do participate in surveillance practices. SEO is based exclusively on behavioral data—how people search for information and what they do as they travel across the internet. Digital writers use that data to write copy that will capture users’ attention. They also use analytics to assess the effects of their SEO practices, and they use lead generation to send email campaigns and targeted social media ads to people—some who may have opted in to receive updates and ads, but many who haven’t. Critical literacy means thinking more deeply about these practices and their ethical and social—not just financial—consequences in order to make informed choices.

Protecting Your Privacy

While it’s impossible to navigate online spaces and remain completely off the grid, there are some important ways that you can control/limit the types of information that businesses can collect about you. You can—and should—take important steps to protect your privacy, your data, and your accounts from cybercriminals. This final section of the chapter lists some basic things that you can do.

• Create strong passwords. Probably the best thing you can do to protect your private information from hackers is to create passwords that they can’t guess. That means that they should be long and have a variety of upper and lowercase letters in addition to numbers and symbols. You should also have different passwords for different accounts. That might be a lot of passwords to keep track of, but there are password managers available that generate strong passwords, help you keep track of the passwords for your different accounts, and monitor your accounts for data breaches. A couple of common data managers are 1Password, LogMeOnce, and Dashlane. Of course, you’d want to make sure that if you use a password manager, your “master password” for that account is strong.
• Use two-factor authentication. Many accounts are moving toward requiring two-factor authentication, which only grants you access to your account when you provide two pieces of evidence that you own the account, including a password in addition to a temporary passcode, facial recognition, a fingerprint, or an answer to a security question. This is a great way to prevent unauthorized users from gaining access to your accounts. You can also enable two-factor authorization on some of your accounts, including your Apple ID, Google, Facebook, X, and banking websites. Check your account settings to see what types of security features are available.
• Install a browser extension. As this chapter discusses, companies and other organizations can collect more information about you than you might realize based on your browsing history. A browser extension like uBlock Origin is designed to prevent this data collection as well as the targeted ads that are generated as a result. Privacy Badger is another web extension that prevents trackers and targeted ads.
• Cover your camera. It’s easier than you might think to install software on your computer that will take over your camera and collect private footage. An easy way to avoid that happening is to put a sticker over your camera.
• Opt out of targeted ads. Platforms like Apple, Facebook, Google, and X allow you to disable interest ads in your account settings, which will help cut down on the amount of targeted ads that you receive. You can also use this Simple Opt Out website to prevent similar data collection and ad targeting from numerous other organizations. Since you are “opted in” by default, you’ll have to manually opt out of any sort of data collection.
• Consider a virtual private network (VPN). If you often connect to public Wi-Fi, a VPN can create a more secure connection by encrypting your data and hiding your IP address so that your internet service provider and other third-party organizations can’t track your activities or see your information.
• Use antivirus software. Once your device has been “infected” with a virus, it’s incredibly difficult to recover. Antivirus software adds another layer of protection that will help prevent viruses and other malicious software. Windows Defender is built into Windows automatically. Similarly, Mac computers have browser extensions and other security built in. You could always add another layer of security, such as Norton Antivirus or Malwarebytes. It’s also important that as updates are made available for your browser, apps, and home devices, you install the latest version, which often has improved security features designed specifically for the latest threats.
• Enable remote tracking on your phone. If you lose your phone, it’s important to make sure that your data doesn’t fall into the wrong hands. To enable remote tracking, you must first set up a pin number and/or biometric login (i.e., facial or fingerprint recognition). You can then activate your phone’s remote tracking feature, which will allow you to identify where your phone is and, if necessary, delete all of its data from a remote location.
• Beware of phishing scams. Increasingly, scammers are targeting people through their emails and text messages, often posing as someone that you might know and encouraging you to click a specific link or download a file. Never click on a link in an email or text message unless you are certain it’s legitimate. You can hover over the link to see for sure what the URL is and if it matches the location where it says it will take you. Lots of misspellings and invalid email addresses or phone numbers are also red flags. You’d also avoid downloading unknown files unless you verify with the person who sent it about what it is. These are common ways that criminals spread malware that can lock you out of your device.
• Encrypt the information on your laptop. It’s also possible to enable encryption on your laptop so that if it’s ever lost or stolen, your data can’t be accessed because it will come up as gibberish. For Mac users, this encryption tool is called FileVault and can be turned on in the system preferences menu. For PC users, device encryption is available under the settings menu, under “Updates & Security” (Morse).
• Be discerning. You want to keep your phone number and email address as private as possible. Don’t give them out unless you have to, and if you do have to give an email address to sign up for coupons or some other perk, it’s helpful to have a secondary “burner” email address devoted to spam. That way, if the account does get hacked, it doesn’t include a lot of personal information about you, and it’s not connected to your important accounts. You should also make sure your settings on social media and other accounts are set to “private” and that you don’t share sensitive information or photos over social media, email, or text messaging that could be damaging if they fell into the wrong hands.

As you can see, these guidelines relate to privacy in a variety of ways—from targeted ads and data collection prompted by businesses and tech companies to data breaches from hackers looking to steal your private information. Though you won’t be able to block all forms of surveillance that have become so prominent in our society, taking a few easy steps and being smart about the information that you share will help you take control over your data and provide a measure of protection from the invisible forces that have a stake in tracking your digital activities.

This type of critical analysis requires constant self-awareness and self-discipline to identify flawed thinking, uncover “blindspots” and “self-delusions,” and apply different modes of thinking (e.g., scientific, social, economic, moral) in order to reach a conclusion that will inform personal growth and positive action. It also requires repetition, making you examine the same issue over and over again as you encounter it in different contexts. This is perhaps the most challenging—and important—aspect of critical thinking: adopting a growth mindset that remains open to authentic self-analysis and revision, even (and especially) when it’s an issue in which you struggle to engage with opposing perspectives.

What does critical thinking have to do with social justice? Everything. Your actions are driven by your values and beliefs—your ways of thinking about the world. We all fall into habits of mind based on personal perspectives and social norms, which guide our daily interactions and routines; more often than not, we’re not fully conscious of where our underlying beliefs came from, how they align (or not) with our core values, and what consequences they have on other people. We might overlook or ignore how our actions perpetuate the status quo in big and subtle ways. In contrast, critical thinkers do the difficult work of asking questions, wrestling with contradictions and complications, and silencing the natural feelings of defensiveness and dismissal that emerge when existing assumptions are challenged. The Foundation for Critical Thinking describes critical thinkers like this:

They work diligently to develop the intellectual virtues of intellectual integrity, intellectual humility, intellectual civility, intellectual empathy, intellectual sense of justice and confidence in reason. They realize that no matter how skilled they are as thinkers, they can always improve their reasoning abilities and they will at times fall prey to mistakes in reasoning, human irrationality, prejudices, biases, distortions, uncritically accepted social rules and taboos, self-interest, and vested interest. They strive to improve the world in whatever ways they can and contribute to a more rational, civilized society.

It’s not about guilt. As we studied in chapter 3, everyone has their own terministic screen that shapes the way that they interpret information. Being a critical thinker means that you examine your perspectives and personal biases and that you try your best to understand other viewpoints and experiences that are vastly different from your own.

When it comes to digital technology, this means looking beyond the utopian perspective of technology as being always inherently beneficial for everyone. In fact, contrary to what many people believe, digital technology has not leveled the playing field for minority groups. While it is true that the web was originally intended to be a marketplace of ideas where lots of different voices could be heard, the reality is that the internet has reinforced social inequalities based on race, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, education level, age, and so on. Minority groups don’t have equal access to digital technologies, which is particularly true if we consider the different types of access. In his book Race, Rhetoric, and Technology: Searching for Higher Ground, Adam Banks identifies five types of access: (1) material access, “equality to the material conditions that drive technology use or nonuse” (41); (2) functional access, having “the knowledge and skills necessary to use technological tools effectively” (41); (3) experiential access, “access that makes the tools a relevant part of [the users] lives” (42); (4) critical access, “understandings of the benefits and problems of any technology well enough to be able to critique, resist, and avoid them when necessary as well as using them when necessary” (42); and (5) transformative access, “genuine inclusion in technologies and the networks of power that help determine what they become, but never merely for the sake of inclusion” (45).

Indeed, minority groups struggle with multiple levels of “access,” and as our culture becomes more reliant on digital technologies for social (Helsper and Deursen), educational (Human Rights Watch), professional (Townsend), and financial (Sridhar) activities, the digital divide continues to grow (Li). What’s more, when they are online, minorities continue to experience different forms of discrimination, such as exclusion, stereotyping, and hate speech intended to belittle and discourage (Nguyen et al.). As you probably know already, hate speech is often more aggressive when done online because people can reach a wider audience; navigate in an echo chamber of other like-minded users who are unlikely to challenge in-group bias; and hide behind keyboards, pseudonyms, and anonymous avatars.

This chapter takes a critical look at the social inequalities that exist within—and are often made worse because of—digital technologies and online spaces. First, we will define what “privilege” is and how it functions in different contexts. Then we’ll look at some of the social consequences of inequality and how the status quo is perpetuated in digital spaces, even amid technologies that are intended to promote positive change. Finally, we’ll look at some practical tools you can use to evaluate the digital spaces you visit/support as well as your own digital messaging so you can act as a positive force in the fight for social justice.

Defining Privilege

Unfortunately, the word “privilege” has become politicized in recent years (Boyers). Some people automatically shut down or become defensive when they hear the word, perhaps because it is sometimes used to invoke guilt or to obfuscate other significant experiences and qualities that make people unique. The point of discussing it here in this chapter is not to reduce people’s rich human experiences and complex characteristics to a single attribute (e.g., gender, skin color, economic status), and it’s certainly not intended to create feelings of guilt or defensiveness. The purpose is to bring awareness to the fact that most people have varying types of privilege depending on their social location. They experience certain benefits that other groups don’t have access to because of lingering discriminatory practices and consequences. It’s helpful for you to consider how privilege (or lack thereof) in certain circumstances has had an effect on your life and the opportunities that you’ve experienced and to consider the consequences of privilege (or lack thereof) for other people who are different from you.

First, a quick definition is in order. According to a library guide at Rider University, privilege can be defined as “certain social advantages, benefits, or degrees of prestige and respect that an individual has by virtue of belonging to certain social identity groups.” The guide goes on to describe privilege that centers around qualities like race, class, religious affiliation, gender, education level, ability, sexuality, and so on. Everyone has a social location comprised of varying identities. To have privilege means that because of one or more of these attributes, you experience rewards and opportunities that other people don’t. In contrast, in some circumstances, you might experience discrimination or unequal access to rewards and opportunities based on one of these social markers.

Let’s look at a simple example: the world is clearly set up for people of average height. They are “privileged” because they experience automatic benefits based simply on this one physical characteristic. They can easily reach the pedals in their car. They can see over the person in front of them at a movie theater or concert. They can reach items on a top shelf at the grocery store or in their own closet. Their feet touch the ground when they sit in a normal chair. They can ride any roller coaster of their choosing at an amusement park. Socially, they fit more easily into conversations because they are at a similar eye level with other people. These are all things they take for granted because they are in a privileged position. The world is set up for them, and they don’t have to deal with the disadvantages of being short, which makes it easy to overlook. A short person, on the other hand, deals with the hassles every day of being short, which sometimes means they don’t get the opportunity to ride a particular roller coaster or sit comfortably in normal chairs. In other cases, it means they have to work harder than other people to reach the top shelf or operate a vehicle. They are probably well aware of the disadvantages they face every day.

A similar example happened just a few years ago at an academic conference in which a panel of speakers was positioned to sit in chairs across a platform in an auditorium. A series of tall steps led up to the platform, and one of the speakers who was walking with a cane had a very difficult time getting up the stairs to the platform. The venue was set up for—it was “privileging”—people who were able-bodied and could easily climb a couple of stairs. No doubt, the people who organized and set up the venue with the platform were also able-bodied. They in no way intended for this woman to feel excluded or inconvenienced in any way. They simply didn’t think about the problems that she would encounter because they didn’t encounter those problems themselves.

You can probably see where this is going. These are both poignant examples of privilege that give some groups of people—tall or able-bodied people—an advantage over others. Of course, short people can still drive a car just fine with a few accommodations, and once they are able to reach the ingredients they need off the top shelf in the grocery, maybe with the help of a clerk or a step stool, their short stature doesn’t have anything to do with the quality of the meal they might make when they get home. Similarly, the woman at the conference delivered an excellent presentation based on her expertise and years of study. However, in both cases, the short person or the disabled person had to work harder to overcome obstacles in order to participate in the same activities as other people. This is what privilege is, and it can be applied to lots of different circumstances: the poor family who can’t afford childcare for their children, the female employee who is always asked to make food for social events, the Black shopper who gets followed by store security.

This connects to digital technologies in profound ways. All digital technologies are designed by people with their own biases and blind spots, which in turn influences the way those technologies are designed and the experience that different users have. In the first chapter, we touched briefly on the idea of biased algorithms that serve dominant groups and further marginalize certain populations (Eubanks; Metz). That’s often because the technology is created by people in dominant groups, those who have multiple layers of privilege and aren’t accustomed to examining the world through a different lens. Take, for instance, the experience of Joy Buolamwini, who started an organization called the Algorithmic Justice League after realizing that the software she was using to develop a new “facial analysis technology” was racist. It would only work if she put on a white mask; it wouldn’t recognize her black face. She coined the term “coded gaze” to refer to “the priorities, preferences, and prejudices of those who have the power to shape technology—which is quite a narrow group of people” (Buolamwini). In other words, many technologies are designed in ways that further marginalize certain groups and reinforce the status quo.

To truly understand privilege and its consequences, it’s important to consider a few additional concepts:

• Having privilege doesn’t mean that someone hasn’t worked hard for the things they’ve received. As Allan Johnson explains in his book Privilege, Power, and Difference, “The existence of privilege doesn’t mean I didn’t do a good job or that I don’t deserve credit for it. What it does mean is that I’m also getting something that other people are denied, people who are like me in every respect except for the social categories they belong to” (21–22).
• Your social location doesn’t really say anything about you as a person. The color of a person’s skin, their gender, their economic status, and their education are all qualities that people have, but they don’t say anything deeper about a person’s personality, their values and beliefs, their hopes and dreams for the future, and so on.
• Privilege is also not the same as difference, though the two things are related. Again, Johnson helps shed light on the fact that difference, in and of itself, is not a bad thing. People are not naturally afraid of or repelled by difference: “The trouble is produced by a world organized in ways that encourage people to use difference to include or exclude, reward or punish, credit or discredit, elevate or oppress, value or devalue, leave alone or harass” (16). He goes on to explain how even the categories of difference are socially constructed as a way of creating labels and that these labels are used to “reduce people to a single dimension of who they are” for the sake of creating an “other.”
• The benefits of privilege are exponential (McCrann). Privilege means having advantages and resources on a daily basis to further your education, to obtain and maintain a career, to access job promotions, to develop a social support system, to take care of your own mental and physical health, and to pursue your interests and life goals. These things have a cumulative effect that puts someone in a greater position to reap more benefits. Something as simple as having the money for a tutor in middle school and high school would help a student learn study skills as well as important concepts that would elevate their GPA and test scores, help them get into more prestigious universities (perhaps with a scholarship), be successful in the academic program of their choosing, and be more likely to get a high-paying job in their given field, which leads to more financial benefits related to credit scores, material possessions, health care, retirement benefits, and so on. Yes, this is a simplified example. The ability to pay a tutor might not be the sole reason for all of this success, but it would be a condition of privilege that would correspond with other advantages, such as parents who are well-educated, a comfortable home that is conducive to personal learning and growth, networking and internship opportunities, or the money to pay for a prestigious college once accepted. It’s a complex network of advantages that facilitates continuing success. And for people who don’t have particular types of privilege, their educational, social, and financial losses are also exponential.
• Privilege is easy to ignore or explain away if you have it. As demonstrated in the examples above, someone who is benefiting from some sort of privilege isn’t likely to realize it. They aren’t actively or intentionally oppressing anyone; they are simply living their lives in systems that are created to put them at the center, which makes it difficult to recognize the disadvantages other people face. If you aren’t convinced, this Buzzfeed article has a long list of privileges that most people in first-world countries take for granted without giving a second thought to the significant personal benefits they provide or the reality that so many people around the world don’t share these same benefits (Sloss).

The challenge, of course, is to recognize your own privilege in different ways. The simple fact that you have the ability and the time to sit and read this text—perhaps for a college class—signifies that you have the privilege of furthering your education, of taking the time to nurture your own personal and professional interests, of working toward a degree that will greatly enhance your chances of obtaining a rewarding career and reaping the financial benefits. In these and probably other areas as well, you’ve had some advantages that other people haven’t because of previous and continuing privileges. That doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t work hard or take advantage of opportunities as they arise. It also doesn’t mean that you should feel guilty for your success. What it does mean is that you should pay attention to the way society is organized to benefit certain people, recognize your own privileged circumstances, and do what you can to effect positive change so everyone has equal access to opportunities and personal benefits regardless of differences.

Marginalized Identities in Online Spaces

As noted in the introduction of this chapter, “access” can mean different things—having access to digital technologies, having access to the digital literacy skills necessary to effectively navigate online spaces, and having social access (acceptance) in various online communities. Marginalized groups lack access in at least one, if not all, of these ways. While many people are privileged enough to have automatic access to digital technologies and the personal, educational, professional, and civic advantages that come with them, others are excluded as an ongoing consequence of their oppression. This is called the digital divide, referring to the growing chasm between groups of people who have access and those who do not (IEEE.org).

Indeed, the digital divide is getting worse. For one thing, as new technologies emerge and integrate into our everyday lives, the list of technologies and applications that marginalized groups can’t access grows. For another thing, access to these technologies is increasingly a way of life for those who have it. This has been particularly true following the COVID-19 pandemic, in which everything—education, professional activities, health care access, and so on—shifted to online spaces and created a large disadvantage for people without internet access (University of Washington Bothell). Lan Fang et al. discuss those disadvantages:

Information and communication technologies (ICTs), products that enable information storage, retrieval, manipulation, transmission, or reception in digital form, can improve access to goods and services; generate and maintain a safe and secure independent living environment; facilitate self-management of age-related challenges; and enable social connectivity and participation.…The inaccessibility of ICTs has resulted in significant inequities in respect to who can access, use, and benefit from these interventions.

There are interrelated factors that contribute to the digital divide. While it might be easy to simplify the issue into “haves” and “have-nots,” the problem is more complex, centering around the different types of access. Beaunoyer et al. identify four “proximal factors” that determine a person’s ability to successfully use digital technologies:

1. Technical means—access to quality digital tools, both hardware and software, as well as internet connection
2. Autonomy of use—the personal time and space required to freely use the technology
3. Social support networks—connection with experienced users who can help a person learn various skills
4. Experience—enough time to become familiar with and to reap the benefits from digital technology

Importantly, it’s no coincidence that some people have access to digital technologies and the benefits they provide and some people don’t. Digital inequalities mirror, and thus reinforce, existing social inequalities related to race and ethnicity, which are inherently linked to socioeconomic status and educational attainment (American Psychological Association). Fang et al. call it a “pattern of privilege,” in which a person’s social location is a determinant of other intertwined factors. Race, education, and income are connected and tend to create further challenges related to health, manual labor, strict gender roles, and so on, which further decrease the chances of someone gaining access to digital technologies. Though “access” is determined by a complex matrix of factors, there are several that stand out as particularly salient predictors:

• Age. Though the gap is getting smaller as more older adults gain access to digital spaces, there is still a significant number of older adults who aren’t online. Hall et al. found that many older adults do have access to the devices themselves, but they aren’t comfortable using digital technologies. They don’t have a clear understanding of how the technologies work, and they don’t have confidence that they will be able to learn. This is particularly concerning because so much health information—access to health records and communication with providers—occurs online.
• Socioeconomic status. Perhaps the most obvious factor is the digital gap between people who have the financial means to buy the latest technologies and internet services and those who don’t (Khan Academy). Some people simply don’t make enough to afford broadband internet or the range of devices that would allow them to be fully integrated into digital spaces. However, this also means that they lack access to resources and opportunities that might improve their financial situation—online degree programs and other educational activities, professional networking, job opportunities that are posted online or that require stable internet access, financial services, and so on. In other words, the divide grows wider as people with lower incomes fall further behind, while people with money are able to leverage digital technologies to acquire more wealth.
• Education level. People with higher levels of education are more likely to consistently and effectively use digital technologies. This article by the Pew Research Organization demonstrates that people with lower levels of education and less income are less likely to use the internet for personal and professional learning activities. Instead, “the internet is more on the periphery of their learning activities” (Horrigan). This is one instance where “access” might take a couple different forms—the money to obtain digital devices as well as the literacy skills to effectively navigate online spaces. Once again, lack of access further widens the divide, as people in this group are less likely to effectively participate in school activities that would enhance their education level (American University). As the American University article explains, students without access to quality digital devices are less likely to perform well in online learning activities and are less likely to persist to higher levels of education.
• Race. As discussed above, race is closely connected with socioeconomic status and education level. Nonwhite groups, particularly people who are Black or Hispanic, are more likely to experience poverty, which further deprives them of important resources, like educational opportunities and digital technologies, and as we’ve already seen, the negative consequences are further compounded by ongoing disadvantages and missed opportunities. What’s more, when racial minorities do gain access to online spaces, they are more likely to experience discrimination that excludes them and discourages their participation. In other words, they are denied “access” to social communities. According to Tynes, online racial discrimination is a significant problem that affects a growing number of adolescents and includes things like “racial epithets and unfair treatment” based on race and ethnicity. It might also include rude or derogatory images, videos, comments, symbols, or graphic representations. Tynes also includes “cloaked sites” in the list of discriminatory practices, created to “spread misinformation about the history and culture of certain racial/ethnic groups.”
• Gender. Though there don’t seem to be any indicators that one gender has more access to digital devices or literacy skills than another, women are more likely to experience different forms of abuse online. This article by the Council of Europe names a few examples: “non-consensual image or video sharing, intimidation and threats via email or social media platforms, including rape and death threats, online sexual harassment, stalking, including with the use of tracking apps and devices, as well as impersonation, and economic harm via digital means.” The article goes on to explain that women are more likely to be the victim of cyberbullying and sexual exploitation online. What’s more, individuals in the LGBTQ+ community are also more likely to experience online discrimination, exclusion, and harassment.
• Immigration status. Immigrants are less likely to have access to digital devices or literacy skills (Cherewka). Like other examples we’ve explored, immigration status is closely linked to other predictors, such as socioeconomic status and education level. Also, immigrants in more rural areas are less likely to have broadband services.

These are just a few of the factors that influence a person’s level of access to digital spaces along with the numerous tangible and intangible benefits that access affords. As indicated in the examples, the negative effects of having little or no digital access are cumulative, including fewer educational and employment opportunities, limited social support (Courtois and Verdegem), diminished health literacy and access to health care resources (Beaunoyer et al.), and more struggles with mental health and social well-being (Büchi et al.). Beaunoyer et al. explain:

As an emerging form of social exclusion, digital exclusion contributes to worsen material and social deprivation. Being digitally excluded has consequences on health determinants such as education, work, and social networks, which impacts contribute in return to maintain limited access and use of technologies, a phenomenon referred to as the “digital vicious cycle.”

Critical Literacy in Action

Social inequality is a complex and pervasive problem, and there aren’t any simple solutions. Nevertheless, there are things we can do to help close the digital divide, especially if we make a conscious effort to pay attention to the disadvantages that other people face and practice an attitude of inclusion. For one thing, we can support programs and government policies that are working toward digital equality and oppose decisions that would increase the gap. For instance, net neutrality is a common term relating to the equal access of users and businesses to high-speed internet capabilities (Finley). It’s the principle that internet providers should not be able to discriminate against some types of content (by blocking or slowing down internet speeds) in favor of others (that load much faster), which in turn reduces the access of some people and/or businesses to have their message heard.

Ultimately, without net neutrality, providers can prioritize some information—and also some types of people—over others based on people’s ability to pay more money. According to Finley, “The fear is that, over time, companies and organizations that either can’t afford priority treatment, or simply aren’t offered access to it, will fall by the wayside.” Unfortunately, many of the net neutrality laws that had been in place during the Bush and Obama administrations were overturned in 2017, which has opened the door for providers to take advantage of fewer restrictions and more financial incentives.

You can also support government programs and projects that are geared toward closing the divide. For instance, part of Biden’s American Jobs Plan is to “revitalize America’s digital infrastructure,” which would include 100% broadband coverage so that “unserved and underserved areas” gain access to internet services, greater competition among a greater number of large and small providers, and reduced internet prices (The White House). However, as Chakravorti of the Harvard Business Review points out, “Infrastructure alone does not necessarily translate into adoption and beneficial use. Local and national institutions, affordability and access, and the digital proficiency of users, all play significant roles—and there are wide variations across the United States along each of these.” In addition to the infrastructure that makes it possible for underserved populations to access the internet, Chakravorti points out the need to increase “inclusivity” (so that broadband is affordable and increases the likelihood that people will be able to adopt internet technologies), “institutions” (to promote government policies and best practices that prioritize public access), and “digital proficiency” (to help people learn how to effectively navigate digital technologies to send and receive information).

According to the North Carolina Department of Information Technology (NCDIT), adoption is really key. Yes, it’s important to expand the infrastructure to make broadband services available and affordable, and it’s helpful to subsidize the cost of emerging technologies so that everyone can use and benefit from them, but availability doesn’t matter if people don’t adopt the technology, either because they don’t have the skills to effectively engage with it or because they don’t believe that it’s beneficial. As the NCDIT page explains, there are grants and other programs available to not only provide resources to underserved communities but also supply the training needed to help them successfully utilize those resources.

DEI Framework

While there are some political agendas and grant programs that might seem pretty far removed from your everyday sphere of influence, there are also more direct, individual practices you can adopt to create an online environment where everyone feels welcome. The whole point of understanding your own privilege in certain circumstances is to better identify moments where other people are marginalized in some way and to utilize your own influence to help rectify those issues. While the DEI framework is most often used by businesses trying to cultivate a more just and welcoming environment, it is also a great way to begin thinking about your digital practices so that you can have a positive effect on the communities you’re a part of.

DEI stands for diversity, equity, and inclusion (Extension Committee on Organization & Policy). According to the Society for Human Resource Management (SHRM), “The diversity, equity and inclusion (DE&I) function deals with the qualities, experiences and work styles that make individuals unique (e.g., age, race, religion, disabilities, ethnicity) as well as how organizations can leverage those qualities in support of business objectives.” In other words, being inclusive of different identities and perspectives is not only ethical but it promotes business success. In fact, a 2022 study found that companies with a diverse workforce earn 2.5 times more revenue per employee, and inclusive teams are 35% more productive (Research and Markets). Let’s look at each word in the acronym and consider how it might influence your online activities:

• Diversity. In this case, diversity refers to differences in race, gender, location, socioeconomic status, age, religion, (dis)ability—anything related to a person’s social location that has a natural influence on the way that they experience and perceive the world. People and organizations that work to foster diversity are intentional about cultivating a diverse community because they see the inherent value in having different types of people and perspectives. It enriches the overall community, as people share their own ideas and experiences and are likewise challenged to consider viewpoints that are different from their own. What this means for your online activities is that you too would be intentional about openly and respectfully engaging with diverse people to better understand their experiences and ways of thinking. It doesn’t mean you have to agree with other people all of the time, but it does mean that you should try to listen and to see where they are coming from. In addition to engaging with different people on various social media platforms, you’d also make an effort to diversify the places where you go to get your news and entertainment, all of which would make you more sensitive to the experiences and concerns of people who are different from you.
• Equity. This term refers to practices that value and prioritize social justice so that all people have equal opportunities. To be a proponent of equity means that you have a deeper understanding of the inequalities that persist in our society and the tangible effects that they have on people’s lives. You not only recognize that these inequalities exist, but you advocate for marginalized groups in an effort to challenge discriminatory practices and mindsets and evenly distribute resources and opportunities. It means that as you engage with different groups of people online, you’d be aware of overt discriminatory practices as well as microaggressions that make people feel excluded or uncomfortable. At the very least, you’d stop engaging with groups and/or individuals who exhibit these negative attitudes. You might even feel compelled to address discriminatory behaviors in order to (hopefully) develop other people’s sense of awareness and sensitivity.
• Inclusion. Whereas equity is about addressing social injustice, inclusion is about making people who are typically marginalized feel welcome, like they are wanted and valued. In fact, the word “tolerance” has in some ways developed a negative connotation because it doesn’t imply that someone is truly wanted. To feel like someone is simply tolerating you would probably not make you feel particularly welcome. You’d feel like you are a nuisance. You’d still feel marginalized. Inclusion is about going out of your way to make people feel comfortable and included in the group. You’d invite other people to share their perspectives and participate in the conversation. You’d affirm their sense of belonging and the benefit/insight that they bring to the group.

Utilizing this DEI framework won’t help with the larger problem of the digital divide, but it does help with one kind of access. As mentioned at the beginning of this chapter, there are different kinds of access, including not only access to the technology or the skills necessary to use that technology but also access to groups online where people feel that they are respected and that their voices are heard. If more people enacted a DEI mentality as they engaged with different groups of people in digital spaces, there would be fewer “privileged” spaces where some people feel ignored or unwelcome.

Practicing Third Persona

Admittedly, it can be difficult sometimes to step outside of your own perspective to really understand or predict how someone from a marginalized group might be feeling in response to a particular conversation or message. It’s the type of thing that requires intentionality and practice. It also requires a degree of humility because the odds are that as you engage with different types of people, you might unintentionally say something that is offensive or insensitive, and in those moments, the best thing to do is to apologize and learn from the situation by trying to understand it from the other person’s point of view.

Learning also comes from thinking critically about the messages that you encounter as well as the messages that you create in order to identify the effect that they might have on your audience. Here we’re dipping into the rhetorical literacy that is covered more extensively in part two of the textbook, but it’s worth a brief mention here, since thinking critically about your messaging also requires thinking critically about your audience and your underlying purpose. The main concept that is really helpful for identifying insensitive or exclusive messages is called “third persona,” a concept that was introduced by Philip Wander in 1984. However, first it might be helpful to refresh your memory about “point of view.” You’ve probably learned that a text can be written in first person (with the focus on the speaker—“I” or “me”), second person (with the focus on the audience—“you”), or in third person (with the focus on other people outside of the group—“he,” “she,” “they”).

Wander’s concept of third persona was a response to Edwin Black’s 1970 essay, “The Second Persona.” In his essay, Black discusses the concept of second persona as the audience that is implied within a message. It isn’t so much about the actual, real-life people who are part of the audience; it’s more about the ideal audience that is invoked in a message, which in turn invites the real audience to adopt a certain identity. Walter Ong discusses a similar concept in his article “The Writer’s Audience Is Always a Fiction,” in which the writer imagines an ideal audience and crafts their message accordingly. For example, if a student is going to miss class for a doctor’s appointment, they might send a professor an email that looks like this:

Professor X, I’m so sorry to have to miss class, but I have a doctor’s appointment tomorrow that I wasn’t able to reschedule. I know that you take attendance very seriously, as do I, but I’m having some important tests run tomorrow. I’ll be sure to get notes from a friend so I can catch up on what I miss. Thank you for understanding!

In this short email, the student invites the professor to adopt a certain identity as someone who “takes attendance very seriously” but would also be understanding of the importance of a doctor’s appointment and the tests that are scheduled. The student is also portraying the professor and the class as a serious endeavor, implied by the fact that she is “sorry” to miss and that she knows important information will be presented, so she’ll be sure to find out what she missed from a friend. The actual professor—the one behind the computer screen reading the email—may or may not have all of those qualities, but chances are that the professor would read the email and feel somewhat compelled to adopt the identity of a serious yet gracious instructor and respond positively to the student’s message. In other words, second persona is about understanding the ideal target audience and how that audience is portrayed in a particular message. A well-crafted message will invoke an audience with particular interests, qualities, and values that are appealing and therefore increase the likelihood of a positive response.

Whereas second persona is about the ideal target audience (“you”), Wander’s concept of third persona is about the segment of the audience that is left out—the “other.” He describes it as the part of the audience that is “negated” or “alienated” by a text. He says, “But just as the discourse may be understood to affirm certain characteristics, it may also be understood to imply other characteristics, roles, actions, or ways of seeing things to be avoided. What is negated through the Second Persona forms the silhouette of a Third Persona” (Wander 209). In other words, just as a message will automatically invoke ideal, good qualities that the audience should possess, it also inherently implies negative qualities that should be avoided. He makes it clear that many texts don’t do this intentionally; they simply take for granted what is “good” or “normal,” probably based on the speaker’s own social location and perspectives. Those identities are put in the center of the message, while audiences who don’t fit that criteria are pushed to the fringes. Their lived experiences and perspectives are portrayed in a negative way or ignored altogether. And often the identities that are negated in a text are those same marginalized groups that have historically been “left out” of all types of conversations, resulting in continuing inequalities: “Beyond its verbal formulation, the Third Persona draws in historical reality, so stark in the twentieth century, of peoples categorized according to race, religion, age, gender, sexual preference, and nationality, and acted upon in ways consistent with their status as non-subjects” (Wander 216).

Another example might be helpful to really see how the concept of third persona might be applied to a message. Here is an example of a simple assignment prompt for a college-level writing course:

For this assignment, you will write a rhetorical analysis of an online space—ideally someplace where you are fairly active. To begin, you should explore why you are drawn to this site. Does it in some way confirm your own Christian values? American values? You should also consider what you think is the purpose of the site and how the different elements of the site work together to help fulfill that purpose. When you get home this evening, post a brief response on our Canvas forum (around 500 words) discussing your perspective of the website you have chosen.

At first glance, this assignment prompt might seem innocent enough. It’s asking students to do a very common writing assignment—a rhetorical analysis—and to consider their own perspectives of a particular online space. However, a closer look through the lenses of second and third persona reveals a pretty significant problem when it comes to the way that the ideal audience—those conscientious students in the course—are portrayed. It assumes (second persona) several things about the audience:

• That they are “active” online.
• That they might naturally have “Christian” or “American” values as part of their identity.
• That they automatically have the extra time and the resources when they get home that evening to write a response.
• That they are confident writers and 500 words is a “brief response” that should be fairly easy.

This is the ideal, “normal” audience that is implied in the assignment prompt. Certainly, in many college classes, there are students who would fit this persona and they would likely feel compelled to step into the identity of a confident and thoughtful writer. However, many students don’t. The assignment prompt wasn’t written with the intent to make anyone feel discouraged, frustrated, or alienated, but that would absolutely be the result for some groups of students. The assignment prompt ignores the fact that some students might not be “active” online for whatever reason. It ignores the fact that students might have different nationalities or religious beliefs. It ignores the fact that many students work in the evenings or have other personal obligations that would prevent them from being able to complete this type of assignment so quickly. It ignores the reality that some students don’t have access to digital technologies or Wi-Fi at home and that for them, completing this assignment would be much more difficult. It also ignores students who struggle to write, who would need a lot more time and direction to put together a 500-word response.

Because of the power dynamics and the nature of some of these assumptions about what it means to be a “normal” college student, chances are that students who did feel alienated by this message wouldn’t necessarily challenge the professor or even call to attention the difference in their own identities and experiences. Some would probably still do the assignment, but they would have to work a lot harder to find a public-access computer and to spend the couple of hours it might take to complete the assignment. Some might go ahead and write an analysis that centers their own values regarding religion, ethnicity, race, sexuality, and so on, or they might feel pressured to conform to “American” or “Christian” or some other dominant identity because they think they will get a better grade or because they don’t want to draw attention to themselves as different. And then there will be some students who are alienated by this assignment prompt and won’t do it because they don’t have the technological resources or the assumed writing abilities to complete it in one evening. They’ll get a zero for the assignment, and if the course is sprinkled with lots of similar assignments that put them at a disadvantage, they’ll eventually disengage and either withdraw or fail the course.

This might seem like an extreme example, but the reality is that messages have a great deal of influence over an audience and their responses. For audiences who feel included in and valued by the message, who feel capable of stepping into the ideal persona that is portrayed, they are likely to respond positively to the message and receive the ongoing rewards of acceptance and prosperity, be they social, financial, educational, and so on. The reverse is true for people who aren’t included in the message, who don’t feel valued or capable of stepping into the ideal persona, who feel ignored altogether.

As we have studied throughout this chapter, there are tangible disadvantages that come with being excluded from digital spaces. Taking a critical approach to your own digital writing and the messages that you encounter online is an important step toward true equality where everyone has access. Obviously, the point of adopting a DEI framework and analyzing a message—particularly your own—through the lens of third persona is to make necessary revisions to your habits of mind and digital practices that might unintentionally perpetuate others’ marginalized status. In an ideal world, there wouldn’t be “privileged” spaces; there would instead be a rich, diverse community of ideas and perspectives that benefit everyone involved and continually invite more people to the conversation(s). Critical literacy is at the very heart of making that vision a reality.

Far from more dystopian views of technology, this textbook celebrates the opportunities and incredible rewards that so often come along with online engagement—the opportunity to quickly and easily find information about a variety of topics, the ability to communicate with family and friends and colleagues to maintain social connectedness and increase productivity, the ability to engage in civic groups and participate in meaningful dialogue to address important issues. It’s no wonder that so much of our lives revolve around digital technologies; they’ve become integral to our communication patterns, our daily workflows, our personal interests, our civic activities, and our entertainment preferences. Indeed, part of critical literacy is being aware of various ways that you rely on digital technology. As we’ll see in this chapter, these technologies don’t just affect what you can do, they have a profound impact on your thought patterns and your sense of identity—what you can think and who you can be. And while that might sound a little chilling, particularly after our discussions about surveillance and behavior modification, it’s not necessarily a bad thing, and it’s certainly not new. Human beings have always been “shaped” by the tools that they use. Digital technology is a profound example in a long line of other examples, and it has significantly expanded the types of identities we can inhabit.

As we’ve considered in different ways throughout this first unit, digital technology isn’t automatically, inherently beneficial. There are opportunities for rewards just as there are also risks associated with digital participation. Without intentionality and careful self-monitoring, your use of digital technology can have a negative effect on your social relationships, your cognitive function, and your emotional health. (See chapter 2 for a recap of “The Bad and The Ugly.”) Without a conscious awareness of your everyday digital practices and the more subtle—often invisible—encounters that you might have with digital surveillance, commercialization, echo chambers, and underlying agendas and spins, you will most certainly be susceptible to the manipulations of other people whose values and interests may or may not align with your own. You’ll be unaware of how businesses and large, impersonal corporations motivated by profit margins influence how you spend your time and money, what you think about, and even what you believe to be true about the world. There’s also the reality that you have certain “privileges”—as evidenced by your basic ability to access this digital text (i.e., your access to a digital device and your ability to read the text)—and without a critical awareness of what those privileges are and the difficult obstacles that other people face, you’d never notice. You wouldn’t be a positive force to combat some of the most fundamental social injustices because you haven’t challenged yourself to pay attention to what they are.

This textbook is focused on helping you develop your own digital literacy so that you have the underlying skills and critical thinking required to leverage the numerous benefits of participating in digital spaces while also knowing how to identify and mitigate the risks and limitations. While the previous chapters in this unit focused on specific theories and concepts related to critical literacy, this final chapter takes a step back to look more generally at the affordances and constraints of digital tools. It will provide a framework that will help you think more deeply about the technologies, platforms, and practices that define your own participation and to tease out some of the inherent complexities of the choices you make from an ideological, personal, professional, and practical perspective.

Affordances and Constraints of Digital Tools

Most of the time, when we think of digital technologies, we focus on the things they allow us to do. For instance, we can talk “face-to-face” with someone miles away using FaceTime or Zoom. We can curate our own music playlists and listen to the songs we like all day long with portable earbuds. We can quickly and easily see what our friends, family, and acquaintances are up to with a quick scroll through our social media feed. And on and on. Many of the technologies that we use have become so commonplace that we don’t really give much thought to what life would be like without them. However, when we’re forced to go without them—maybe because we forgot our phone at home or the Wi-Fi has gone out—then suddenly we realize just how much we rely on digital technology to accomplish even the most basic tasks.

While digital technology—like all technology—certainly does allow us to do things more quickly and easily than we might have otherwise, its effects on our lives are much more profound. As we’ll discuss in this section, it has an inherent influence on our thought patterns and our own sense of “self” as we act out identities utilizing these tools. We’ll be relying heavily on the scholarship of Rodney Jones and Christoph Hafner, whose book Understanding Digital Literacies: A Practical Introduction describes the way that technology mediates all of our activities. Remember from chapter 3 that to “mediate” means to go between two things or to “facilitate interaction” (Jones and Hafner 2). They aren’t referring only to digital technology but any sort of technology that is human-made for the purpose of helping us accomplish certain tasks. Pencils, blankets, clothing, furniture, and toothbrushes are all examples of technologies created for very practical purposes. And as Jones and Hafner point out, they also “mediate” our activities as we interact with the world. For instance, we would be hard-pressed to keep our teeth clean and healthy without using certain technologies—a toothbrush, toothpaste, dental floss. The same goes for the quick reminder we might write ourselves on a Post-it note or the coffee that we drink to get ourselves going in the morning. Without the pencil and paper or the coffeemaker and mug, you wouldn’t be able to complete these very basic tasks, which probably seem fairly incidental in the overall scope of your day—until you have to go without them.

One of the best examples of technology and how it mediates our activities relates to our communication practices. In itself, language is a technology. It’s a human-made tool that helps us accomplish specific purposes, and it serves as a mediator between our thoughts and feelings and the people with whom we want to communicate those thoughts and feelings. Unfortunately, the Vulcan mind meld—where you simply touch your fingertips to someone else’s head in order to accomplish total mutual understanding—isn’t a real thing. You have to use language—be it verbal, written, sign language, or body language—to help someone else understand your meaning. Language is a medium that facilitates your interactions with others. As we learned chapter 3, language is often limited in helping us fully express ourselves and understand others. Misinterpretations and misunderstandings are common, though there is something to be said for the way that communication allows people to connect in very profound ways (Balter).

The main idea is that the technologies that we use do help us accomplish a variety of activities, but beyond that, they also become “extensions of ourselves” (Jones and Hafner 2). The more that we rely on everyday technologies to quickly and easily perform tasks, the more invisible those technologies become (Steinhardt). We might be extremely aware of how newer technologies like Zoom or virtual reality equipment open up new types of experiences and possibilities, but we don’t think so much about how our coffee mug holds hot and cold liquids and provides the ability for us to carry those liquids around. It’s an invisible technology that we take for granted, adopting it as part of our identity. Jones and Hafner put it like this: “In order to do anything or mean anything or have any kind of relationship with anyone else, you need to use tools. In a sense, the definition of a person is a human being plus the tools that are available for that human being to interact with the world” (2).

Drawing from Marshall McLuhan and Lev Vygotsky (Kurt), Jones and Hafner offer a framework that allows a deeper understanding of the way that technology influences our fundamental definitions of self. In his introduction to Understanding Media: The Extensions of Man, McLuhan writes, “Any extension, whether of skin, hand, or foot affects the whole psychic and social complex.” They don’t just affect what we can do but who we can be and how we relate to other people. Though basic technologies become invisible and are easily taken for granted, they have significant influence over every aspect of our human experience. When examining these influences, Jones and Hafner created a framework for understanding both the affordances—the possibilities that are enabled through our uses of technologies—as well as the constraints—the possibilities that are foreclosed by those same technologies. We can look at both the affordances and constraints of any given technology in five different ways:

• Doing. At a fundamental level, technology helps us do certain things that we couldn’t do otherwise (the affordances). As we adopt their use for specific activities, they also prevent us from doing other things (the constraints). Jones and Hafner give the example of a microphone—a technology that allows you to easily talk to a large group of people so they can hear you (an affordance), though it makes it impossible to have a private conversation with one or two people in a crowd (a constraint). Similarly, an email allows us to communicate important information in writing to an individual or a group (an affordance), but it’s also impersonal and it slows down the back-and-forth exchange that an in-person conversation would provide (constraints).
• Meaning. The technologies we use also influence the types of meanings that we can make. Applications like Zoom and Facebook Live, for instance, communicate audio and visual elements and have the effect of making the audience feel like they are simultaneously experiencing an event with someone else. These messages and events take on a different meaning for the participants than they would have otherwise through text alone (affordances). However, those meanings are still limited by the vantage point of the camera or the inability of the microphone to pick up more subtle sounds (constraints). Jones and Hafner also point out that as technologies emerge, we have different ways of referring to our activities—live streaming, zooming, posting, sharing, following, texting, chatting, and so on—which are different kinds of meanings than we had before.
• Relating. Our use of technology influences the types of relationships that we can have based on the ways that we communicate. Some technologies allow for one-way communication from a speaker to an audience. Others allow for private one-on-one conversations as a limited group communicates back and forth. Still other technologies allow large groups of people to communicate back and forth. For instance, a text message is great for having a more private conversation with a closed group of people (affordance). However, it’s not very effective for speaking with a large group (constraint), and the nature of the platform makes it more difficult to share lengthy, in-depth messages (another constraint). Though you also relate to people outside of digital technology in different ways, chances are that many of your interactions do take place in digital spaces, and the technologies that are available to you have a significant influence over who you are able to communicate with and the method of communication.
• Thinking. According to Jones and Hafner, our use of technology has “the capacity to change the way we experience and think about reality” (7). They go on to say that as we use technologies to accomplish certain tasks and interact with our surroundings, “certain things about the world will be amplified or magnified, and other things will be diminished or hidden from us altogether” (7–8). They are referring not just to what we think about but also our thought patterns. Because we have access to so much information at our fingertips, we don’t spend so much time memorizing facts (which can be seen as both an affordance and a constraint). Instead, we can spend more time with more sophisticated forms of thinking, like creating new theories about the information that we have access to. We can spend more time collecting, analyzing, interpreting, synthesizing, and reasoning (affordances). On the other hand, our constant interaction with short, entertaining videos and brief online text with bullet points and hyperlinks might also affect our ability to engage for longer periods of time with other forms of information that we find “boring” or difficult (constraints).
• Being. On a fundamental level, the technologies we use have a direct influence on our sense of self—the identities that we inhabit. Doctors and nurses use medical stethoscopes and other medical equipment. Carpenters use hammers and measuring tape and other carpentry tools. As a student, you use textbooks and word processing applications and learning management systems, which are crucial to the ways that you act out your identity as a student. The technologies that you have access to influence the type of person you can be and how you express those identities—allowing for some options through the affordances and foreclosing other options through the constraints.

It might be worth noting that Jones and Hafner don’t consider constraints to be inherently bad. In fact, without the presence of a constraint, people often adopt technologies without thinking about better alternatives. And the presence of a constraint can spark people to think about more creative and innovative solutions. These concepts are simply tools that can help you think more deeply about the technologies you use, even (especially?) those that are so commonplace, you almost forget they are there. For the remainder of this chapter, we’ll use this framework to examine technologies from different perspectives in order to further extend your critical literacy and decision-making skills.

An Ideological Perspective

A critical perspective of the affordances and constraints of digital technologies would certainly include an examination of the ideologies that are embedded in our assumptions of and uses for the online spaces we navigate. Everything that you do or think or believe about the world is compelled by underlying ideologies—what you have internalized as “normal” or “good” or “valuable.” Through the natural course of interacting with others—your parents, teachers, friends, pastors, and so on—you’ve developed your own ways of thinking about and acting in the world. For our purposes, there are three things that are helpful to understand about ideology:

1. It’s based in social interaction. Value systems aren’t objective, nor are they independent of human creation. An ideology is a lens that is shaped by social, cultural, and historical forces, advocating one way of seeing and being over others.
2. It’s often not explicit. Ideologies are implicitly embedded in the things we say and do, but they exist below the surface, often resisting a deeper interrogation. Critical literacy explicitly examines these underlying assumptions.
3. It’s difficult to notice. Because we are so entrenched in our beliefs about the world, it’s easy to take them for granted as the objective reality—the “right” way of seeing and thinking. That’s why dominant ideologies that serve dominant groups at the expense of others are so difficult to identify and dismantle.

As mentioned in the introductory chapter, this book mirrors the framework for teaching digital literacies as outlined in Stuart Selber’s Multiliteracies for a Digital Age. He too dedicates a section of his book to “critical literacy,” which focuses on “how students might be encouraged to recognize and question the politics of computers” (75). In a similar way, the “Critical Literacy” portion of this book is dedicated to examining digital technologies and spaces that we tend to take for granted as inherently good and teasing out some of the complexities and political ramifications of our digital media practices. As we’ve seen throughout this section, there are a variety of ways that digital platforms can be utilized, just as there is a range of positive and negative effects that stem from the technologies we adopt and how we use them.

When we examine digital spaces from an ideological perspective, it means that we’re identifying the value systems and power structures embedded in those spaces that we tend to overlook. In 1985, Melvin Kranzberg, professor and president of the Society for the History of Technology (SHOT), gave a presidential address at the Henry Ford Museum, where he outlined “truisms” about how technologies develop and the effect they have on society. The first of his “Kranzberg’s Laws” was this: “Technology is neither good nor bad; nor is it neutral” (545). In other words, digital technologies are designed by human beings with their own biases and ideologies, and those biases are reflected in the ways those technologies are used, often having the effect of benefiting certain groups of people over others. For instance, a 2016 article about algorithmic biasing demonstrates that even the math formulas that are used in the design of a program aren’t neutral (Kharazian). The article looks specifically at a report about the Pokémon GO app and the fact that the vast majority of the stops on the program are situated in white neighborhoods, which in turn, made the game more accessible for white users living in those areas.

The Pokémon GO example illustrates some of the things we’ve already said about ideologies being embedded in digital technologies, usually in ways that are subtle, implicit, and easy to overlook. An ideological perspective is a way of looking at digital spaces beyond your immediate needs and uses and considering other types of questions: “What is lost as well as gained? Who profits? Who is left behind and for what reasons? What is privileged in terms of literacy and learning and cultural capital? What political and cultural values and assumptions are embedded in the software?” (Selber 81). These are all questions that relate back to the affordances and constraints that we identified earlier in the chapter and the deeper questions that consider how technologies encourage certain ways of doing, meaning, relating, thinking, and being. Selber goes on to say,

As such an uncomfortable line of questions implies, a critical approach to literacy first recognizes and then challenges the values of the status quo. Instead of reproducing the existing social and political order, which functional modes tend to [focused solely on the “how to”], it strives to both expose biases and provide an assemblage of cultural practices that, in a democratic spirit, might lead to the production of positive social change. (81)

In other words, the technologies we adopt can perpetuate social inequalities (Gaskell), but when we adopt an ideological perspective, we can expose biases and power structures and work toward effective solutions.

Once again, Selber provides a helpful framework to examine specific technologies and digital spaces. He identifies the following parameters:

• Design cultures—considering the values and perspectives that influence the way that technologies are designed. Do some users benefit more than others because of embedded design bias?
• Use contexts—looking at the ways that technologies are used in specific contexts. For instance, certain applications are sometimes required in the classroom or in the workplace in order to complete certain tasks. What are those technologies? Why are they required over others? How do the digital technologies and policies of a place affect different groups of people in the community?
• Institutional forces—understanding the larger power structures that influence the technologies we adopt. What larger agendas are being served for a university or a company? Are these benefits at the expense of others in the community who have less power?
• Popular representations—looking at the ways specific technologies are culturally constructed. How are our assumptions about technology embedded in cultural messages? How do those representations influence the technologies we adopt? How are larger practical and ethical concerns addressed (or not)?

From an ideological perspective, aspects of digital technology relate directly to the values that get promoted in a certain space—the beliefs, assumptions, actions, and identities that are promoted as “good” or “normal.” When paired with the critical exercise of considering the affordances and constraints—the types of identities, relationships, thought processes, and so on that are made possible by certain technologies as well as those that are excluded or devalued—we get a much better sense of the ideologies that are embedded in the technologies we use as well as the larger social consequences.

A Personal Perspective

In contrast to the ideological perspective that challenges you to look more broadly at the technologies we adopt and the influences those technologies have on different groups of people and value systems, a personal perspective compels you to look at the individual—the affordances and constraints of the digital platforms that you use. In contrast to the professional perspective, which we’ll consider in the next section, the personal perspective doesn’t relate directly to your professional endeavors, though admittedly the line between professional and personal is sometimes blurry (even more so because of digital technology). We’ll be referring more specifically to the technologies that you turn to for accomplishing more personal objectives—communication with family and friends, educational pursuits, health care, and so on. While we already named some of the personal benefits of digital communication technologies in chapter 2, this section challenges you to look at the affordances and constraints of the specific platforms that you utilize. We’ll look together at some basic examples, but the idea is that you would apply the affordances and constraints framework to your own everyday practices.

Communication

There are way too many digital communication platforms to name, but some of the most common are text messaging, email, teleconferencing platforms, and specific social media sites. It will be up to you to list the platforms that are most common to you. At first glance, it’s obvious that digital technologies can greatly enhance our communication practices, making it possible to stay connected with a lot more people, regardless of geographical constraints and time differences. What’s more, different platforms offer different levels of intimacy, ranging from a quick text message or “like” on someone’s Facebook post to the more personal and nuanced conversations we can have with someone over Zoom. The focus in this chapter, as we work with affordances and constraints, is to consider the trade-offs of the platforms you select for given tasks. Each platform offers benefits and opportunities, but as we learned from Jones and Hafner, it also forecloses other possibilities. Because communication is so pivotal to all of the items listed in Jones and Hafner’s framework (i.e., your ways of doing, meaning, relating, thinking, being), it’s important to think carefully about the platforms you use and the effects they have.

Let’s look at one example in particular: text messaging. This seems like a pretty universal form of communication that applies to the majority of people. It’s also one of the more prominent ways that people can quickly and easily communicate. So let’s look at the affordances and constraints of this particular platform:

Doing. The benefit of texting is also probably obvious. It’s quick to send and receive a text message. It allows for direct communication with a single person or a small group. It’s also versatile, allowing users to include not just text but also emojis, pictures, and GIFs. However, there are some definite constraints to messaging that make it less ideal for other forms of communication. For instance, it isn’t effective for having a conversation with a large group of people. You can’t tell when someone has read your message. It’s also a constraint that you can’t delete a text message once it’s been sent, and once it is sent, it can be copied and reshared in ways that are beyond your control.

Meaning. Text messages allow for short, basic messages that allow people to make plans, share information, and check in with one another. Because of the ability to send not only text in a message but also hyperlinks, emojis, pictures, videos, and GIFs, users are able to create deeper meanings and create quick links to more developed information. Also, because of the nature of a text thread, there is a documented history of recent messages, which makes it easy to “keep up” with the conversation. In contrast, a text message wouldn’t easily support a long message. A text message also can’t express the full range of emotions and meaning behind the message. It doesn’t allow readers to hear the inflection in the speaker’s voice or their tone, which makes it more likely to be misinterpreted.

Relating. Text messages also allow us to relate to family and friends in a convenient way, which helps facilitate healthy relationships. We can easily share information with our friends to help maintain those friendships. We can check in with family members to sustain family dynamics. Because text messages are quick, we can do this pretty easily. However, text messages would be a difficult way to sustain a deeper relationship over a long period of time. A couple in a long-distance relationship probably wouldn’t feel very deeply connected with each other if they simply sent text messages back and forth. Similarly, a parent who misses their child who has gone off to college probably won’t be fully satisfied with text messages because they can’t hear their child’s voice or see their face. It’s missing the level of intimacy that some relationships would require.

Thinking. It’s interesting that as text messaging capabilities have evolved, so too have our ways of thinking about messages. For instance, it seems more prominent for people to think about their responses to a message in terms of a movie scene, which can be easily grabbed as a GIF and plugged into the text thread. People are more likely to think about their conversations in comparison to movie scenes. They’re also more likely to distill larger ideas and emotional responses into a few sentences or even an emoji. All of this is to say that text messaging also constrains our thinking by forcing users to oversimplify their experiences and ideas.

Being. As already stated, text messaging is pretty universal, so it doesn’t strictly limit the type of identity that a person can have. However, there are some definite identity markers that a person who writes text messages takes on: They are someone who has the income and tech savvy to own a cell phone and respond to messages. They are someone with a range of knowledge about texting conventions—the acronyms and the ability to send hyperlinks and GIFs. Often the types of emojis or GIFs that a person sends are a reflection of their identity in some way, based on their interests and personalities.

Education

Of course, digital technologies are also used for educational purposes—both formal and informal. More informal spaces like Wikipedia or Reddit provide additional information about a wide variety of topics and interests. Other platforms are used in more formal educational contexts. For instance, Canvas is a learning management system commonly used to give students access to resources, policies, and assignments for a particular course. It can be used to supplement in-person instruction or as a hub where online videos and teleconferencing can take place. Similarly, Google Workspace for Education provides a range of communication tools that allow students and instructors to communicate, collaborate on projects, receive feedback, and so on.

It seems especially true that there is no magic bullet when it comes to ed tech. Though new platforms and applications are constantly being introduced with the promise to engage students, spark their creativity, and improve learning, the reality is that ed tech also has its trade-offs—aspects of a particular platform or program that are beneficial to the larger educational goal and then aspects that are limiting. It comes to mind, for instance, that most platforms put the instructor at a pretty significant advantage to surveil student activity. Canvas, for instance, reports when students last logged into Canvas and for how long. It gives the time stamp for when students turn in an assignment. Similarly, Google Docs allows shared users (i.e., teachers) to see the entire process of creating a document—when it was opened, what the drafting process looked like, how long it took, who else was on the document, and so on. It puts student activities under the microscope, compelling certain behaviors over others and often creating an environment of distrust and suspicion.

Further, there has been much recent discussion about data analytics intended to measure student performance for the purpose of assessing teaching practices and student learning. While this type of ed tech is most often promoted as a helpful tool, Neil Selwyn reminds us that all technologies are imbued with ideologies and that it’s important to consider what those ideologies and political agendas are. He goes on to voice concerns about the reductionist process of data analytics, which simplifies rich student experiences to a couple of data points: “This relates to a broader suspicion of educational data inevitably being inaccurate, incomplete, poorly chosen, or simply a poor indicator of what it supposedly represents” (12). Similarly, Gert Biesta et al. question whether our focus on collecting data has undermined our underlying educational goals: “The rhetorical power of the idea of ‘what works’—and similar notions such as evidence-based practice or evidence-informed teaching—should not make us forget that things never work in an abstract sense and never work in a vacuum” (2). They go on to discuss the benefit of measuring student performance but argue that it can lead to a “perversion of what education is supposed to be about” when that becomes the primary goal. In other words, school systems can sometimes get so caught up in creating measurable learning outcomes that they distort the teaching practices in order to increase performance scores, regardless of whether those scores are connected to any meaningful skills.

Just as Selwyn argues against a “blind faith in data,” on a broader scale, it’s important to resist a “blind faith in ed tech” as we consider the range of effects of the technologies we use, their underlying ideologies, and the social consequences for different groups of people. Any digital platform that is used in the classroom should be scrutinized to understand the affordances (the things it allows in terms of doing, meaning, relating, thinking, and being) as well as the constraints (the things that are disabled and the potential negative effects).

Health Care

Another great example of how digital technology is used for personal objectives is health care. Because technologies are so often invisible, it’s easy to take for granted the technologies that facilitate your medical care. However, in the last couple of decades, the medical industry has made huge shifts toward digital platforms that make it much easier for doctors to care for patients. It also makes it more convenient for patients if they want to change doctors or get specialized care. One primary example is the digitization of medical records. While this hasn’t been an easy process (Badalucco), moving patient records from the standard manila folder to an electronic format has made it much easier for doctors to access patient information, transfer records from one doctor to another, and access treatment information that will reduce medical error and increase patient outcomes. Another great example is the electronic prescription, which makes it much easier and faster for doctors to send a prescription to your preferred pharmacy. Not only is this more convenient, but the system is safer, since dosing information is automatically printed on the bottle and doctors have records of all the medications that a person is taking in order to reduce adverse effects.

The advancements in medical technologies and the correlating benefits are too numerous to list. This study by Alotaibi and Frederico looks across a wide range of medical technology advancements, such as electronic physician’s orders, clinical decision support, electronic prescriptions, automated medicine-dispensing cabinets, and patient data management systems, among other things, and determined that “information technology improves patient’s safety by reducing medication errors, reducing adverse drug reactions, and improving compliance to practice guidelines.” Another huge shift in the health care industry came in the form of telehealth and telemedicine in response to the COVID-19 pandemic (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention). In many instances, patients can receive the same type of care from the convenience and safety of their home. The article from the CDC even mentions “remote intervention” in which surgeries can take place via robot, which reduces the direct contact between a patient and physician. There are also more automated technologies, such as medical wearables (Insider Intelligence) and digital therapeutics (Digital Therapeutics Alliance), that provide patients with a higher level of independence as well as better health outcomes.

Regarding our framework of affordances and constraints, the affordances seem obvious. These technologies provide significant opportunities to do more things—to meet with doctors, to track medical histories and personal data, and to receive prescriptions and medical interventions. They also increase the range of meanings we can make as we adopt specialized terminology (getting your “steps” in, for instance) as well as our ways of thinking as our personal data and medical data become increasingly top of mind.

However, this critical unit of the book is about resisting utopian perspectives of technology in favor of those that examine deeper, more subtle consequences. It’s easy to identify all of the benefits of medical technologies, but the reality is that these technologies are often complex and difficult to learn, which can hinder doctors’ ability to focus their attention on patient needs (Gawande). What’s more, these systems aren’t immune to medical errors that have serious medical consequences. In fact, in some instances, they can lead to an increase in mistakes when inputting or retrieving patient information and a decrease in communication and professional consultations between doctors responsible for patient care (Coiera et al.).

Another significant challenge relates to access. Obviously, not all people have equal access to digital technologies to use this type of health care. As these technologies and medical processes become more commonplace, often replacing the old, more “hands-on” ways of doing things, there are certain populations that get left out, which leaves them vulnerable to missing out on healthcare information and interventions that would improve their health. Certainly, the digital divide is a cause for concern. Additionally, there’s the reality that some medical technologies aren’t designed for all users equally. For people who aren’t intuitive about technologies or who don’t speak English well, these technologies can also function as a barrier instead of a gateway to better health care.

Perhaps one of the most significant issues relevant to healthcare technologies is the changes in how we relate to other people. Many of the advancements identified above take out the personal touch between doctors and patients. The more intimate, social, and emotional aspect of health care is sacrificed for the sake of safety and self-preservation. Similarly, the relationship between patients and doctors has shifted because of rising costs, concerns over being sued, and a focus on unnecessary medical procedures, all of which diminish the credibility of the medical industry (Shmerling).

These are just a few ways that digital technologies are used for personal use and how the framework of affordances and constraints can be applied. As you consider your own practices and the digital technologies you employ—for entertainment, shopping, or educational purposes, for instance—a deeper consideration of how these technologies affect your ways of doing, meaning, relating, thinking, and being can be extremely helpful in uncovering the consequences of that use so that you can be intentional about the choices you make.

A Professional Perspective

From a professional perspective, the framework of affordances and constraints provides a way to examine how digital technologies are employed in various jobs. As digital technology becomes increasingly pervasive, the majority of jobs require extensive use of those technologies in order to accomplish even the most basic tasks. This has obvious implications for the digital divide, as we’ve discussed earlier. People who are more familiar with these technologies and have access to new advancements as they emerge are better positioned to obtain more skilled jobs that require digital literacy skills, which in turn, provides financial and social benefits that accrue over time. The chasm between those with digital literacy skills and those without is particularly problematic from a professional perspective since it perpetuates the cycle of low income for certain populations. That is certainly one way of looking critically at the professional use of technology. However, this section focuses more explicitly on different types of jobs and the affordances and constraints that digital technologies bring to those jobs—particularly to those workers who benefit in many ways from the digital technologies that make certain parts of their jobs easier and more flexible. But as we’ve learned throughout this unit of the book, a critical examination of technology also considers the disadvantages—the more negative outcomes that emerge as we adopt certain technologies.

Clearly, we can’t focus on all jobs in this brief section. Instead, we’ll be looking at four different categories of digital workers based on Ens et al.’s research about the affordances and constraints of “decent work.” Their paper “Decent Digital Work: Technology Affordances and Constraints” examines four different types of digital workers, which refers to people whose jobs are defined by the technologies they use. While many people in their jobs might employ digital technologies to varying degrees, not all of them have been fundamentally changed because of digital technology. They say, “Digital work is then better conceived of as the type of which, which is fundamentally reconfigured through the use of digital technologies embedding increasing levels of mobility and precarity” (1; emphasis original). In other words, there are aspects of technology that are beneficial to personal autonomy because more things can be accomplished in a single day and it’s easier to stay connected with clients and colleagues. It’s possible to work from almost anywhere. These are all affordances, but on the flip side is the reality that the opportunity to accomplish more at work can lead to weakened boundaries between work and home life and create higher levels of stress and fatigue. Being able to work and connect with colleagues from anywhere allows for increasing levels of flexibility and personal freedom, but it can also feel confining in the fact that it’s almost impossible to get away from these connections or work obligations.

Specifically, Ens et al. look at the affordances and constraints of technology for four types of digital workers:

• The “gig” worker. This is a freelancer who is able to piece together different projects from a variety of different employers in order to make a living. While there is flexibility in where these people do their work and there is some freedom in being able to accept or reject a job (the affordances), there is also the need to constantly keep work coming in in order to make a living. The “gig” worker is also at a disadvantage when it comes to a lack of promotional opportunities, medical or retirement benefits, and a professional community to provide support and emotional connection.
• The “digital nomad.” Like the gig worker, the digital nomad worker is not tied to a single employer. They are employed through contracts and are able to travel the world while they have digital meetings with clients and fulfill their contractual obligations. Unlike the gig worker, this is a “nomadic” type of person who enjoys the freedom of being able to work from anywhere and therefore spends most of their time traveling. This is obviously a huge benefit, particularly if they are able to get contractual jobs that sustain the expense of constant travel and self-indulgence. On the other hand, it’s also stressful to always be looking for the next job or to sometimes have to take on multiple jobs. It’s also difficult to keep a consistent work schedule while traveling and to stay connected with clients and other people. Also, there is never a truly “paid vacation” as there would be in a stable, corporate environment, which can lead to fatigue and burnout.
• The “nine-to-fiver.” This is someone with a single employer, bound by the traditional eight-hour workday. While many nine-to-five jobs occur in an office or some other facility, the emergence of digital technology has made it increasingly possible for nine-to-fivers to work remotely from home, which provides more flexibility and convenience. However, these workers are still tied to the obligations of a single employer and don’t have as much flexibility regarding their work hours. The opportunity to work remotely can also weaken workers’ sense of belonging.
• The “traveling elite.” Like a nine-to-fiver, the traveling elite has a single employer, but their role in that company is one that requires constant travel in order to meet with clients. It’s high-intensity and can be extremely rewarding (and lucrative), but it can also be exhausting, since the schedule often requires long hours. Also, these workers spend quite a bit of time in hotels and airports, which can lead to feelings of social disconnect.

While these are very broad categories that barely brush the surface of the types of technologies that different professionals use and the affordances and constraints of each one, these categories do provide a picture of how professional jobs have shifted as a result of digital technologies, providing new types of jobs as well as new opportunities within jobs that previously existed. It also underscores the reality that with every affordance (a new benefit that provides convenience and flexibility) there is a constraint (an aspect of the technology that can be limiting and isolating in some way). As you think more specifically about a profession—probably your own current or intended profession—and the technologies that are compelled within that field, this framework of affordances and constraints as well as the different types of digital work can help contextualize the consequences of those technologies.

Let’s look at one example: teachers. While there are all different types of teachers at different institutions, it’s true that advancements in digital technology—especially during the COVID-19 pandemic—dramatically shifted the work structure for many teachers. Suddenly, they had to shift from in-person to online instruction while also making themselves available to answer questions and provide additional help in some way—either via synchronous or asynchronous instruction. Many of the technologies that have emerged made it easy for teachers to record lectures, have students do group work in digital spaces, have individual conversations with students, and provide extra resources (all affordances). However, as many students and instructors have reported, it’s difficult to engage students in an online environment. Watching (and recording) videos can be tiring, and it lacks the social/emotional connections that are afforded in the classroom. What’s more, teaching became a lot more time consuming. Instead of having in-person conversations and answering questions on the spot, teachers spent a lot more time recording and uploading lectures, responding to student questions via email, grading additional assignments to check student learning, and so on. While platforms like Google Workspace, Canvas, Zoom, ScreenPal, and others allowed for education to continue (for some with access) during the pandemic, there were also numerous constraints as these technologies became more integral to the teaching/learning process.

A critical look at the technologies in the education field would look specifically at the technologies listed above and the affordances and constraints of each one, some of which are more conducive to helping students and teachers communicate than others, but which also limit personal freedom and create more emotional and cognitive strain. As you consider a range of other professions and the digital technologies that are employed, you should also examine how specific platforms are used and what the affordances and constraints are for professionals in that field.

In this first unit of the book, we’ve discussed critical literacy with a focus on a wide range of advantages and disadvantages that are associated with digital technologies. The hope is that these larger considerations and frameworks become part of your own intellectual process as you evaluate the technologies you use every day that have become “invisible,” as you learn new technologies that are compelled for personal and professional reasons, and as you make choices about how to use those technologies. In fact, it’s those commonplace, overlooked technologies that often deserve more critical awareness. In her article “Technology and Literacy: A Story About The Perils of Not Paying Attention,” Cynthia Selfe argues that when technologies become “invisible” to us, they also become most dangerous because we aren’t thinking critically about their implications. While you might not always have choices about certain technologies—since some will be required in the educational or professional settings you engage—it can still be incredibly important to be aware of the broader implications of technology so that you can advocate for groups of people who have been overlooked or for processes that would be more advantageous in some way. And in those situations where you do have choices, a deeper understanding of the affordances and constraints of the technologies that are available to you will greatly enhance your effectiveness as a communicator and as someone who has a positive effect on the communities of which you are a part.

Unfortunately, rhetoric is a word that is often misunderstood. People sometimes think of it as an act of manipulation—something politicians use to garner attention and increase votes, but their words don’t have any real meaning. It’s all “hot air.” However, while this is certainly an example of rhetoric, it’s nowhere near complete. In simple terms rhetoric is the art of communication. If you were to Google the term, the Oxford Languages would tell you that rhetoric is “the art of effective or persuasive speaking or writing, especially the use of figures of speech and compositional techniques.” The second definition given is “language designed to have a persuasive or effective effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.” That’s the “hot air” definition described earlier. However, these definitions are both inadequate because they fail to recognize the more subtle, everyday uses of rhetoric. While you might intentionally use rhetoric for specific occasions—a speech or a debate or an op-ed article, for instance—you also use rhetoric in the more mundane interactions you have with people all day long. You use rhetoric as you walk down the aisle at the grocery store, drive through town, or sit quietly in a classroom. You might not always be aware of the messages you are sending and the effect that you have on other people, but you are indeed using rhetoric, and the more that you are able to cultivate an awareness of rhetoric and how it functions in your everyday life, the more effective you will be in your interactions with other people—both in person and online.

The goal of this chapter is to help you understand what rhetoric is and how foundational it is to our everyday lives. Far from being an act of manipulation, rhetoric in its most useful form is about enhancing mutual understanding and respect in order to facilitate compromise, problem-solving, and healthy relationships. It’s also inherently connected to your sense of identity and the way that you develop knowledge about the world. Defining rhetoric as the art of effective communication intentionally broadens the parameters of when and how we use rhetoric. It’s also fairly simple, particularly compared to the definitions that other rhetoricians have given throughout history. For instance, American Rhetoric lists a number of “scholarly” definitions of rhetoric:

• “The art of enchanting the soul” (Plato).
• “The faculty of discovering in any particular case all of the means of persuasion” (Aristotle).
• “One great art comprised of five lesser arts: inventio, dispositio, elocutio, memoria, and pronunciatio” (Cicero).
• “That art or talent by which discourse is adapted to its end. The four ends of discourse are to enlighten the understanding, please the imagination, move the passion, and influence the will” (George Campbell).
• “The study of misunderstandings and their remedies” (I. A. Richards).
• “A form of reasoning about probabilities, based on assumptions people share as members of a community” (Erika Lindemann).

The list goes on, but the point is that there are a lot of different ways that we could consider rhetoric and its function. What all of these definitions have in common is a focus on purpose—what the communicator is trying to achieve as a result of their message, whether written or spoken, whether explicit or implicit. Similar to our definition of rhetoric is the one articulated by Andrea Lunsford, who defines rhetoric as “art, practice, and study of human communication” (American Rhetoric). This is also a broad definition that encompasses not only the message itself but also the academic and personal endeavor of understanding how communication works and how it can be utilized effectively.

Perhaps one more definition will be useful as we launch into this unit about rhetorical literacy and its relationship to digital communication. The Department of Rhetoric and Writing Studies at San Diego State University defines rhetoric like this:

Rhetoric refers to the study and uses of written, spoken and visual language. It investigates how language is used to organize and maintain social groups, construct meanings and identities, coordinate behavior, mediate power, produce change, and create knowledge. Rhetoricians often assume that language is constitutive (we shape and are shaped by language), dialogic (it exists in the shared territory between self and other), closely connected to thought (mental activity as “inner speech”) and integrated with social, cultural and economic practices. Rhetorical study and written literacy are understood to be essential to civic, professional and academic life.

That’s obviously a more complex and nuanced definition than some of the others we’ve reviewed, but it accurately captures the significance of rhetoric to our thought processes, our civic engagement, our relationships, our activities, and our very identities. In this first chapter of the rhetorical literacy unit, we’ll take a closer look at the elements that comprise the rhetorical situation as well as examples of rhetorical appeals that are used to enhance the effectiveness of a message. Developing a deeper awareness of these concepts will help you identify how they are used in the messages you encounter and utilize them more intentionally and effectively in the messages you send.

The Rhetorical Situation: Key Terms

Probably the best way to cultivate a deeper understanding of rhetoric is to consider the elements of the rhetorical situation, which was defined by Lloyd Bitzer in his 1968 essay “The Rhetorical Situation.” In this essay, he considers the elements that are present when rhetorical discourse emerges—the circumstances that precipitate the message and would have an impact on how it is received. No message can be fully understood without considering the larger context, which Bitzer says is crucial in understanding the effectiveness of that message to meet its intended goal. Bitzer defines rhetoric as

a mode of altering reality, not by the direct application of energy to objects, but by the creation of discourse which changes reality through the mediation of thought and action. The rhetor alters reality by bringing into existence a discourse of such character that the audience, in thought and action, is so engaged that it becomes mediator of change. In this sense, rhetoric is always persuasive. (4)

In other words, rhetoric creates action. It has the power to influence the thoughts and behaviors of the audience in certain ways, depending on the motives of the speaker along with the message itself and the context in which that message is delivered—all elements of the rhetorical situation.

Let’s back up, though, and consider the most fundamental element of rhetoric: purpose. All rhetorical discourse has a purpose, something that the speaker hopes to accomplish as a result of the message. As already discussed, this purpose might be really obvious and explicit. For instance, you might find yourself in some sort of debate about a political issue, and so you are using logical reasoning and evidence to convince your audience to agree with your position. Or you might be out with friends or family members, and you want to convince them to eat at a certain restaurant or agree to see a specific movie with you. Once again, you’d use all of your rhetorical skills to get them to do whatever it is you are suggesting. In many other circumstances, though, the purpose might not be quite so obvious. Maybe you’re out for a walk in your neighborhood and when you pass one of your neighbors, you feel compelled to stop and say hello. Maybe your neighbor is the talkative sort, and so you end up locked in a conversation for longer than you might like, but you don’t want to be rude. That is also a rhetorical situation with a purpose: to maintain a friendly relationship with your neighbor. And if someone stops you and asks you for directions, your response would also be rhetorical. Your purpose would be to give clear directions so they can get where they want to go.

Every time you craft a message for an audience—whether it’s an in-person conversation, an email, a text message, a “like” on Facebook, or a quick wave hello to a friend in the hallway at school—you have a purpose. It might be to persuade your audience about a particular issue or course of action, it might be to inform them about a process or a concept, or it might be to give a positive impression of yourself and cultivate or maintain social relationships. Rhetoric, then, refers to the communication strategies you use in a given situation to meet that purpose, to influence the attitudes and behaviors of your audience. This suggests, as Bitzer says, that all rhetoric is persuasive. Even if your primary purpose is to inform your audience about a topic, there is an underlying purpose to convince them that the topic is worthwhile and that you are a credible source of information. There is also the reality that one seemingly minor message could have more than one purpose, often with a social component. A teacher who gives a short lesson in class has multiple purposes—to inform students clearly about the topic, to persuade them that this is an important topic worth their time and effort, to encourage them that they are able to learn and effectively apply the material, to maintain a positive social rapport with the class so that students are engaged and more open to learning. It might be a five-minute lesson about semicolons, but the underlying rhetorical purpose is likely multifaceted and nuanced.

One important aspect of Bitzer’s essay about the rhetorical situation is his discussion of exigence. According to Bitzer, before a speaker has a purpose, there must be an exigence, which he defines as “an imperfection marked by urgency” (6). Or, as Kate Mele puts it, exigence is the source, the “driving force.” Just like a river starts from somewhere—a spring—Mele explains that a message also starts from somewhere: the exigence. To really understand a rhetorical message and the speaker’s purpose, it’s crucial to understand the exigence that prompted the message. If, for example, you wake up sick one morning and can’t make it into work, that’s an exigence that prompts a message to your boss. Most people can’t simply not show up to work. You’d have to notify a boss or coworkers in some way to avoid confusion and any potential problems that could arise from your absence. These are the imperfections—the exigence—that would compel you to send a text message to coworkers or to call in sick to your boss.

An exigence might be a problem that has already arisen that needs to be addressed. For instance, if you fail to call in sick and you receive angry text messages from your coworkers, that’s a problem that has materialized and has to be addressed. Alternatively, an exigence might be a potential problem that could arise if you don’t speak up. For instance, you’d call in sick to prevent the potential confusion and chaos that might arise from your absence. Similarly, you engage in the conversation with your neighbor, even though you don’t want to, to avoid the negative consequence of making your neighbor mad or hurting their feelings. Exigence is so important because it compels the message, it informs the speaker’s purpose, and the effectiveness of the message can be evaluated based on whether the exigence is resolved. In fact, according to Bitzer, rhetoric is about understanding the underlying problem and then creating discourse that can fully or partially resolve that problem. So in our example of you calling in sick to work, the exigence isn’t the fact that you are sick. Calling in to your boss won’t have any effect on whether or not you are sick. The exigence is the negative consequences that could arise at work that day—either in the overall workflow or in the impression that your boss and coworkers have of you. Communicating clearly with everyone about your situation would help resolve those potential problems.

Like many other aspects of rhetoric, the idea of exigence can be fairly complex when you consider various elements of the rhetorical situation and the different perspectives involved. For one thing, there might be multiple exigencies that inform a single message. If we go back to our example above about calling in sick, one exigence would certainly relate to the more productive aspects of the workplace. Being short-staffed would mean that important tasks aren’t completed or they aren’t completed well. It could have an impact on production quality, customer satisfaction, sales revenue, and so on. Another exigence to the same message might be social. If you don’t let others know you won’t be at work, they will think of you as being lazy and inconsiderate. Those relationships might be strained the next time you see those people if you don’t let them know what’s going on. Another exigence might relate to your own professional success. If you don’t call in, you might get fired, or you might not be seriously considered for the next raise or promotion.

Not only do multiple exigencies exist, but the very existence of an exigence is up to the interpretation of the rhetor. Whereas Lloyd Bitzer argued that the rhetorical situation compels rhetorical discourse, Richard Vatz argued that there isn’t a single, objective rhetorical situation that exists outside of our individual interpretations. It’s up to each individual to select the details from a particular situation that are important and then to interpret the meaning and the potential consequences of those details. Vatz says, “I would not say ‘rhetoric is situational,’ but situations are rhetorical; not ‘…exigence strongly invites utterance,’ but utterance strongly invites exigence; not ‘the situation controls the rhetorical response…’ but the rhetoric controls the situational response” (159). In other words, we wouldn’t all objectively agree that an exigence exists or that one specific response is the “right” one. Individual interpretations, values, and agendas inform how we perceive a situation and how we respond.

Once we understand the underlying exigence, which compels the purpose of the rhetorical discourse, we’d consider the other elements of the rhetorical situation to evaluate the effectiveness of the message:

• The speaker—the person who is sending the message. We’d probably look more closely at this person’s authority on the subject, their reputation for being trustworthy, and the relationship they have with the audience. If you are someone who calls in sick all the time, for instance, then chances are your message won’t be as well received by your boss because you have already created a negative impression.
• The audience—the intended recipients of the message. Per our definition above, the audience has the power to resolve the exigence in a rhetorical situation by adopting certain attitudes and behaviors. In that case, a closer look at the audience—their current attitudes, values, experiences, expectations, impressions of the speaker, and so on—is crucial in understanding the effectiveness of a message. If you did wake up sick and needed to let people know, your message would be very different if you were sending it to your boss as opposed to your family or friends. Your relationship with those potential audiences and their expectations are vastly different.
• The message—the spoken, written, or visual text that corresponds with the speaker’s purpose. This is the mediating tool intended to help the target audience understand the speaker’s thoughts and ideas and to compel them to respond in ways that will resolve the exigence.
• Kairos—the most opportune timing of a message (Pantelides). Again, this is a highly contextual element that considers the message itself as well as the location, the expectations of the audience, and other constraining factors. For instance, if you are interested in asking someone out on a date, you’d consider the appropriate moment for this type of conversation that would increase your chances of success. You’d wait until they are in a good mood and not distracted by other conversations or tasks. You might also wait until you are with that person in a place that is fairly quiet. All of those elements relate to kairos, which would have a significant influence on the audience’s response.
• Constraints—the “persons, events, objects, and relations which are parts of the situation because they have the power to constrain decision and action needed to modify the exigence” (Bitzer 8). Anything that could interfere with the audience’s willingness to react positively to the message—whether their own beliefs and attitudes, their negative impression of the speaker, past experiences, a lack of understanding about key concepts or cultural values—is considered a constraint. Though not all constraints can be overcome, the key to a successful message is often the speaker’s ability to predict and craft their message to overcome as many constraints as possible.

These are but a few of the elements that are present in any rhetorical situation. Other considerations might include the medium that the speaker uses to communicate the message (be it with spoken language, sign language and gestures, an email, etc.), the genre of the message (with standard conventions that might dictate things like format, organization, and tone of the message), and the larger historical and social context that influences the way that an audience would interpret a message. What is important to keep in mind is that while all of the specific details of a rhetorical situation are unique, the elements themselves are always present. There will always be a speaker, a message, an exigence, a purpose, and so on, and your ability to identify and carefully consider these elements will equip you to more effectively craft a message that anticipates potential constraints and persuades your intended audience.

Rhetorical Strategies

We’ve been talking pretty broadly about the message that emerges as a response to some sort of exigence, but the message itself is the most important aspect of rhetoric. It’s the force that allows for the expression of ideas and a deeper connection with other people. It compels attitudes and behaviors that provide tangible solutions to real problems. Often the study of rhetoric requires a deeper examination of the message that is produced and how it is fitting (or not) for a given audience in a particular situation. In that case, we’d look at the rhetorical strategies of the message—the way that the message is crafted in order to help the speaker inform and/or persuade the audience.

There are many different types of strategies that we could look at. In this section, we’ll look at three primary groupings that can be particularly helpful when you are evaluating the effectiveness of a message, including your own. The first set of strategies are called rhetorical appeals, which were introduced by Aristotle in 350 BC in his classic work Rhetoric I & II (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). In it, he set forth three broad types of persuasive appeals:

1. Logos refers to logic. We might try to persuade someone based on logical reasoning, principles of cause and effect, statistics, and other forms of evidence. A sound argument is one that clearly lays out the reasons for the argument and clearly articulates that line of reasoning with strong evidence. It makes explicit connections between the evidence, the reasoning, and the larger claim. It might also examine counterarguments and use the same type of evidence and logical reasoning to refute opposing views. Particularly in academic writing, logos is considered the strongest appeal because it demonstrates a high level of critical thinking and it comes to a conclusion based on an examination of the issue itself. Digital writers also use logos when they use hyperlinks to show supporting evidence, explain how a particular process or concept works, give examples, and provide statistical evidence, often in the form of pie charts or bar graphs.
2. Pathos refers to emotion. This type of appeal tries to persuade readers to adopt a specific attitude or take action in some way based on an emotional response that is invoked in the message. Advertisements are often based around pathos appeals, with pictures of people who are having fun or benefiting in some way from a particular product or service, thus creating feelings of desire in the target audience, who want to experience those same benefits. Other messages might try to invoke feelings of anger or pity or fear to incite specific behaviors in the audience. An ad seeking donations for the Humane Society would likely show pictures of cute puppies and kittens. Political ads often use misleading statistics and outright fabrications to get audiences to feel angry about the opposing candidate. While pathos appeals are sometimes used to manipulate or distract audiences, there are positive uses of pathos, too, that help audiences get a deeper sense of understanding and empathy for people and problems outside of their personal experience. Narratives and descriptions are often used as pathos appeals that help audiences emotionally connect to a message. Digital writers use pathos not only in their language but also with pictures, videos, and even color choices that reinforce certain emotions.
3. Ethos refers to credibility. This has everything to do with the speaker and how much the target audience trusts this person to provide accurate and reliable information on the topic at hand. The ethos appeal is often threefold. (1) Phronesis: The wisdom, experience, and credentials of the speaker. Do they have personal and/or expert knowledge about the topic? Is this person an expert in a particular field and/or has done extensive research on this topic. (2) Arête: The personal virtues, ethics, and character of the speaker. Is this an honest and ethical person? (3) Eunoia: Goodwill exhibited toward the audience. Does the speaker seem to have the audience’s best interest in mind? An audience is more likely to believe and respond positively to a person whom they trust based on that person’s past behaviors, their reputation, and perhaps their position as an established leader. While a message can’t always overcome an audience’s negative impression of the speaker, there are definite ways to build credibility by demonstrating sound evidence and research (expertise) and by crafting a message in a way that comes across as genuine and transparent (ethics). Digital writers might also develop ethos by displaying specific certifications or awards, customer testimonials, and pictures that demonstrate professional excellence or personal ethics.

While some people think of these rhetorical appeals as being antiquated—perhaps since they are Greek words that date back to Aristotle—their importance really can’t be overstated. Nearly all rhetorical discourse fits into at least one of these categories, though they aren’t mutually exclusive. (A logos appeal might also be an ethos appeal. Using evidence from a recent study, for instance, provides logical support for an argument while also building your credibility as a knowledgeable researcher.) And since all rhetoric revolves around specific purposes that solve existing or potential problems, these rhetorical appeals are the building blocks of discourse that have real consequences in the world. In fact, as we progress through the remainder of the textbook, we’ll often refer back to these appeals as guiding principles for effective digital writing.

The next group of rhetorical strategies that we’ll examine are the modes of discourse, which are more specific categories that fit under the larger umbrella of the logos, pathos, and ethos appeals. These are methods of communicating different types of information so that the audience can more fully understand the intended meaning. They provide methods you can use to clarify vague concepts or events with information that is specific and concrete. As outlined in Jenifer Kurtz’s chapter on “Rhetorical Modes,” they are

• Narration—telling a story or anecdote, often with the goal of helping readers connect emotionally with the main character and/or understand how an event unfolded.
• Description—using sensory details that make a particular setting or object more vivid for readers, so they can more fully picture what it looks like, feels like, and so on.
• Process—giving readers step-by-step details about how something works or how they can accomplish a specific task.
• Illustration and exemplification—demonstrating a concept or idea through the use of evidence or examples.
• Cause and effect—describing why something happened and/or what the consequences of an event or action might be.
• Compare and contrast—helping audiences more fully understand a concept or object by describing how it is similar to or different from something they are already familiar with.
• Definition—giving a statement of meaning for a particular term or idea.
• Classification—organizing parts of a larger whole into categories to help readers understand similarities and differences between them.

As you can see, each rhetorical mode, depending on how it’s used, could be classified as a type of rhetorical appeal. A narrative, for instance, is often used as a pathos appeal—to get audiences to connect with a particular character and the circumstances they are facing more fully and emotionally. Similarly, clear description could be used to compel certain emotions in audiences (a pathos appeal), and it might also be used to provide clarity and imply further logical connections (a logos appeal). The main point here is that so much of the communication we do—in spoken word and in writing—is built around these rhetorical modes, which become the building blocks of larger rhetorical appeals that—if crafted well—help the speaker to meet their communication goals. We’ll look more specifically at the rhetoric of digital writing in a later section, but suffice it to say for now that digital writing is also built from rhetorical strategies, though there are quite a few more tools at your disposal to engage audiences and build meaning.

The final group of communication strategies that we’ll discuss are called rhetorical devices, which refer to a way of using language for persuasive purposes. Whereas the rhetorical modes we discussed above relate more to the content of a message, a rhetorical device is often more about word choice. It’s a way of phrasing a particular idea in order to increase the audience’s engagement as well as their emotional reaction. In fact, rhetorical devices are sometimes called “slanters” because they put a certain spin on a message—either positive or negative—to make audiences feel a certain way. Rhetorical devices are typically emotional (pathos) appeals, sometimes intended to help audiences engage on a deeper level with a topic and sometimes—in the case of a slanter—intended to manipulate their emotions or distract them from the logical (or illogical) aspects of a message.

The list of rhetorical devices is extensive (Merriam-Webster)—way beyond what we could practically study in one chapter—but it might be worth looking at a few examples to demonstrate how common they are and the persuasive effect they can have:

• Simile—a comparison using “like” or “as.” This is a common device that has clear connections to the compare-and-contrast rhetorical mode identified above. However, whereas the mode would provide a deeper discussion of the similarities and differences between two or more things, a simile is a simple phrase and is often used to create positive or negative associations. For instance, saying that a political candidate was “grasping for words like a drowning man clinging to driftwood” puts the politician in a more negative light, making them seem desperate.
• Metaphor—a comparison that doesn’t use “like” or “as.” A metaphor can’t be taken literally, which requires the audience to recognize that it’s a figure of speech, implying a comparison. For example, saying that one of your friends “didn’t pull any punches” in a recent conversation with you is (hopefully) a metaphor. It doesn’t literally mean that your friend was hitting you. It’s a comparison that implies your friend wasn’t trying to spare your feelings.
• Euphemism—making a topic that is negative or neutral seem more positive than it is. For instance, instead of calling someone “stubborn” (a fairly negative term), calling them “tenacious” or “determined” puts a more positive spin on it. Similarly, instead of selling “used cars,” a car dealership will often refer to them as “pre-owned vehicles,” which has a slightly more positive ring to it.
• Dysphemism—making a topic that is positive or neutral seem more negative than it is. For instance, calling one of your teachers a “dictator” would obviously put that person in a more negative light. A person who calls their spouse a “ball and chain” is also using a dysphemism that makes their spouse and their marriage seem confining.
• Hyperbole—extreme exaggeration, typically for dramatic effect to demonstrate the importance or significance of something. Saying that you could have “died” of embarrassment at a particular moment emphasizes the significance of your feelings and would probably garner more sympathy from your audience.

The list goes on. It can sometimes be really helpful to know the various rhetorical devices so that you can identify them when they are used in a conversation. However, more important than knowing the specific terms is being able to recognize how language is used in a given situation to elicit specific emotions and how those emotional responses benefit the speaker. Obviously, not all rhetorical devices are negative. They can be used in positive ways to capture an audience’s attention and demonstrate the significance of a particular idea. Also, when used well, a rhetorical device can be extremely effective in persuading an audience. However, rhetorical devices can be used to manipulate or distract, and when they come across as melodramatic or underhanded, then they have the opposite effect, often diminishing the credibility of the speaker in addition to dissuading the audience. For that reason, understanding how rhetorical devices are used and for what purpose is helpful as you interpret and respond to messages and as you craft your own.

The Ubiquitous Nature of Rhetoric

So back to where we started: rhetoric is everywhere, all the time. This chapter was designed to demonstrate this point more fully (using a blend of logos and ethos appeals) and to underscore the importance of the messages you send as well as the complexity of a given rhetorical situation. While many situations might call for very intentional and thoughtful attention to the rhetorical elements that should influence the way that a message is crafted and how audiences might react (a marriage proposal, for instance, or a public speech or sermon), there are many rhetorical situations that materialize each day that we are prone to overlook because they might seem insignificant. We might not even identify them as a rhetorical situation because they are so informal, low-stakes, or brief. However, the reality is that every time a message is conveyed to an audience—whether it is intentional or not, whether it is planned beforehand or not—it is a rhetorical situation with an exigence, a purpose, and a reaction from the audience. A quick text message, a wave to someone that you know, and your body language as you sit in class or in a meeting are all examples of rhetorical messages that can result in positive or negative consequences depending on the context of the situation and the audience’s interpretation of the message.

Having a clearer understanding of rhetoric and how it can unfold in both the big and the small moments will, at the very least, help you see how rhetoric functions in your everyday life. In fact, so many of the things that you strive to accomplish rely on rhetoric. All of your social relationships are built on and largely consist of rhetorical messaging. Similarly, your ability to effectively send and interpret messages has a direct impact on whether you pass a class, get a job, pay your bills on time, buy or sell a house or a car, enjoy a night out with your friends, and so on. If you were to track your conversations throughout the course of a day or a week and then consider the rhetorical implications of each one, you’d see that even the most mundane exchange with someone helps you work toward larger goals. Here are some examples of how rhetoric functions in your everyday life:

• To complete a task. You rely on clear messaging with your boss/coworkers and or your teachers/peers in order to complete work tasks and larger projects. You receive messaging that details deadlines and other requirements for assignments, and you send messages in order to clarify those instructions, work with peers/colleagues on projects, and interact with customers. Even minor tasks like renewing your driver’s license or filling a grocery order require rhetorical discourse.
• To forge and maintain social relationships. These are often more mundane, seemingly meaningless text messages and informal conversations that you have—sometimes with close friends and family and sometimes with acquaintances and even strangers. These interactions are also persuasive, meant to facilitate people’s positive impressions of you and to create feelings of connectedness and care. Even minor interactions with strangers, in which you let someone get in front of you at the grocery checkout or you tell the McDonald’s drive-thru attendant to have a great day, are social interactions that encourage goodwill and create momentary connections.
• To express yourself. Often you speak up in order to express an idea or an emotion. Sometimes, this might overlap with other functions of getting work done or forging social connections. Self-expression might seem like a more personal discourse that doesn’t relate to rhetoric, but when you have an audience, it’s rhetorical—often for the sake of being heard and understood. Even when you are expressing feelings and ideas that won’t be positively received by your audience, there is still the underlying goal of being part of a conversation and sharing your perspective.
• To solve problems. Rhetorical discourse can be used to identify a problem and to work through the potential solutions and consequences with others who are involved. This is also a social exchange, since it involves working through different perspectives and finding solutions that will appease everyone.
• To learn. In this case, you receive messages, ask clarifying questions, and produce texts that apply specific concepts in order to develop your understanding of a given subject.
• To receive a personal benefit. You use rhetoric to persuade audiences to act in your favor. Maybe you get pulled over, and you use rhetoric to dissuade the officer from issuing you a ticket. Or you missed an assignment deadline, and you convince your teacher or your boss to let you turn it in a couple of days late.
• To benefit others. In this case, you would speak up in some way to help other people. Maybe you clearly explain a concept or an idea to someone who is trying to learn, so you take the time to help them understand. Or perhaps you defend the viewpoint of a person or a group in order to defend their rights or interests.

These are a few examples of how rhetoric functions in deeper ways in our everyday lives, helping us work toward big-picture objectives in our personal, civic, and professional lives. When put into that larger context, it becomes clear that a conversation is never just a meaningless conversation. There are larger objectives at stake, and having a clear understanding of what those objectives are and how they stem from rhetorical discourse will aid in your success.

In this chapter, “social” refers more broadly to human relationships and organizational structures. By nature, humans are social creatures, seeking out relationships that provide a sense of connection, purpose, and identity. And as we discussed at length in the previous chapter, our relationships are facilitated by rhetoric. The ways that we receive, interpret, and send messages (whether explicit or implicit, whether verbal or nonverbal) have a direct influence on how our relationships with other people develop, grow, and shift. In fact, our relationships are defined by our common terminology (e.g., “friend,” “mom,” “teacher,” “spouse”), which carries shared expectations of meaning and appropriate behaviors. We also tend to view our relationship with another person as a compilation of our interactions—a series of symbolic, rhetorical activities that give shape to our view of that relationship and our role in it. Taken as a whole, our relationships determine our sense of self, our daily activities and priorities, and our long-term goals. They are also responsible for the way that we perceive and respond to “reality.”

This chapter explores the inherent social function of rhetoric, taking a deeper look at the effects that language has on an individual and cultural level. While the last chapter provided a glimpse at the different ways that rhetoric can function in our everyday lives, this chapter affirms that every rhetorical interaction, though it may serve a variety of other objectives, is steeped in preexisting social systems that shape and reinforce meaning. Examining these influences will provide valuable insights into the social nuances that exist in our daily interactions and the way that language is used to demonstrate our belonging to various groups, which in turn increases our persuasive effect.

Language As…

The function of language can’t be overstated. It’s our connection to the world and shapes our perceptions of every experience we have. We’ve already discussed the fact that language is an inherently social tool, even in moments when it might not be so obvious. For instance, language is obviously social when you are in what we might commonly consider “social situations,” where you are making plans with or are already out with friends. Maybe one of your coworkers invites you to a birthday party, and suddenly you have to navigate what might seem like an uncomfortable “social situation” because you are shifting from a professional to a more personal relationship with this person. However, the reality is that every interaction you had with that person, even in the more “professional” setting, was also social simply because you had to utilize language to come to a shared meaning. You might have sent an email to this person about a particular task, or maybe you filled out a specific form that is standard to your workplace that this person received and then acted upon. These are all social interactions because you are endeavoring to communicate an idea to another person, and you are relying on shared cultural tools—that is, language and perhaps company terminology and the understanding of how the “form” is supposed to work—to get those ideas across. This section explores the many ways that language is inherently social.

Language as Symbolic

On a fundamental level, language consists of symbols that are socially constructed and understood, which makes it possible to communicate ideas to others. A symbol is a representation. It’s not the thing itself; it stands in for concepts and ideas. For instance, the word “pizza” isn’t the pizza itself; it’s the symbol that has been created to represent the idea of pizza, and when you use that word with someone who knows what the symbol means, then you have a shared understanding. And you can use other symbols like “16-inch,” “meat-lovers,” and “thin crust” to further specify your meaning. As explained by the University of Minnesota Libraries, a system of symbols is called a “code,” which provides limitless opportunities to create meaning through the combination of symbols (encoding) for others to decipher (decoding). These codes are “ever-changing” as words and other types of symbols emerge and adapt to reflect new cultural contexts and communication needs. Codes are also flexible, allowing us to reference abstract concepts and ideas as well as objects and events that are removed from our immediate surroundings by time and/or space. This aids our ability to think deeply about a concept and to express complex ideas to others. The Social Science LibreText library explains it like this: “Language is based on complex rules relating spoken, signed, or written symbols to their meanings. What results is an indefinite number of possible innovative utterances from a finite number of elements.” The point is that language is a social tool that is learned through social interaction. Words have meaning because they’ve been assigned meaning, and through the process of language acquisition, we’ve learned what those meanings are and how to use them to participate effectively in conversations with other people.

Language as Mediator

As discussed in chapter 6, language is the tool that mediates our thoughts and feelings so that we can express them to other people. It’s the bridge that forges connections between you and your family, your friends, your coworkers, and even the strangers that you interact with throughout the day. Yes, this includes more in-depth conversations you might have with someone to work through a problem, but it also includes the high-five you give one of your friends in the hallway to reinforce your friendship, the quick selections that you make with your phone to put items in your “shopping cart” and to finalize your purchase, and the use of your turn signal to let other drivers know you want to change lanes. These are all outward expressions through the use of symbols, of internal feelings and desires, which allow other people to understand your meaning and respond appropriately. Interestingly, there is research that suggests a reciprocal relationship between language and our thoughts (Lumen Learning, “Language and Thinking”). Not only do our thoughts give shape to the language that we use, but our language also has a significant impact on our thought patterns and our ways of processing information.

Language as Identification

Language is also used to express our identity and align ourselves with other people. Kenneth Burke theorized that we naturally seek out ways to relate to other people through parts of our identity that we have in common, and we use language to demonstrate to ourselves and others our membership in specific groups based on those commonalities. Essentially, the social function of language revolves around our ability to persuade others—by adopting specific language patterns and expressing our shared perspectives and values—that we are similar to them, that we belong to the group, which in turn builds our credibility. For instance, a lot of people bond over their shared interest in a particular sports team. They talk about the players. They discuss the team’s record and other statistics. They rehash highlights from the most recent game, and they speculate on what will happen next week. They wear fan gear, and they cheer during the games. All of this demonstrates their identity as part of the fan group, persuading others that they belong because of their sports knowledge and the high value they place on the success of their team.

Similar to Burke’s “identification” is the concept of a discourse community—groups that share specific goals and have particular ways of communicating with one another as they work toward those goals (Lumen Learning, “Discourse Communities”). Most people belong to multiple discourse communities. For instance, people in a particular field of study are in a discourse community, often interacting with one another to grow their own knowledge or to further advance the field itself. Their ways of communicating—using specific terms, often communicating in specific genres, demonstrating shared standards and values—are specialized, meaning that people outside of the group would likely feel confused and somewhat alienated. Similarly, people who work for a particular organization are in a discourse community, using specialized forms of communication as they work together to run the company. Within that company, people who work in a specific department are in a discourse community, communicating in specific ways about specific things that other departments don’t. And so forth. You might be in a discourse community as part of a sports team, an interest group, a church, a class, and so on. Like Burke’s concept of identification, people in discourse communities demonstrate their belonging by adopting the communication patterns of the group, which is something that they learn to do over time as they interact with other, more experienced members.

Language as Social Intervention

One final way that we might consider the social nature of language is its ability to persuade others to take some sort of action or to adopt a particular perspective. Opt and Gring call this “social intervention,” and they relate it directly to language and the way that we assign meaning using symbols: “When we name, we symbolically categorize experience. We compare experience to the symbolic categories that our language community has created to communicate about experience. We select the category into which the experience seems to fit. Then we use the symbol associated with that category to talk about your experience” (Opt and Gring 40). According to this view, our way of naming and interpreting experience reflects our ideology, the broader theory we use to assign meaning to events. When we socially intervene, we attempt to persuade others to assign the same meaning to things that we do, either by maintaining their current perspective or by adopting a new one. If we want others to “recategorize” a particular thing, “we emphasize how experience no longer fits the expectations associated with the current way of naming it” (Opt and Gring 54). We continually negotiate and renegotiate meaning as we interact with others, which has a direct impact on our ways of seeing, understanding, relating, and acting in the world.

Rhetorical Listening

Unfortunately, when people think about rhetoric, there tends to be a focus on the self. “How can rhetoric help further my goals? What key points should I make in order to persuade my audience to see my perspective.” The problem with this mindset is that it ignores the other half of effective communication, which is listening. Most likely you’ve been in conversations that go around in circles because nobody is truly listening to each other. When emotions run high, particularly when we’re convinced that we are “right,” we’re much more likely to speak over the other person or maybe to scoff or roll our eyes while they are talking. Some people might seem like they are listening based on their body language and head nods, but in reality, they are biding their time, perhaps planning out what they are going to say next once the other person stops talking. That’s not effective communication because it undermines our ability to understand where the other person is coming from and to reexamine our own thinking as we work toward solutions. Also, it’s incredibly difficult to get someone else to listen to what you have to say when you don’t extend the same courtesy. Yes, it’s a very basic skill—listening when other people are talking—that probably extends all the way back to kindergarten, but pay attention to some of the conversations around you, and you’ll discover that a lot of people are bad at listening, often because they are distracted by their phones and other digital devices.

Before we unpack the concept of rhetorical listening and the significant influence it can have on a conversation, let’s review the concept of civil discourse. In this context, the word “civil” means respectful and engaged. It means that during a conversation when another person is speaking, even when they are sharing viewpoints that directly conflict with your own, you show them respect as an engaged audience member who is going through the intellectual process of trying to understand their point of view and work toward solutions that are mutually beneficial (American University). At its most basic level, civil discourse is a calm and rational discussion where you would

• Wait for the other person to finish speaking before you respond.
• Give that person your full attention, with eye contact and head nods that show you are listening.
• Be respectful with your body language. Don’t roll your eyes or scoff. Similarly, you’d avoid facial expressions and body language that come across as threatening.
• Ask clarifying questions to be sure that you fully understand what the person has said. It’s also common to rephrase some of their main points in your own words.
• Keep a calm demeanor when you do respond. Avoid yelling, being sarcastic, or speaking with a sharp tone.
• Stay focused on the issue and base your responses on logical reasoning and honest feelings. Avoid attacking the other person or responding in a way that is manipulative, irrelevant, or melodramatic.

Basically anything that encourages open dialogue and makes room for alternative ideas and opinions is civil discourse. It certainly doesn’t mean that you have to agree with other people or ignore your own feelings and perspectives. Instead, civil discourse seeks to uncover disagreement for the purpose of understanding and resolving conflict.

While civil discourse can be an effective way to engage with another person and resolve conflict, rhetorical listening takes the process a step further because it requires you to attend more fully to the complex human experience and feelings of the other person, even going so far as to consider the intention behind their message and the underlying emotions that they might not be able to fully express. Krista Ratcliffe defines rhetorical listening as “a stance of openness that any person may choose to assume in relation to any person, text, or culture” (1). Ratcliffe focuses especially on “cross-cultural” identifications, which require the listener to actively identify their own “disidentifications” and biases that act as a barrier to fully understanding what another person is saying and where they are coming from. In other words, we don’t ignore the differences between ourselves and the speaker. Instead, we consider what those differences are and interrogate how they would naturally lead to different ways of thinking, speaking, and experiencing the world: “The result of such understanding is a broader cultural literacy, which affords us opportunities for negotiating our daily attitudes and actions, our politics and ethics” (Ratcliffe 300). It’s impossible to ever really step outside of our individual lens, but when we listen rhetorically with the intention to truly see the other person and their point of view, we recognize that other valid perspectives exist outside of our own, and we make a genuine effort to understand those perspectives.

So the difference between civil discourse and rhetorical listening is one of intent. There is a deeper focus on seeing the other person more fully, and there’s more “risk” involved that you, not just the other person, might change your opinions and attitudes as a result. In his TED Talk called “The Power of Listening,” William Ury says that real listening requires a shift in focus from our own perspectives and potential responses to the perspectives and experiences of the person who is speaking. “We listen from their frame of reference, not just ours,” which means that we not only listen to the words that are being said but “to what’s behind the words” (Ury 6:44). It’s a conscious effort to step into the other person’s point of view, which puts the focus, at least momentarily, on their underlying needs and emotions, not your own motives and persuasive strategies that might change their mind. The benefits of this kind of listening are obvious, but they are also really significant:

1. It allows you to more fully understand the other person’s position, which will facilitate deeper insights and personal growth.
2. It builds deeper social connections and trust between you and that person. Instead of being a disagreement that creates tension and distance between you and the other person, rhetorical listening demonstrates care for the other person and can go a long way in strengthening a relationship.
3. It brings you closer to “yes,” according to Ury. By that, he means that the other person, once they have felt heard, will be more likely to listen to you. That’s not to say that you’re interested in simply being “right” or getting your own way. Following a genuine effort on both sides to listen and understand, you’re more likely to identify a solution that is mutually beneficial.

Digital Spaces and Rhetorical (Dis)Advantages

Thus far in the chapter, we’ve emphasized the fact that language is a social tool, created by humans with the purposes of communicating and connecting with other human beings in a variety of ways. But it’s also inherently limited in its ability to fully communicate the complexity of our experiences and ideas. And it requires careful interpretation and negotiation as people make progress (or not) toward mutual understanding. How many times do misunderstandings happen because we misinterpret what another person is saying or what their intended meaning is? The reality is that we probably never interpret the meaning of a message the exact same way as someone else because we all bring a complex layering of experiences and values to a conversation, which will naturally influence what we pay attention to and what we take away from a conversation. Similarly, we all have our own unique ways of experiencing, seeing, thinking about, and speaking about the world around us, which direct the ways that we encode and decode messages.

These moments of misunderstanding are examples of disconnect, in which we don’t fully share the same meaning of an experience or a message as someone else. Our interpretations and ways of speaking about a particular event or idea don’t align with someone else’s, which if left unresolved, can lead to confusion, frustration, and alienation. You’ve probably experienced disconnect with someone else where it’s obvious that you aren’t seeing eye to eye about an event or an issue, in which case, you know that it can sometimes be difficult to clearly understand someone else’s point of view because yours seems so clear and obvious. It’s easy to assume that the other person is the one with the wrong perspective and that if we could just explain it to them, then they would “get it.” While that might be the case sometimes—or the reverse might be the case sometimes and you are the one who doesn’t get it—the reality is that disconnect is complex. In his 1950 article titled “Is Anybody Listening?” author and journalist William Whyte said, “The great enemy of communication…is the illusion of it” (174). In other words, we might believe that the meaning of a message is clear and obvious, which then prevents us from providing clarity or seeking to understand how someone else interpreted a message, which in turn widens the gap between us and another person. Being aware that people interpret messages differently—based on a complex layering of past experiences, elements of identity, values and personal interests, previous knowledge of a given subject, and unique ways of using and understanding language—increases our odds of extending the conversation and being more attentive to areas where misunderstandings might occur.

There are some unique challenges that come with trying to communicate clearly in digital spaces. For one thing, there is a barrier in time and space between you and your audience. For instance, text messages often aren’t immediate. They unfold over the course of an hour or maybe several hours while you are going other places and doing other things. It’s easy to lose track of the conversation or fail to provide your full attention. There’s also the reality that in many digital spaces, communication is lacking some of the rich details that help us to more fully interpret the meaning. Things like facial expressions, body language, vocal inflection, and tone of voice all provide important cues for listeners, which are largely absent in written texts like emails, text messages, blog articles, and so on. What’s more, digital communication has quickly evolved to include an ever-expanding array of emojis, acronyms, and GIFs, which rely on shared cultural knowledge and individual interpretations. Studies by Miller, Miller et al., and Jiang et al. (“The Perfect One” and “Understanding Diverse Interpretations”) discuss the complex messages that are often embedded in simplified forms, such as emojis and GIFs, which can increase the likelihood of misinterpretation and misunderstanding. Even when there are rich cues—in images and videos, for instance—communication tends to be one-way, without the ability for the speaker to gauge audience understanding or for listeners to ask clarifying questions or share their own perspectives.

In relation to our previous discussion about rhetorical listening, digital communication can make it harder to see the person behind the message—the complex feelings and human needs that motivate a conversation. This type of listening that attends to the person behind the message and reads between the lines to understand what’s not being said is an incredibly nuanced skill, and it relies on a certain amount of empathy. Unfortunately, a screen creates a barrier of time and space that makes it harder to “see” the other person, especially for social media posts and blogs that are meant for a broad audience. It’s easy to forget about the flesh-and-blood person who created that content, which makes it more likely that we will respond in ways that are careless and self-centered. In fact, Emiliana Simon-Thomas, the science director at UC Berkeley’s Greater Good Science Center, says that screen time can erode our ability to experience empathy, largely because the immediate, in-person nuances of a conversation get lost (qtd. in UC newsroom). Having empathy to truly listen to someone in an online space requires greater awareness of our own emotions and reactions as well as more intentionality to attend to the other person and respond appropriately.

While there are certainly aspects of digital communication that make mutual understanding more difficult, there are also affordances that can help facilitate better communication practices. For one thing, the more distant, delayed nature of digital communication can be a huge advantage because it allows us time and space to wrestle with our emotions and to craft an appropriate response. An excellent rule of thumb for any type of digital communication that you find upsetting—whether it is an email, a text, or a social media post—is to walk away for a bit. (As noted in previous chapters, social media algorithms are designed to be addictive and to spread content as quickly as possible, which often ends up being emotionally charged, negative [dis]information [Cocchiarella].) Shut your laptop or put away your phone and give yourself some time to process. You might find that your initial reaction—perhaps rooted in fear, anger, or defensiveness (UC newsroom)—was an overreaction that would have escalated negative feelings and created further disconnect. Stepping away for a bit to calm down and assess your feelings can facilitate a more authentic, open response that will further the conversation.

Another benefit of digital communication is the ability to enrich communication using a variety of tools. Later in this unit, we will discuss multimodality and how various “modes” can significantly enhance the meaning of a message. In this context, a mode is a resource that helps you communicate meaning. It might be the way that you emphasize text using a bold font, capital letters, or different colors. Or it might be your ability to use hyperlinks to direct an audience to information that will provide important background, supporting evidence, or contextual information. Not only can we hyperlink to articles and studies, but we can link to videos and pictures to elaborate on an idea and clarify meaning. These are tools that can’t necessarily replace the nuances of an in-person conversation, but they do create opportunities to provide clarity and emphasis that go well beyond what an in-person conversation can do alone. A well-crafted digital message that strategically draws on these tools can go a long way to engage audiences and promote mutual understanding.

Obviously, communication is a complicated endeavor, and as long as there are humans involved with their different perspectives and experiences, there will always be the opportunity for misunderstandings and disagreements. However, good communicators consistently work toward mutual respect and shared understandings by thinking deeply about audience, fully listening to other people’s thoughts and ideas, attending to the feelings and needs behind a message, and drawing on communication tools and processes that will bridge the communication gap.

You’ve probably realized by now that all of these skills relate back to rhetoric. The basic elements of the rhetorical situation—audience, message, speaker, purpose, exigence, and kairos—are foundational in all of our interactions, whether personal or professional, and considering some of the (dis)advantages of digital spaces that we discussed in the previous chapter, rhetorical skills are even more important online, in moments where the speaker and the audience are separated by time and space. As opposed to in-person conversations, where audiences are more likely (hopefully) to actively listen to a message and where the speaker can (sometimes) gauge the audience’s reaction and make appropriate adjustments, digital spaces create unique challenges that make it more difficult to get a message to “land,” especially if the audience is fairly broad and loosely defined. It’s harder to capture people’s attention among the onslaught of ads and spam messaging that people receive each day. It’s more difficult to cultivate trust and make genuine personal connections. And it’s less likely that people will understand your meaning when you’re not right there beside them to guide them in the right direction or answer questions.

These are just a few of the challenges that arise in digital communication, but the good news is that they aren’t insurmountable. However, they do require a much deeper consideration of audience to identify the relevant needs, expectations, and values that would influence their interpretation and that should, therefore, guide the way that you craft a message. This chapter focuses on these key rhetorical considerations and thought processes that will facilitate more effective digital communication. While the chapter takes a more professional slant—considering aspects of branding and audience engagement that might align with a business’s marketing strategy—the concepts presented here are also incredibly relevant to your own personal brand as well as your professional goals. Whether you aspire to be an influencer, a content writer, or something else entirely, the digital writing tools and strategies discussed here will significantly increase your success.

Branding

We’ve discussed the fact that all messages have a purpose—a response that the speaker hopes to elicit from the audience as a result of the message. It might be to get the audience to understand a concept, agree with a particular claim, click on a link to a website, purchase a product or service, reshare a post, subscribe to a channel, and so on. Often, there is more than one purpose behind a message. For instance, a company might send a promotional email to a list of subscribers with the primary purpose of getting the audience to purchase a product. But to do that, the email would also have to inform them about the product, convince them to click the link to visit the website, and maybe persuade them to sign up for a free trial or contact a sales agent for more information.

A much more subtle, yet crucial, purpose behind most messages is to make a positive impression on the audience, and the collective sum of those messages and audience impressions reflects that person’s or organization’s brand. While the word “brand” could be used to refer to a company’s “brand name,” or the company that produces a particular product, it also refers to the way that the public perceives that company. Jerry McLaughlin, a Forbes contributor, explains it like this:

Put simply, your “brand” is what your prospect thinks of when he or she hears your brand name. It’s everything the public thinks it knows about your name brand offering—both factual (e.g. It comes in a robin’s-egg-blue box), and emotional (e.g. It’s romantic). Your brand name exists objectively; people can see it. It’s fixed. But your brand exists only in someone’s mind.

It’s important to note here that brand is not the same as “mission.” An organization’s mission relates to what they are trying to achieve with the work they do—often related to meeting customer’s needs with a particular product or service. It’s the primary reason that the organization exists, and ideally, every task, both big and small across every department, would further its mission. While mission is about what a company hopes to do, brand is about who the company is. It’s the perception that people have about that company’s personality, values, integrity, customer care, expertise, and commitment to excellence. Obviously, a positive public perception in these areas would motivate higher levels of audience engagement, which has a direct effect on profit margins and a company’s ability to achieve its mission.

Let’s look at an example. In the last several Super Bowls, Budweiser has become known for its commercials featuring the friendship between a horse and a dog. A recent Budweiser commercial in the 2022 Super Bowl told the story of an injured horse and the emotional connection it had with a dog, which aided in its recovery. This is one in a long line of commercials since 2014 (with a commercial titled “Puppy Love”) that trace the friendship between these two animals and create a strong emotional reaction in viewers. While the connection to the Budweiser product—beer—is nonexistent in these commercials, the real focus is on telling a story that viewers will associate with the Budweiser organization. The commercials highlight the hardworking, simple American values of farm life, the strength and determination of the Clydesdale (which have been featured in Budweiser commercials since 1996, according to Sloan), and the friendship and intense loyalty between the animals—all qualities that Budweiser hopes that viewers will begin to associate with their company. Over the years, these heartwarming commercials have been immensely successful in not only engaging viewers but creating positive feelings toward the Budweiser name.

Obviously, expensive commercials with a large viewership are one way that a company can work toward developing its brand, but remember that a brand is the sum of all of the messaging and impressions that people have about a company. It relates to the content on its website, its social media posts, and the experience that customers have with a product or when they engage with customer service representatives. It also includes stories that are outside of the company’s control—articles (positive or negative) that are published in the news as well as customer reviews on Yelp or on a company’s Google Business Profile. In other words, everything that a company says and does should align with its intended brand, and companies that aren’t intentional about consistently communicating their brand suffer the consequences (Dontigney).

Individuals also have a personal brand—the way that they want to be perceived by other people. Similar to corporate branding, this relates to your personality, your values, and your loyalty as a friend. It also relates to your professional niche—your work ethic, professionalism, and expertise in a specific field. Although the idea of a personal brand sometimes has a negative connotation, implying the idea that a person is fake and/or self-absorbed, people who have the most success with personal branding are authentic, highlighting the parts of themselves and their experiences that they want to be known for (Chan). They are also consistent, focusing on one key message or niche for which they want to be known, communicating often, and being faithful to that brand in all online and offline interactions.

As organizations and individuals set goals and take steps to cultivate their online presence, branding is central to their ability to reach key stakeholders, make connections, develop trust, and prompt deeper levels of audience engagement. And at the heart of each message that creates positive impressions is a deep understanding of rhetorical concepts and strategies that make those connections possible.

A Closer Look at Audience

Obviously, the audience is important to the success of a message. As we discussed in chapter 7, all rhetorical messages have an exigence—an imperfection or problem that prompts the speaker to communicate. In a rhetorical situation, only the audience can resolve the problem. The audience alone has the power—by adopting a certain perspective or taking a particular action—to fulfill the speaker’s purpose, which is why a focus on audience is so important. A skillful communicator must consider who the audience is, what they already know about a given topic, what questions they will have, and what types of experiences and values they have that will influence the way that they respond to a message. As opposed to messaging that is writer-focused, emphasizing the speaker’s point of view, a reader-centered approach is focused on audience (Long et al.). It forces the writer to step into the reader’s point of view and to write a message in such a way that it anticipates and responds to their questions, interests, objections, and values. It influences big-picture aspects of a message, such as content and organization, as well as smaller, sentence-level strategies, such as word choice and tone (Oaks).

As you might imagine, your conception of audience gets more complicated when you move to the digital realm. For one thing, you’re not likely to be there with the audience as they read or watch a message, which means that you can’t gauge their immediate reactions and follow up with clarifying information or respond to objections. Also, it’s often much more difficult to identify who the audience is. Certainly, something like a text message or email is likely directed toward a person or a group of people that you know well, though you can’t control who else—outside of your intended audience—might see that message. But other things like social media posts or content posted on a website are open to a much broader audience, made up of people with different interests, perspectives, and values. It’s impossible to prioritize the perspective and to engage the attention of everyone who might stumble across the message, which is why digital writers often focus on the target audience—the ideal audience for whom a message is intended. For instance, a store that sells mostly baby clothes and other related merchandise like car seats and strollers would primarily target parents who either have or are soon expecting to have babies. Though other people might buy baby supplies for different reasons, the most likely customers would be young parents, and so the store’s web content, social media posts, email blasts, and so on would be written with that audience in mind. Similarly, though all kinds of people purchase services from a nail salon, by far the most common customers are women, and as a nail salon thinks more about the type of woman that would be most likely to get their nails done—someone with at least some disposable income, perhaps someone who is busy at home and/or at work and is looking for a way to “pamper” herself—it becomes easier to craft persuasive messages that highlight services and experiences that these women would want.

This type of messaging that focuses on specific segment(s) of the broader audience is called target marketing because it focuses on target audiences—those people who are actually interested in the products and services that a business offers. Successful businesses might even segment their target audience in different ways, thereby creating smaller groups of people with specific qualities in common, which makes it possible to create different messages that would appeal to those different audiences (Coursera). For instance, most universities use segmentation in order to appeal to different types of people who might be interested in getting a degree. High school seniors are an obvious target, but increasingly, universities are also targeting high school juniors and sophomores, students from other universities who might want to transfer, and older adults looking to go back to school. They might also pay attention to the type of degree that a student is interested in so that they can communicate more specifically about relevant programs, job placement rates, and so on.

All of these strategies increase the likelihood of engaging individuals in the target audience. Also, because social media and internet browsing platforms use algorithms that gather data about individual browsing histories and online experiences (GCF Global), those people are more likely to encounter messaging that aligns with their interests and preferences, which in turn, makes it more likely that they will take action. For that reason, businesses are moving away from mass marketing strategies that cast a wide net across broad audiences. The more that they are able to clearly define target audiences and craft messages that will appeal to their needs, interests, and expectations, the more likely it is that their messages will reach the right people and have a positive effect. In the remainder of this section, we’ll look at specific strategies that digital writers use to define and engage their target audience(s).

Audience Research

Research is the first, and arguably the most important, step in the process of clearly defining who the audience is and what their needs are. In fact, most businesses conduct market research as part of their business startup plan in order to guide product development and business strategy (Small Business Administration). However, the most successful businesses are the ones that continuously gather information about their key stakeholders in order to stay apprised of important trends, thought patterns, and experiences and then make appropriate adjustments to the product itself, customer service, promotional concepts, and communication strategies. In other words, audience research guides every aspect of an organization’s daily operation. Without it, communication tends to be overly generalized, failing to capture anyone’s attention, including people in the target audience. Another tendency is to assume that the audience is relatively monolithic and that they all share similar qualities and perspectives as we do. This is called the false consensus effect (Choi and Cha), and writers who fall into this trap end up alienating important members of the audience and weakening the brand.

There are two broad categories of audience research—primary and secondary—with several different research methods within each category (USC Annenberg). The best approach depends largely on the type of information an organization is looking for as well as the available resources and potential limitations that either facilitate or discourage particular methods. What’s more, these research strategies aren’t mutually exclusive. Businesses regularly combine multiple research methods in order to deepen their understanding of the audience.

Often a good place to start is secondary research, which builds on the research that other people have done. This might include case studies that other organizations have conducted that provide in-depth information about a particular real-world situation—a specific problem or perhaps a person or a group of people. Though the specific details of a case study can’t be generalized to apply to everyone, they often provide helpful ideas and solutions that can be applied to other situations. Another form of secondary research comes from surveys and studies published by organizations that specialize in market research. For instance, the Digital News Report from the Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism, the Pew Research Center, Gallup Poll, and YouGovAmerica are just a few examples of organizations that are constantly conducting research about different groups of people and posting their findings. While this type of information is probably too general for most organizations to apply directly to their target audience, it does identify interesting ideas and trends that might be useful to explore using primary research.

As opposed to secondary research coordinated and published by others, primary research is conducted firsthand by an organization and is specific to its own target audience. As you might imagine, this type of research is the most effective in helping an organization connect with its constituents and understand the needs, desires, and challenges that are most relevant to its business offerings and communication strategies. The most common primary research include

• Metrics. One of the quickest ways to gauge audience sentiment is through digital metrics that paint a picture of users and their online experiences and decisions (Indeed Editorial Team). Some of the most common metrics include SEO (to determine the most common search terms and strategies that people use related to a particular concept), web traffic (to measure which pages are the most popular, which links people tend to click, how long people stay on a particular page, how many people “bounce” off a page that isn’t relevant to their needs, etc.), traffic from other channels (to see how many people came to a website from other means, such as social media posts, text messaging, or email messaging), and brand awareness (to see how many people like, follow, share, comment on, or repost an organization’s social media messaging). This is the type of analytics that many businesses conduct on a daily basis to gauge the effectiveness of their messaging and to make appropriate adjustments.
• Surveys. A survey is the most common form of audience research because it is a quick and cost-effective way to gather information directly from the target audience. Surveys also allow organizations to gather information from a larger segment of the target audience, which in turn provides more accurate results. Another advantage is that surveys can be designed with different types of questions—multiple choice, true/false, rating scale, matrix, and open-ended that allow respondents to use their own words to describe their experiences (SurveyMonkey). On the other hand, surveys require careful planning to ensure that they meet ethical standards, are easy to understand, motivate people to respond, and meet core research objectives (Mount Wachusett Community College). Another limitation of surveys is that it’s difficult to gather in-depth information about people’s attitudes and experiences. For instance, a survey response might indicate that more than half of the respondents aren’t interested in a particular product or service, but it doesn’t provide deeper information about why that is or what strategies might be more useful to engage their interest.
• Interviews. As opposed to surveys that allow organizations to collect a little bit of information (mostly quantitative) about a lot of people, interviews provide much more in-depth information about people’s experiences, thought processes, feelings, attitudes, and so on. Of course, it’s important to select people from the target audience and to carefully craft open-ended questions that will lead to deeper insights. Interviews are also more time consuming. This includes not only the interview itself, but the time it takes to identify interview candidates, schedule the interviews, transcribe the interview recordings, and analyze the data. However, interviews are often worth the trouble because they provide so much rich detail about a person and their way of thinking, seeing, and valuing (Virginia Polytechnic Institute University Libraries). Interviews can transform “interview subjects” from the target audience into flesh-and-blood people whom an organization can understand and empathize with.
• Focus groups. Finally, focus groups are a great way to quickly get information from different types of people in the target audience. Like interviews, focus groups are designed around open-ended questions that relate directly to an organization’s research goals, and they provide qualitative information and in-depth responses as well as the ability to follow up with more questions. However, the goal with a focus group is less about gaining rich detail about one person’s experience and more about understanding thought patterns and behavioral trends among a group. It’s therefore helpful to group people together based on traits that they have in common—gender, age, education level, and so on—and to have enough people present so that it’s possible to distinguish group patterns from individual quirks and anomalies.

Audience Personas

In addition to audience research, businesses often create audience personas that “flesh” out the perspectives and experiences of individuals in the target audience (Thorp). While the specific characteristics of a persona are fictionalized—including the person’s name, job title, family circumstances, hobbies, and so on—their core qualities are representative of real people in the target audience: their interests, values, challenges, demographics, and so on, all of which stems directly from the data collected from audience research. As noted above, surveys, interviews, and focus groups are all useful strategies for collecting information about the target audience, including their hobbies, professional goals, personalities, priorities, preferences, daily schedules, and pain points. All of this information is compiled and analyzed to identify audience patterns and insights, which are used to develop specific personas.

The purpose of these personas is to get the writer in touch with the target audience, to humanize their challenges and perspectives, and to craft messages that reach individual people on a deeper level. One of the key benefits of identifying the target audience is that it focuses on solving real problems. The idea isn’t to trick as many people as possible into buying a product or engaging in an activity. The target audience is the segment of the population who, based on their interests and challenges, would actually benefit from a particular product, service, or activity. The personas help businesses and other organizations empathize with the audience and communicate effectively about the solutions they offer so that the people who would benefit most have the opportunity to engage (Worthy).

An effective audience persona answers several questions that help organizations get to know their audience. While there are different ways to craft a persona, Growth Business identifies six categories that can be used to identify relevant information about the target audience:

1. Who are they? This might include things like a job title and other responsibilities as parents, homeowners, children of aging parents, and other activities in the community. This category can be used to identify a person’s daily schedule, their primary job responsibilities, and what they prioritize as they manage their time and make decisions throughout the day. Finally, you should use this category to identify demographic information about this person—age, race, socioeconomic status, gender, education level, and so on.
2. Where are they? This question can be taken several different ways. It might include where a person is geographically located. This is especially important for organizations that cater to people in specific locations. Understanding where a person lives and how a particular organization fits into that landscape can be extremely useful. This category could also include the online platforms where this person is most likely to receive information—social media platforms, websites, news sites, and so on. Based on a range of personal characteristics, people have different online habits. Identifying the digital spaces where someone in the target audience is likely to be is crucial to reaching them.
3. What are their goals? What does this person hope to accomplish, both personally and professionally? This might relate to career milestones, promotions, and activities. It might also include goals related to health, travel, relationships, parenting, lifestyle, and so on. Identify the primary things that motivate this person and how those goals propel their daily decisions and activities.
4. Why are they struggling? One key aspect of the target audience that most businesses seek to identify are the pain points that people in their target audience experience. These are the problems, frustrations, and desires that people experience that could be remedied by the product, service, or activity that a company has to offer (Shewan). These pain points are what motivate a person to seek some sort of solution, making it more likely that they will respond positively to a message that aligns with their needs. Specific information in this category might identify problems related to physical pain, financial limitations, inconveniences and time constraints, and emotional frustrations. Pain points might also relate to obstacles that prevent this person from meeting the key personal and professional goals.
5. How can you help? Once you’ve fleshed out a person’s goals and motivations as well as the pain points that they experience, you have the tools you need to catch their attention. The key is to think critically about how a particular product, service, or activity can help this person meet their goals or alleviate their pain points so that you can craft your message with a focus on these benefits.
6. When is the best time to reach this person? Remember the term “kairos” from chapter 7? Kairos is the most opportune time or circumstance for a message to reach a particular audience—when they are more likely to have the time and mental focus to pay attention to your message and respond positively. This category helps you think about when that might be. Based on this person’s daily schedule and priorities, when are the ideal times to communicate your message to this person? What channels might be most appropriate based on their preferences and expectations?

Creating audience personas can certainly be a lot of work. Often, an organization will create multiple personas to represent different types of people in their target audience, which are used to craft different types of messaging. However, given the fact that most people see somewhere between 4,000 and 10,000 ads each day (Simpson), the only way to break through the clutter is to understand where and how to craft messages that resonate with your target audience.

Buyer Journey

One final consideration related to the target audience is called the buyer journey, which is the mental process that a person goes through when they decide to engage with an organization and take action in some way—to buy a product or service or to take part in an activity (Sellers). Just because a product or service is available doesn’t mean that people will automatically buy it. Especially in the digital age where people research company websites and customer reviews, people are more discerning than ever about how they spend their time and money. The buyer journey prioritizes the customer’s perspective throughout this decision-making process, strategizing the various touchpoints that will engage their attention and provide the right information at the right time (Fontanella).

There are four stages in the buyer journey:

1. Awareness. In this stage, the buyer becomes aware of a challenge or desire that they want to address. This is the “pain point” that we discussed above, and it’s what prompts an individual to find relevant information that will help them define and solve the problem. This is obviously a crucial moment for an organization to make customers aware of the solutions they have to offer—through advertising, social media posts/shares, clear information on their website, customer reviews, and referrals from family and friends. The goal is for customers to not only know about a product or service but also begin to know and trust the organization, which makes it more likely that they will move to the next stage of the buyer journey.
2. Consideration. In this stage, customers have gathered the information they need to define the problem, they are committed to solving it in some way, and they are weighing the available options. Ideally, an organization’s messaging in this stage helps distinguish it from competitors, helping potential customers understand the benefits of their product, answering any questions, and clarifying the next steps a customer should take. Once again, clear information on the website with prominent CTAs (calls to action) is crucial. Other touchpoints might include email or text messaging, blog articles, promotional ads, live chat, brochures and promotional videos, and so on.
3. Decision. In this stage, a customer has decided on the method that they want to use to solve their problem, and they are evaluating which company they want to engage with. They might be looking for instructional resources, information about return policies, customer reviews, or opportunities to sample the product.
4. Repeat. Ideally, customers are satisfied with the product or service that they receive, and they are motivated to continue to engage with a particular company. They might even tell others about the positive experience they had and recommend the product or service to others. Touchpoints in this stage might include thank you messages, promotional ads and emails, social media posts that people can “like” and reshare, and blog articles that keep people engaged.

Digital Orchestration

Understanding the audience is crucial to effective communication, but it’s really only half of the challenge. Equally important is the message itself, which must not only reach the target audience but also catch their attention and compel them to take action. In fact, a lot of planning goes into an organization’s content strategy to craft messages that strengthen its brand, consistently engage people at different stages of the buyer journey, and work toward larger missional and financial goals. This planning is called digital orchestration, implying that messaging must be coordinated across multiple channels to catch people’s attention and direct their online path to a specific landing page where they are prompted to take action—to make a purchase, to provide contact information, to make a reservation, to give a donation, to create an account, and so on.

Websites

Typically, the foundation of an organization’s digital orchestration is its website. Most communication efforts across other channels, such as social media, email marketing, text messaging, and even print materials, are focused on driving traffic to the website, where people can get to know more about the organization and what it has to offer. This is where people will go first—before they make a purchase, visit a store, or engage with the sales team in some way. They want to know what the costs are, how a program or service works, and what the benefits might be. Most likely they have specific questions that they expect to be answered, and if they can’t quickly and easily find the information they are looking for, most people will bounce away from a website—usually within less than 30 seconds (Sims). However, if they do find what they are looking for and if they like what they see, they are more likely to stay and browse around, visiting different pages to see more about the background of a company, its mission, its community connections, and other types of products and services it offers—all things that help them move through the buyer journey as they get to know and trust the organization and take a step closer toward making a purchase. In other words, the goals of a website are multifaceted but also interconnected:

1. To attract visitors in the target audience. We’ll talk more about SEO in the next section of the textbook, but for now, suffice it to say that the type of content that a website has plays a key role in helping that website rank higher in the search engine results page (SERP)—the list of websites that appear when you search for something in Google. Web developers and content writers are very intentional about the language that they use, the information that they provide, and the way they label key elements of a web page, all of which make it more likely that people who are interested in their products and services will be able to find their website.
2. Give relevant information. Once an interested person finds the website, they should be able to quickly and easily find the information that they are looking for. Most of the strategies that go into creating an effective website focus on just this—a navigation map that makes sense, clear titles and headings, short blocks of text and bullet points that are easy to read, footers with contact information and social media links, hyperlinks that direct visitors to subpages with additional information. It’s all about providing a positive user experience that helps people find the information they need and that makes it easy for them to take the next step—to get a quote, volunteer for an activity, make a purchase, visit the store in person, and so on.
3. Develop the brand. Of course, the website is also key in helping an organization develop its brand—to help people know more about its personality and missional goals and to help distinguish it from competitors. That’s why websites aren’t just text with chunks of information. They prominently feature the organization’s logo and tagline; its mission statement; photos of the store, the friendly staff, and other customers enjoying their experience; any relevant certifications or credentials that demonstrate expertise; community partnerships and activities that might build emotional connections with the audience; an “About Us” page that focuses on personal stories; and so on. Even things that might seem more minor—the tone of the written content, color scheme, layout, and other design features of each page—are opportunities to make a positive impression on visitors and strengthen the brand.
4. Prompt action. The purpose of a website goes beyond giving information. The ultimate goal is to get people to respond in some way. While the ultimate goal might be to get potential customers to buy a product or service (or perhaps to participate in an activity or donate to a cause), often a website will build toward that goal with smaller calls to action (CTAs)—to request more information, to follow the organization on social media, to sign up for a newsletter, to sign up for an account or a free trial. Even blog articles on a web page that give focused information related to an organization’s niche will end with a call to action, prompting users to read other related articles or to contact a service representative for more information about a particular topic. These CTAs are always displayed prominently near the bottom of a web page, and they are a helpful way to guide people through the customer journey.
5. Collect information. An effective website also collects information about visitors and their online experiences, providing aggregate data about which links are the most popular, how long people stay on specific pages, how many new people visited the site in a given period of time, and so on. These metrics help marketing teams understand what type of information is effective in increasing traffic to the website and what types of adjustments need to be made. Many websites also collect information about individual users. Often they will prompt visitors to provide their contact information—maybe to receive the organization’s weekly newsletter or to be entered into a drawing. Other times, websites use cookies, which are “small text files” that are stored on a user’s computer so that they can be identified the next time they visit the site (Nguyen and McNally). These individual data are used to provide more targeted information to specific users and to make it possible for organizations to reach out to people—through text messages or email campaigns—to update them about the latest blog post or promotional opportunity.

Blogs

The goal of most organizations’ content strategy is to stay “top of mind” for people in their target audience. Of course, they want to reach potential customers who haven’t yet heard of or engaged with their organization, but they also want to maintain connections with existing customers. That’s what digital orchestration does. It continually develops messaging on a number of different platforms to drive people to the website again and again. Blogs (as well as other content like white papers and case studies) are a way of keeping information on a website “fresh” so an organization can advertise new content and increase traffic. While content on a website’s landing pages might not change very often, posting a new blog article every week or two with interesting and useful information will give people a reason to come back to the site. Ideally, these articles help the audience in some way, guiding decisions and processes, but they also help an organization develop credibility, strengthen customer relationships, and drive traffic to other parts of the website.

As you probably already know, not all blogs are created equal. The blogs that are most successful in engaging people’s interest and building a loyal audience have several key things in common:

• They relate to the person’s or organization’s niche. To really build credibility in a specific area, blogs should all relate to that area—demonstrating expert knowledge and providing unique information that adds value for readers. For instance, a plumber would focus their blog on plumbing-related topics—the best strategies to unclog a sink, affordable pipes that won’t erode, building codes and best practices to install plumbing, new product reviews, water heater maintenance. The list goes on, and as this person continually adds more blog articles and gains readers, the more likely those people are to hire or recommend this person for plumbing jobs. The key is to focus on useful content, not on self-promotion, which will quickly turn people away.
• They utilize keywords. Blogs are also optimized with meta descriptions and keywords so that they will rank higher when people search for that topic.
• They include relevant pictures, which make the article more visually appealing and can also aid in the reader’s understanding of the content.
• They have clear and engaging titles. The point of a blog title is to pique readers’ interest and let them know what they will learn from the article.
• They make content manageable. Subheadings, bullets, and short paragraphs all go a long way to making the content of a blog article manageable. If a reader sees a wall of text, they aren’t very likely to read or follow along with the article. “Chunking” the content into smaller pieces makes it easier to process (University of Edinburgh). You can also make content manageable with simpler sentence structure and clear language that avoids jargon.
• They provide hyperlinks. Linking to other credible sources that support your article content builds your own credibility. Be sure it’s a reputable news source or organization. Or it might be a study written by experts in a relevant field. Providing hyperlinks to supporting information shows that you’ve done your research, and it allows readers a path to get more information. Blogs might also have internal links that lead readers to other articles or landing pages on the same website.
• They have clear calls to action. Because blogs are largely marketing tools, they typically direct readers to take some sort of action at the very end of the article—to read more related articles, to contact a sales representative with questions about a specific product or service, or to visit the website’s home page for more information.

Social Media

Social media is a critical part of an organization’s digital orchestration. Like Mark Smith mentions in this Forbes article, establishing a social media presence helps organizations connect with people where they already are, allowing them to reach more people while also strengthening their brand. Smith also mentions the ways that organizations increasingly use social media for customer service and as a direct path for users to buy products and services. Monitoring the various social media channels while creating new and meaningful content can be incredibly time consuming, which is why many companies hire a social media coordinator.

Ideally, an organization’s social media content is planned out ahead of time. While they might post last-minute pictures of an event or responses to breaking news stories, most of the social media content is planned out on a social media calendar, usually put together a month in advance so that posts are consistent, engaging, and aligned with other communication efforts related to promotions events, or blog posts. To keep content fresh and interesting, a content writer might organize the calendar into different content buckets or categories, which helps to diversify content and build a company’s brand (Huie). These buckets might include information about upcoming events and promotions, educational posts about a topic that is relevant to an organization’s expertise (perhaps providing a teaser for the most recent blog post), human interest posts that help readers get to know the organization’s staff as well as the activities that relate directly to the organization’s mission, information about specific products and services, success stories, or customer testimonials and reviews. This type of content helps readers get to know and trust an organization in different ways. Also, since most social media posts will link back to the organization’s website, it’s a key strategy to increase audience engagement and ultimately increase sales.

A few strategies for successful social media posts include

• Posting to social media platforms where your audience is likely to be. It doesn’t make sense to post to every social media channel. There are way too many, and you’d risk posting to channels that won’t reach your target audience. For instance, some social media platforms are more popular than others (Dean). Similarly, people in different demographic populations use different platforms (Barnhart). For instance, female users are more likely to use Pinterest. Younger users are more likely to use Snapchat and TikTok.
• Post information that is appropriate to the platform. For instance, LinkedIn is focused on professional networking, so posts that are more personal or casual would seem out of place. Similarly, Instagram is typically used for high-resolution photos, while Pinterest is more about processes and how-to guides. Posting the right type of content on the right platform will help increase engagement (Accion Opportunity Fund).
• Keep it short. People won’t read long posts. Be concise and get to the point quickly while also using language that is friendly and engaging.
• Use hashtags to extend your reach. Hashtags allow your post to show up in related groups and discussions so that people outside of your established followers can see and engage with your content (O’Brien).
• Post engaging photos and videos that align with the text. This will help your post stand out and increase audience engagement.

Email Campaigns and Text Messaging

Like social media posts, email campaigns and targeted text messages are used to advertise promotionals and updated website content in hopes of increasing web traffic and sales. However, unlike social media posts, these messages are restricted to people who have opted in—often by checking a box (or failing to uncheck a box) during checkout that requests news and product updates or by filling out some sort of intake form with your name and contact information. You might recall that one of the secondary purposes of a website is to collect information about visitors. That information is used specifically to build mailing lists, often in a content management system, so that an organization can easily distribute updates such as newsletters, announcements, sales campaigns, or teasers about a new blog article (Kinsta). Once again, the primary goal of these messages is to engage people who have expressed an interest in this type of information and to compel them to visit the website for more information. Unfortunately, many companies use deceptive tactics to build their mailing lists—enrolling people who don’t wish to receive updates and filling their inboxes with spam. While this might grab some people’s attention, it’s more likely to get sent to a junk folder and to create a negative impression with people who end up getting annoyed by unwanted emails and texts.

Just like other forms of digital communication that work together to meet specific goals, there are some basic rules for text and email messages. We’ll look at more specific genre conventions for different types of messages in a later chapter, but for now, the main guidelines include the following:

• Keep it short and to the point.
• Use language that is friendly and engaging.
• Use pictures and other graphics to grab people’s attention.
• Use clear titles.
• Provide clear CTAs and relevant hyperlinks to guide the action that you want readers to take.

Digital orchestration is key to helping an organization create effective messages that strengthen its brand and that meet specific goals. While the specific content strategy is dependent on the mission of an organization and the brand they want to create, one thing that remains constant across all digital media communication is a focus on audience and the rhetorical strategies that will foster connections and compel action. While effective digital writers must pay attention to specific marketing trends and learn to use a variety of digital tools, these strategies build from a fundamental understanding of rhetoric—reaching the right audience at the right time with a message that compels action.

Below is an example of digital orchestration by the Department of Homeland Security. You’ll see a screenshot of the organization’s website home page along with screenshots from Facebook and Instagram, each with posts that provide links back to the website. Also included is a screenshot of the website’s footer, with icons that connect to all of the organization’s various social media accounts. Users also have the option there at the bottom to subscribe to the email list, in which they would receive emails about the latest updates. The emails would also link back to the relevant pages on the website.

Going Viral

Many people aspire to have their digital content go viral—to reach a large audience and gain notoriety from content that attracts more and more followers. But let’s consider the downside for a moment. Setting out with the ultimate purpose of going viral can actually weaken your brand because the focus is on popularity and views instead of things that are more important—authenticity, core mission, and deeper connections with the target audience. Lydia Sweatt for VidIQ says it like this:

It’s hard to satisfy your audience and create viral videos simultaneously. One requires you to understand a specific group of people’s likes, goals, and motivations. The other forces you to cast your net wider, so millions pay attention to your content.

But if you cater to millions, you cater to no one. You don’t get to connect with a real community, so there’s no shared interest to build off of. Plus, people can usually tell when you’re in it for the views. You won’t come across as genuine, inspiring, or relatable—qualities that put the “social” in social media.

In other words, it’s better to focus on your main objectives and high-quality messaging that will engage people in the target audience, and then if a social media post does go viral, it will be for the right reasons, and it will be more likely to further your brand in a positive way.

Many organizations (and individuals) are increasingly using social media instead of traditional marketing and advertising, so finding strategies to reach a large audience is important. According to Steve Olenski writing for Forbes, going viral to “boost your brand presence and attract new customers quickly” isn’t effortless, there are strategies that can increase your chances of success. Not surprisingly, the strategies listed in his article relate directly to rhetoric:

• Create quality content that the audience will find engaging and meaningful.
• Know your audience, which should inform your content strategy and increase your chances of them liking and sharing your posts.
• Leverage the existing popularity of influencers and popular social media accounts. Because they’ve already developed a following, people are more likely to view content that they share or repost.
• Make personal connections with audiences through the stories you share. They should be “relatable” and authentic.
• Be concise.
• Engage users with interactive content that allows them to participate.

While going viral might in some ways be happenstance—snapping the right video or getting the right person to repost your content—effective messaging still boils down to an understanding of audience and the types of content that will capture their attention. The next chapter on multimodality provides more ideas on how to integrate design elements into a message to enhance meaning and audience engagement.

Fortunately, the internet evolved rapidly to provide the capabilities for web pages to be thoughtfully designed, pulling together a variety of visual and even auditory elements that engage visitors and help them quickly and easily find the information that they need. In fact, digital communication is increasingly complex if you consider the types of “texts” that can be produced using video editing software, animation tools, live stream capabilities, and web applications that make it easy to incorporate a variety of media on a single web page without requiring HTML expertise. Understanding how to effectively combine these design elements to enhance the meaning of a message is not simply a nice skill to have; it’s crucial to effective digital communication. In fact, composition courses are increasingly expanding instruction to go beyond text-based writing and include multimodal writing strategies that integrate visual and aural elements as well. This further develops literacy skills across multiple platforms and allows the writer to think more deeply and creatively about how to best convey information to the intended audience.

This chapter focuses on multimodality and the effects of layering different modes together in a single message. The term multimodality literally means more than one “mode” or method to communicate meaning (University of Illinois Springfield). A message often has words, for instance, and that is one mode. However, a written message will also include things like font choice, font size, font color, and other formatting effects, such as bold or italic font. These are also methods of communicating, and they have a significant effect on the way that someone reads and interprets the meaning of the words, which is why it’s so important to consider your communication goals and how different modes—beyond word choice—can influence your effectiveness. In this chapter, we’ll study the different modes that make up multimodality—linguistic, visual, gestural, spatial, and aural. We’ll also talk about a range of tools within each mode as well as strategies for making a message cohesive, engaging, and easy for readers to understand.

Understanding the Different Modes

The point of multimodality is to combine elements that will enhance the effectiveness of a message with the intended audience, which means that you have to be thoughtful about the way that you put a message together. That’s one important reason that this textbook includes a unit on rhetorical literacy in addition to practical literacy. Knowing how (the practical aspect of digital writing) is a different, more surface-level skill than knowing why or to what effect (the rhetorical aspect). For instance, most people know how to make text bold, create a bar graph, paste an image into a document, or even embed a video. Certainly, there are a wide range of platforms available that require a great deal of training and experimentation to understand how to do something specific. For instance, learning how to use iMovie or WordPress or Moovly and understanding the range of tools available would take some time and probably some additional instruction. However, just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should. (This is why we focus so heavily on critical and rhetorical literacy before diving into the functional aspect—to provide a framework that will guide your decisions.) There are hundreds of websites out there that do a terrible job of combining imagery and text and color—often trying to emphasize too many things with the end result that nothing stands out. Visitors are quickly overwhelmed or frustrated because it’s difficult to find the information that they are looking for. On the other hand, websites and other types of messaging that fail to utilize various tools, focusing instead on large blocks of text, also fail to engage readers’ attention or compel action. In other words, it’s crucial to think about multimodality from an audience’s perspective, combining elements in such a way as to capture readers’ attention, help them understand key ideas, build a sense of trust and connectedness, and elicit a response that is consistent with your underlying communication goals.

Obviously, these objectives are more easily said than done. As we’ve already discussed, in a digital era full of clickbait and pop-up advertising, it can be difficult just to capture a reader’s attention, let alone to facilitate the deeper engagement required to read the entire message and respond to the call to action. However, being creative and intentional about how various modes are combined in a single message will significantly increase your chances of success. This section discusses all five modes, providing examples of each one and a deeper discussion of how it might be used effectively. Of course, each message provides an opportunity to be creative—to combine elements in different ways. There isn’t one “right” way, but there are certainly some strategies that go against best practices. We’ll talk about those as well.

Linguistic

Let’s start with the most obvious mode of communication—written and spoken words. In chapter 8, we discussed the symbolic nature of words. They represent objects as well as more complex ideas, concepts, and processes. In our daily communication, these words are our primary tools to express our meaning to others—in conversation, in text messages, in emails, in letters, in blog posts, and so on. Within this category, there are several elements that can either clarify meaning or, if not done well, can create confusion (Fillmore):

• Word choice. As the Writing Center at the University of North Carolina Chapel Hill points out, “Writing is a series of choices.” Different words carry different connotations. For instance, calling someone “stubborn” has a more negative meaning, implying that the person is hard-headed and not easy to get along with. On the other hand, if you called that person “tenacious,” suddenly those same qualities have a more positive connotation, implying determination and self-confidence. Additionally, in some cases, words and phrases can come across as vague to your audience so that they don’t have the same depth of meaning as they might have with more precise wording. As a simple example, if you send a friend to the store with a shopping list with the word “vegetables” on it, who knows what you might get. That word can mean a lot of things. But if you write “carrots” or, more specifically, “baby carrots,” you’re much more likely to get the item you want because the wording is much more precise. You’d also be sure in specific situations to select vocabulary that matches your audience’s understanding. Using big words and jargon that others might not understand or using vocabulary that is too simplistic or immature for a given audience can hinder communication as well as the ethos of the speaker. Word choice is significant in the way that others interpret meaning.
• Grammar. Grammar dictates the way that words are structured within sentences to create complete thoughts. We can’t put words in just any order, especially when it comes to more complex ideas and sentences. Following grammatical rules allows others to process information more easily, focusing more on the content of a message instead of the structure. Certainly, there are grammar rules that are more common and important than others. Subject-verb agreement and complete sentences are examples of grammar rules that help another person understand the meaning of a message. However, the rule that says you shouldn’t end a sentence with a preposition isn’t usually that important, especially in more informal contexts. Audience members will still understand the meaning and probably not think twice about the preposition. In other words, using effective grammar is contextual, depending on the audience, the occasion, and the method of communication. While verbal communication might naturally flow with starts and stops and incomplete sentences, some forms of written communication (especially emails or longer articles) tend to stick to the grammar rules. However, more informal messaging, such as text messaging or social media posts, breaks grammar rules intentionally to engage readers or communicate a specific tone. The same can be said of punctuation. While correct punctuation can be very effective and important in clarifying the meaning of written communication, occasionally rules are broken on purpose to enhance meaning. Importantly, though digital writing has expanded to include hashtags, emojis, and “texty” language, correct grammar still matters (Banner).
• Sentence structure. Sentence structure does relate to grammar and many of the considerations mentioned above. It’s separated here because different types of sentences exist that are grammatically correct but that come across differently to audiences. You might already know that a lot of short, simple sentences create messages that seem choppy and disjointed, whereas long, complex sentences can be difficult to follow, especially when there are several strung together. Once again, the “right” sentence structure is somewhat contextual. For younger audiences or for topics that are more complex or unfamiliar, it might be better to use shorter sentences (or even bulleted lists) to make it easier to understand. When you’re writing a formal paper or communicating casually about general topics, it’s more common to use a variety of sentence structures—both simple and complex—to create fluidity.
• Organization of sentences and paragraphs. Especially for longer messages, such as essays, articles, and speeches, the organization of information requires careful consideration so that one idea builds on the next in a way that is logical and easy for audiences to follow. For instance, the reason that academic essays have a thesis statement and topic sentences is that it makes the essay more cohesive and easier for readers to follow. They are given the main point in the thesis, and (hopefully) each topic sentence relates directly to that main idea. Similarly, blog articles might not have a formal “thesis,” but they do still have an introduction and a sentence or two that gives the main idea, often called a nut graph (Bethune). They also have paragraphs, often grouped together under various headings that expand on that one main idea. Even in shorter or more informal communication, organization is key. An email, for instance, wouldn’t start out with a list of bullet points. Readers would be confused right away. Instead, it would begin with a short introduction clarifying the subject of the email and contextualizing the purpose of the bulleted list.

While the linguistic mode is an important—often the most important—tool for communicating meaning, it doesn’t stand alone. Other modes of communication are used alongside the linguistic mode to enhance meaning. What’s more, the linguistic mode isn’t always the most important. Consider, for example, the climactic scene of a movie. Would you understand that scene more fully—and be more emotionally connected—if someone else described that scene to you or if you watched it for yourself? Or maybe think about a class lecture that will last for a full hour. Would you find it easy to pay attention and follow along with the topic if the instructor spoke in a monotone voice the whole time? Probably not. The tone and inflection in their voice paired with appropriate pauses, gestures, facial expressions, and maybe even a few visual aids with text and images would make that same lecture much more engaging and easy to understand. In the next few sections, we turn to other modes that go beyond linguistics to communicate meaning.

Visual

Another important communication method relates to the visual mode—the things that people see that help them interpret the meaning of a message. This can refer to simple visual cues as well as more complex images and videos. As mentioned above, these visual cues can greatly enhance a message to make it more engaging and readable. Here are some examples:

• Font. Beyond the meaning of the words in a written message, there are always visual elements to be interpreted. For instance, there is always a font choice, even if it’s a very basic font like Arial or Times New Roman, it’s a visual element that coincides with the linguistic mode, and it might suggest a message that is more academic or serious. There are countless font choices, and each one carries a certain “personality” that may or may not be appropriate for a given message. For instance, a script font like Edwardian is more formal and sophisticated, and it would be very appropriate for a wedding invitation. It wouldn’t be as appropriate for an academic essay or the banner at a kid’s birthday party. Something playful and fun like Curlz might be better suited for a birthday party, but it would send the wrong message on a funeral bulletin or a political ad. In addition to font choice, there are other font strategies that you might use to emphasize parts of a message: larger font, bold, italics, underlined words. These visual font elements demonstrate the importance of certain words or ideas when used appropriately. Similarly, larger bold font can be used for headings in a blog post or essay to help readers follow the larger structure of a text and easily find main ideas.
• Formatting. Another subtle visual cue relates to the formatting of a message. The simple act of breaking up a large block of text into separate paragraphs—with a space between text blocks and/or a tab at the beginning of a new idea—is extremely helpful in making a text more readable and easier to follow. Formatting also refers to things like line spacing (i.e., leading), alignment, the horizontal spacing between letters (i.e., kerning), line breaks, inset text, and hanging indents. These are pretty basic formatting cues that we tend to take for granted because they seem so obvious, but when they are ignored, a message becomes much harder to read. An article that is right aligned, for instance, is harder to read and would likely frustrate readers. On the other hand, when you are intentional in your choices—even formatting choices that go against standard conventions—it can grab readers’ attention and complement a message. An ad with right-aligned text, for instance, might be very helpful in balancing the elements on a page or in creating a sense of unbalance or tension with the audience.
• Color. Not only are colors effective in catching people’s attention and enhancing the aesthetic of a message, but they are often used in symbolic ways to evoke certain emotions or moods (Incredible Art Department). Black and white or sepia, for instance, are sometimes used to evoke a sense of nostalgia or timelessness. Bright, vibrant colors can imply energy and positivity. What’s more, color can be used strategically to draw the audience’s attention to a particular text or part of an image. In Schindler’s List, for instance, the film is in black and white except for the red coat that one of the Jewish girls is wearing, which forces audiences to pay attention to that one object and consider the significance. In a similar way, color can be used in text-based documents to draw readers’ attention to headings or titles. Similarly, readers generally know that blue, underlined text contains a hyperlink that they can click on for more information. Finally, colors are also strategically used by organizations as a branding tool. They select a color palette that corresponds with their logo, and then they integrate those colors into their website and other marketing materials as a subtle way to reinforce their image.
• Images. Pictures and other graphics can significantly enhance a message. If a friend tells you about a trip that they took to the Grand Canyon, you’d probably understand their story based on the descriptions that they use, but it would be much easier and more effective to show you pictures from the trip so that you can see the rocks and canyons for yourself. Similarly, instruction manuals often come with pictures of the various parts so that you can better visualize how the pieces go together. Once more, the use of imagery in a message has several purposes. It helps audiences understand a particular scene or idea or process, but it also engages their attention and can be effective in evoking an emotional response. A good example is the SPCA (Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals) commercial with Sarah McLachlan. It blends several modes together, including sound (the song), text on the screen, and imagery to evoke feelings of sympathy and compassion in the audience. All of these elements work together to meet that purpose, but an important element in that commercial is the imagery—the pictures of animals in cages, some of them who have clearly been abused—that evokes the strongest reaction. This pathos appeal using imagery isn’t always about sympathy. An amusement park will use photos of people having fun on rides. A hotel will feature photos of clean, luxurious rooms and swimming pools. The purpose is to create a sense of desire in the viewer, who feels compelled to participate.
• Videos and GIFs. Like still photos, videos, GIFs, and animations have a variety of purposes. They can be extremely helpful in conveying information. How many times have you gone to YouTube to find a video that provides a step-by-step demonstration of how to do something? Particularly when paired with verbal descriptions and instructions, a video provides richer details of an event or a process. Consider, for instance, football games on television that provide instant replays, zooming in on particular areas and using slow motion to carefully examine the details of a play. That video, along with the commentators’ discussion and telestration capabilities, helps viewers understand exactly what happened. Also like still photos, videos are extremely effective in engaging an audience. Consider how popular YouTube and TikTok videos are in capturing viewers’ attention. They also can be used to create emotional connections—perhaps even more so than still photos—because they depict detailed scenes and allow viewers to hear people’s voices and other sounds, providing the sense that they are right there in the moment (Slice).
• Charts and graphs. In many instances, a bar graph, pie chart, or some sort of illustration can go a long way to clarify an idea or process. Particularly when it comes to numerical data, a graph or chart with colored lines is much easier for viewers to process than verbal or written text filled with a string of numbers. The same is true of tables, flow charts, figures, and illustrations. Audiences are much more likely to make sense of data when they are organized in a visual format like this.

Gestural

Like the name implies, the gestural mode allows meaning to be interpreted based on the speaker’s gestures—body movements and facial expressions. This is an aspect of communication that is missing in written text and phone conversations. You don’t get to see the physical gestures of the person speaking, which give you a much clearer sense of that person’s attitude toward the subject as well as their implied meaning. In many instances, the gestures and facial expressions are crucial in helping you understand the meaning of a message. Consider, for instance, sign language, in which the entirety of a person’s message is encoded using physical signs. Similarly, the game of charades is based on our ability to communicate through body language and signals. In other instances, physical cues might not embody the entire message, but they can help you interpret another person’s mood and even gauge how your own message might (or might not) resonate with them. This mode might include the following:

• Hand gestures. Simple cues like pointing a person in the right direction or giving a thumbs-up to let someone know that you are OK can go a long way in communicating information. Scuba divers, for instance, have a series of hand gestures that they use to communicate with each other underwater. In that case, the thumbs-up signal means that the person needs to go to the surface, whereas a flat hand across the throat signifies that the person is out of air—an incredibly important message that they would need their partner to understand. Hand gestures are also used in sign language to communicate a variety of ideas. In fact, just like written language, sign language has its own grammar, and it can vary significantly from one region to the next (National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders).
• Facial expressions. Another important gestural cue—whether in an online conversation, in a video, or in person—is facial expression. Sometimes a person’s face says it all in terms of their attitude or mood. It can communicate information to others. A wink, for instance, might signal that a comment should be taken as a joke. A raised eyebrow might indicate surprise or suspicion. At the same time, it’s probably important to keep in mind that facial expressions can be—and often are—misread (Cimons). Someone’s frown might be misunderstood for anger or sadness when they are really just daydreaming or concentrating. Another thing to consider is the effect that facial expressions can have on other people, often evoking similar emotions and facial expressions in the audience (Dimberg et al.).
• Body language. Body language can also be a form of communication. Your posture, stance, proximity to other people, and other body movements are all signals to other people about your attitude, feelings, and reactions. Think about the perspective of a teacher, standing in front of a classroom full of students. Maybe there are several students right up front, taking notes, raising their hands with questions, nodding along to the lesson. These are clear signals about the students’ attitudes toward the teacher and the class. So too are the signals of students who are sitting at the very back of the classroom, arms folded across their chests, eyes fixed on their phones. This distinction might not seem important, but consider how much easier it is to communicate openly with someone who seems to be receptive to your message and has a positive attitude toward you versus someone who doesn’t. In many instances, your body language will be the first thing that makes an impression on other people, and it can go a long way to build your image in a positive way—or not.

Spatial

The fourth mode is spatial, related to the spacing and overall layout of a document and the connections this implies to readers. Even the most basic black text on a white document has an arrangement that influences the order in which readers take in information, and as other elements are placed on the page, that placement determines the way that readers understand the message. The primary elements included in the spatial mode are the following:

• Arrangement. In some instances, the arrangement of elements on a page might be obvious. The title of a document should go at the top. Different sections or chapters in a longer document are usually separated by space to show the separation. In other instances, it might not be so clear, especially as more elements are added. When pictures or charts accompany the text, for instance, what’s the most appropriate placement so that the visual elements effectively complement the text? What about a large web page that includes several different sections of text, photos, banner graphics, social media icons, and maybe even a video or two? The choices that you make to arrange these items on the page can aid in the viewers’ ability to easily find and process information, or it can make it much more difficult. Of course, there are several design options to choose from (Babich), depending on the purpose of the website and the types of elements that you have to work with. Further, many websites are “responsive,” meaning that the layout shifts for mobile users so that the information is still easy to read on a smaller screen.
• Proximity. In addition to the arrangements of objects and design elements on a page, proximity also influences the way that readers interpret a message. It’s probably obvious that elements that go together should be close to each other. A caption that goes along with a photo, for instance, is usually directly underneath that photo. Similarly, groups of similar things tend to be grouped together. For example, items in a list, perhaps across the top of a website as a navigation menu or in bullets within the text, will likely be close together to signify that they go together. In contrast, additional white space can be used to separate items that don’t go together, to signify a transition or distinction.
• Contrast. Using contrasting elements can be an extremely effective way of drawing a viewer’s attention to a particular focal point, perhaps through opposing colors, sizes, shapes, textures, or even white space. While this might seem like a simple task, knowing how and when to create contrast can be tricky. The main idea is to use contrast effectively to set elements apart or to highlight key takeaways while still maintaining an overall aesthetic that is pleasing to the eye and consistent (see repetition below).
• Repetition. Repetition refers to the use of the same element over and over in a composition. For instance, most designs have a specific color palette, often using two to five colors that work well together and can be used in certain instances to create contrast. However, the composition sticks to these basic colors to create a sense of uniformity. If too many colors are used, then it creates a sense of chaos, and nothing is emphasized effectively. The same principle applies to other elements like shapes and textures. Importantly, this type of repetition is often seen across a family of publications by the same organization, which helps to establish branding and familiarity with the audience.

Aural

The final mode is aural, referring to the many different sounds that can bring meaning to a message. We’ll talk in the next section about the fact that all messages are multimodal, including verbal messages. There are the actual words (linguistic) and then a range of other aural cues that allow the audience to interpret the meaning of the words more fully:

• Volume. For one thing, the volume with which someone speaks can significantly impact the way the message is interpreted. A louder volume implies a sense of urgency and importance, suggesting that the words demand your immediate attention. Similarly, if someone is yelling, it’s obvious that they are excited in some way, perhaps angry, scared, or happy. On the other hand, someone speaking in a low whisper might be sharing something personal or secretive, which might also influence the way that you react to the information.
• Tone. A person’s tone is also important. Most of us are familiar with sarcasm, in which a person really means the opposite of what they say. If someone says, “Well, that’s fantastic” in a sarcastic tone, you know that they aren’t really very happy. In the same way, a person’s tone of voice can tell you a lot about their attitude toward the information—if they are joking, excited, somber, or serious.
• Pitch. As the pitch of our voice goes up and down, certain ideas within our sentences are emphasized in a way that gives meaning to our words. According to the University of Minnesota Libraries Publishing, “Pitch refers to how high or low a speaker’s voice is.…Each person has the capability to intentionally change their pitch across a range large enough to engage an audience.” The chapter goes on to discuss the ways pitch can be used to emphasize certain ideas, communicate emotion, or signal to the audience that a transition is coming.
• Rhythm. In poetry and in music, rhythm is the speed at which a speaker moves through the text, and as you probably know, it can be extremely effective in engaging an audience, who find themselves moving to the beat. It’s the pattern of stressed and unstressed syllables that creates rhythm. A faster rhythm is more energetic and tends to be happier, whereas a slower rhythm is often more sad, soothing, or sentimental. Not only can rhythm evoke an emotional response in an audience, but it can also be used to emphasize certain words and ideas, especially when the pattern is disrupted.
• Music. Have you noticed that the climactic scene of most movies has a song playing in the background? It might be an upbeat song as the good guy triumphs over evil, or it might be a slower, crescendoing song that matches the intensity of feeling as two lovers reunite. Similarly, the SPCA commercial with Sarah McLachlan is so emotionally moving partly because of the song “Angel” that plays while pictures of dogs and cats are displayed, which reinforces the feelings of sadness a viewer feels and further compels them to take action. You probably already know that music can have a significant effect on a person’s mood and emotional reactions (Heshmat). Upbeat music can energize and spark a more positive mood while a slower song can spark feelings of sadness or nostalgia. That’s why pairing an appropriate song to fit an occasion or the underlying purpose of a message can have such a powerful effect.
• Sound effects. Many digital tools used for editing videos or even putting together a slideshow come with standard sound effects and allow you to upload others that you created on your own or purchased somewhere else. While some sound effects might be a bit hokey (think of the “bing,” “bang,” “pow,” “boing” that a lot of kids’ cartoons include to draw a laugh), they can also be used in other ways to intensify a scene and sway the emotional reaction of the audience. A simple example are the laugh tracks that used to accompany popular sitcoms, signaling to viewers that a scene was meant to be funny and compelling them to join in. Movies and plays also use sound effects—train whistles, footsteps, door slams, gunshots—to add clarity to a scene and further engage the audience into the plot.
• Pauses. Sometimes just as powerful as the words and sound effects are the pauses in dialogue and other sounds. Consider the long silence that might follow the sound of a gunshot and all of the thoughts and emotions that might occur during that pause. Strategic pauses can also be used during a conversation or a speech to engage attention. A pause automatically builds suspense as the audience waits to see what the speaker might say or do next.

The Power of Multimodality

All messaging is inherently multimodal, requiring audiences to pay attention to multiple features in order to gain a clear understanding of the speaker’s intention. For example, text-based messages include not only the linguistic mode but also visual elements related to font, color, and formatting. Similarly, verbal messages (over the phone, for instance) also include the linguistic mode along with aural elements, such as volume, pitch, tone, and meaningful pauses. Even a simple wave from a friend accompanies other visual elements like the speed of the gesture and the context of their surroundings. In other words, the categories provided above can be a helpful framework, but it’s also a bit deceiving, as a single message will automatically span across different modes, bringing with it a variety of subtle nuances. It’s also important to point out that multimodality isn’t limited to the digital realm, which is a common misconception. Hopefully it’s clear by now that in-person conversations as well as printed materials are also multimodal.

Given the importance of multimodal communication, it’s no wonder that most people prefer to have important conversations in person. With a range of linguistic, audiovisual, and gestural cues, it becomes easier and quicker for an audience to interpret the meaning of a message more fully because there are more cues present (Drijvers and Holler). It’s also easier for a conversation to flow more naturally because visual and gestural cues help signal when one person’s turn is over and another person’s begins. Certainly, there are digital tools that make it possible to have synchronous conversations with other people using a range of audiovisual cues. Zoom and Google Meet, for instance, simulate face-to-face conversions so that we get a better sense of the communicator’s meaning through facial expressions and gestures. Screen sharing features make it possible to show pictures, text, and videos while on a video call, which further expands the range of modes available. However, there are still some significant limitations to video conferencing, including the fact that participants aren’t in a shared space, they can’t fully see each other, and there are often problems with sound or video quality that can significantly interfere with the conversation (Karl et al.). The minor lag that occurs in video conferencing makes it more difficult to read the other person’s signals, which disrupts the normal flow of a conversation. What’s more, following the COVID-19 pandemic, many people complained of Zoom fatigue, related to the fact that their facial expressions seemed to be under constant focus, and they have to rely more on exaggerated gestures to get their meaning across (Drijvers and Holler).

However, while all messages automatically rely on a range of modes to create meaning, the benefit of understanding multimodality is that you can be intentional about the ways that you combine modes to engage audiences, clarify meaning, and compel action. This is particularly true given the range of digital tools that allow you to quickly and easily edit a video, create voice overs, and add music or snippets of text to a video or animation. More than ever before, professional tools are available to the masses to plan, create, edit, and disseminate multimodal messages, but what sets apart an effective message from one that gets “swiped” could be the way that multimodal elements are layered to create one coherent message that works toward a clear purpose.

Multimodality as a Rhetorical Tool

The best way to think about multimodality is with a focus on rhetoric—the intended audience for a particular message and the underlying purpose(s) of that message. What is it that you hope an audience will do or think as a result of your message? What tools are available in a given situation—whether in person or online—and which ones would be most effective in enhancing your message or might be a distraction or deterrence? As you’ve probably already figured out, combining modes into a single, coherent message requires quite a bit of strategy, focusing on the audience’s expectations and predicting their questions and reactions. Layering as many modes on top of one another as possible isn’t a strategy. It would overwhelm an audience and make it difficult for them to attend to all of the different signals available. Pflaeging and Stöckl call this “multimodal rhetoric,” defined as “functions and structures realized by and constructed in the strategic conjunction of several semiotic modes, which ultimately carry rhetorical action.”

While there aren’t any set rules on how to combine multimodal elements to create an effective message, there are some important rhetorical considerations:

• Who is the audience? What type of modes will be most effective in engaging their attention and helping them understand the message? It’s also important to consider what particular element will be most effective. For instance, you might decide that a photo is appropriate for this audience, but not just any photo will engage their interest and persuade them to act. Considering the target audience and your message, you’d have to determine what type of picture will resonate with their experiences, values, and perspectives.
• What are the genre conventions? Each genre has its own set of standards that align with the audience’s expectations. A TikTok viewer, for instance, is expecting a short video while someone on Instagram is likely to expect vivid and interesting photos.
• What modes align most with your goals? For more complex content that might be harder for an audience to understand, pairing spoken words with bulleted text, charts, and other images can help them understand the information. If the main goal is persuasion, think about the types of content—whether it’s a well-developed argument or a photo or a bar graph (or maybe all three)—that will be the most compelling.
• How can you leverage various modes to invoke different appeals? Do you remember the different rhetorical appeals of logos, ethos, and pathos? As you integrate different types of content using various modes, you can strengthen the persuasive effect of your message in powerful ways. Depending on the content, the genre, and the audience, one type of appeal might be more appropriate than another. What’s more, different modes work better with certain types of appeals. For instance, written and spoken words often work well with logos appeals while images and music are often more effective as pathos appeals.
• Which modes are readily available on the platform you are using? Sometimes the affordances and constraints of a particular application will dictate some of the choices you will make.
• What type of resources do you have available? Do you have high-resolution photos or quality footage that would be effective? Do you have the means to obtain or create these media? Obviously, you can only work with what you have, and it’s always better to use high-quality, original materials than stock photos or something low-quality.

The main idea is to think creatively and about how different modes might be combined to convey a message, to persuade your target audience, and to compel action. Truly effective digital communication utilizes a variety of communication tools, requiring a deeper understanding of the rhetorical situation and the most appropriate means of persuasion.

One of the most important, yet difficult, aspects of a good story is characterization, referring to the level to which a character’s personality, motivations, feelings, and perspectives are revealed. A well-developed character creates an emotional connection with the reader, who begins to empathize with the character’s struggle and invests time and emotional energy into their story. Even the villain of an engaging story can be developed in such a way that the audience begins to understand and even sympathize with their situation. They become more than the greed, arrogance, or cruelty that might have characterized them at first. On the other hand, a flat character can ruin a story because they don’t come across as genuine. Instead of fleshing out that character’s complex experiences, emotions, and motives, the story focuses on a singular aspect of the character, leaving the audience with very little understanding or concern about what happens to them.

Unfortunately, the digital realm has a terrible way of flattening people so that all we focus on is a singular aspect of their identity, whether it’s their political affiliation or their stance on a particular issue. Alongside political tensions that have increased significantly since the pandemic, ranging from mask mandates to vaccines to race relations to sexual identity, some people are very quick to attack anyone who opposes their viewpoint, condemning them for being selfish, greedy, racist, overly sensitive, or intentionally divisive (Jørgensen et al.). This is especially true in online spaces where tensions quickly escalate with a series of posts designed to cut the other side down. Seldom do people listen to try to understand the full complexity of another person’s perspective—the experiences, emotions, and motives that inform their position on a topic. Rarely do people consider the larger ideologies, assumptions, and social contexts that inform their own position. We tend to assume that we are in the “right,” and that the other person, through their own ignorance and immorality, is clearly wrong.

Many people argue that our democracy has lost its ability to discuss important issues in a rational and productive way. Henry Giroux argues that as digital media emerged with an emphasis on target marketing, individualism, and algorithms that insulate users into an echo chamber of similar views, we’ve lost our focus on public values and relationships necessary for a healthy democracy. He says, “Instead of public spheres that promote dialogue, debate, and arguments with supporting evidence, we have entertainment spheres that infantilize almost everything they touch, while offering opinions that utterly disregard reason, truth, and civility” (10). Similarly, James Klumpp and Thomas Hollihan point to our “current moment” as an especially critical time to refocus on “democratic values” and the intellectual practice of analyzing public discourse to understand the rhetorical strategies and ideologies that influence our moral development and our behaviors. In fact, more than 30 years ago (1989), Klumpp and Hollihan wrote their landmark essay “Rhetorical Criticism as Moral Action,” arguing that rhetorical critics must look beyond the persuasiveness of a message; they must also interrogate the moral implications—the effect that a message has on the experiences and opportunities of real people. In their 2020 follow-up to that article titled “Rhetorical Criticism and Moral Action Revisited,” Hollihan and Klumpp reiterate the importance of their original argument in the context of increasing political turmoil:

The current moment prompts us to pause to evaluate how well academic critics are honoring democratic values and promoting a democratic culture. Democratic values, particularly comity and broad participation, have been under assault for the past several years in the United States and many of the same threats are undermining democracies around the world. Among the central values requiring attention and defense in our democracy are, in fact, values which shape our rhetorical interactions with our fellow citizens. The moral and rhetorical imperatives we pointed to 30 years ago have merged in ways beyond a theory of criticism; today’s moral crisis fully implicates the rhetorical. (334)

This chapter endeavors to make explicit connections between public discourse, rhetorical strategies of persuasion, and ideologies that demonstrate our values and inform our actions. It emphasizes both critical and rhetorical literacy. In fact, language and ideology are deeply intertwined, constantly revealing our values, our beliefs about what is “true,” and the way that we define ourselves in relation to other people (Berlin). Understanding this connection and doing the intellectual work of analyzing the rhetorical strategies and ideologies embedded in public discourse equips us to be more discerning about the information that we like, share, repost, hyperlink, and ultimately accept as fact. It puts us on the defensive against misinformation and disinformation as well as the underlying motives to manipulate our emotions and destroy our sense of reality. It allows us to examine our own messaging and the ideologies that are embedded therein. And it creates a habit of careful analysis and reasoned engagement that helps us move toward “vibrant public spheres and a political culture that invites deliberation, discussion, debate, and dissent” (Hollihan and Klumpp, “Rhetorical Criticism and Moral Action Revisited” 335).

Rhetoric and Ideology

In order to make the connections between rhetoric and ideology, some review might be in order. Remember that rhetoric is about effective communication, and often our communication goals center on persuasion—compelling the audience to react in a certain way. It’s about prompting specific thoughts and behaviors. However, not all persuasion is explicit. There isn’t always a call to action at the end of a message. Not all persuasion centers around a central claim in which the speaker outlines clear and specific reasons. When we think about the ways that ideologies are embedded in our language, the focus tends to be on the subtle nuances and the beliefs that are implied. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary defines ideology as “a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture.” These are the foundational beliefs we have about the world—what we hold to be “true” or “right” or “normal.” These beliefs are implied in our communication with others, and often we assume that others do or should share the same beliefs. We tacitly, perhaps even unconsciously, impel the audience to adopt these same beliefs.

For instance, a couple that has been dating for a while will often have different family members and friends ask, “When are you two getting married?” It’s a simple question that isn’t an explicit argument, but it does imply that the couple should be thinking about getting married. There are also some assumptions embedded in this question—that marriage is a good thing, that finding a partner and getting married should be a priority. Culturally, there are also a lot of assumptions built into what “marriage” means—that it’s typically between man and a woman, that most married couples have children, that married couples eventually buy a home and conform to established gender roles. Of course, not all romantic relationships are this way, particularly in the last few decades as ideologies have begun to shift, but couples who resist the more conventional system of marriage are still met with questions and well-meaning concern because their relationship doesn’t conform to what seems “normal.”

You can probably see how different ideologies can create discord. The current political landscape, with so much tension and debate surrounding numerous issues, has a lot of people worn out. They’re tired of rehashing the same arguments about the same issues and confronting the emotional tensions that coincide with such conversations. They might say things like “I don’t want to discuss anything political” or “Why does everything have to be so political?” These statements signal their fatigue over the underlying political agendas (and ideologies) and our tendency to reduce complex problems to a matter of Republican versus Democrat. However, on a much deeper level, everything is political, not in the sense of right versus left but in the sense of demonstrating our beliefs, values, interests, and identities, which connect us to certain groups of people. In his book Politics for Social Workers, Stephen Pimpare devotes an entire chapter to the reality that “everything is political.” He says,

Politics is the way that we make people aware of problems, introduce ideas into the public sphere, create frameworks for thinking about issues and their relative importance, structure debates about policy, frame defenses of justice and fairness and equity, and build consensus for change. (49)

Pimpare goes on to explain that politics has a fundamental effect on the quality of our lives and our communities and that even when we do retreat from political debate, there are still political implications of reinforcing the status quo.

Similarly, our language, even when we veer away from hot-button political topics, is inherently connected with our ideology—our conception of how the world is and how it should be. At the height of the “Ideological Turn” in rhetoric, when scholars like Philip Wander and James Berlin argued that everything is political and there is no way to avoid ideology even in the most “neutral” spaces like a classroom, Berlin argued that our language is never value-free: “Conceived from the perspective of rhetoric, ideology provides the language to define the subject (the self), other subjects, the material world, and the relation of all of these to each other. Ideology is thus inscribed in language practices, entering all features of our experience” (Berlin 479). In other words, all of our communication points toward our values, beliefs, relationships, and identities—what we hold to be “true,” “right,” and “normal.” If we are considering the ideologies embedded in a message, we’d look beyond the immediate benefits to the speaker, also considering what types of ideas and what types of people are valued.

Let’s look at another example. Within the last several years, especially following the COVID-19 pandemic, the topic of mental health has become more prominent and more normalized as people are increasingly aware of the importance of this issue. Whereas the idea of seeing a therapist used to be highly stigmatized, signaling that someone was “crazy” or somehow inadequate, it has become much more commonplace for people to openly discuss their mental health needs and personal strategies. Much like going to a physician for an annual checkup is considered to be a normal, beneficial practice, having a counselor and implementing mental health strategies has become a more “normal” aspect of personal wellness. This means that when someone states that they are overwhelmed by a project and need more time to have it completed or that they are taking a “mental health” day, they are invoking a larger set of values and cultural shifts. They are asserting the value of their own mental health, but they are also tapping into bigger conversations and historical contexts about the importance of mental health in general, and they want their audience to respond in ways that confirm that value and promote further awareness and sensitivity. The ideology is embedded in the way that the speaker implies the reality that mental health (along with the person with the mental health needs) should be prioritized. However, someone who responds that these issues are in a person’s head or that they are being overly “sensitive” or “fragile” is invoking a different set of values, de-emphasizing the importance or the reality of mental health challenges.

Though this is just one possible example, it demonstrates an interesting dichotomy that characterizes much of our everyday speech patterns—an “us” versus “them,” a “right” versus “wrong,” and a “real” versus “imagined” way of framing a topic and our own position, selected from a range of possible perspectives. We are more likely to be persuaded and to persuade others when issues are framed from the perspective of an in-group versus an out-group, compelling audiences to identify with and make choices that validate their belonging to the in-group. In his book A Rhetoric of Motives, Kenneth Burke calls this phenomenon “identification” and “consubstantiation.” Though we are all separate individuals, we use language to mark our identity as part of select groups (i.e., discourse communities) with common interests, values, and goals (i.e., areas in which we are “consubstantial”). Consider, for instance, a sports team, which is its own discourse community imbued with unique communication patterns. Members of the team share a common goal of advancing their skills and having a successful season, and to that end, much of their conversation is about game strategy. This discourse community is defined not only by the topic of conversation but also the specialized terms that are used and the genres where communication happens—that is, team huddles, locker room speeches, group chats, and so on. Going back to our discussion about ideology, if we were to take a closer look at these discussions, we’d certainly discover some underlying values and assumptions of what is right or beneficial— perhaps teamwork, physical fitness, or competition. And according to Burke’s theory of identification, each individual on the team demonstrates their belonging through a series of rhetorical choices, such as their participation in the team huddles and their use of the accepted jargon. It even includes the sports gear and apparel they wear. They conform to the established communication patterns in order to persuade others that they are “normal,” that they are part of the group. And it is that sense of belonging and common interest that increases their likelihood of adopting specific perspectives and behaviors that align with the in-group.

It’s not difficult to see how language can be used to create solidarity with an in-group that is “right” in its view of “reality,” purposely set up against an out-group, whose complex experiences, perspectives, and beliefs are oversimplified and dismissed. Burke originally considered his theory of identification as a positive phenomenon that would create empathy and mutual understanding for perspectives different from our own. He said, “Identification is compensatory to division. If men were not apart from one another, there would be no need for the rhetorician to proclaim their unity” (A Rhetoric of Motives 22). However, he also warned that identification could be twisted, used as a weapon to create division. His “The Rhetoric of Hitler’s ‘Battle’” (from the book The Philosophy of Literary Form) provides a rhetorical analysis of how Hitler used identification—the “us” versus “them” framework—to create solidarity among the Nazis and dehumanize the Jewish population. In a similar way, Thomas Hollihan and James Klumpp, in both their 1889 and their 2020 essays, analyze the rhetorical discourse of authority figures to show how identification is a persuasive tactic that invites the audience to be on the “right” side of an issue by establishing common values and perspectives, pitted against a common enemy.

While language is often an intentional mechanism used to further an agenda and reinforce particular ideologies, it’s important to point out that ideology exists in our language, even if we don’t have a particular agenda in mind. Our selection of words and topics that merit discussion and our way of framing those issues will always imply a set of values and beliefs. Consider, for instance, our previous discussion about Philip Wander and the second and third personas implied in a message. There is the ideal audience who is pushed to the center, whose beliefs and perspectives are valued as “normal” or idea. The third persona is the group in the audience who is pushed to the periphery, either intentionally or unintentionally, by the speaker because they don’t share particular qualities, perspectives, or abilities. For instance, the song “Stand by Your Man” begins with the following lyrics: “Sometimes it’s hard to be a woman, givin’ all your love to just one man.” The message is clearly geared toward women, but it makes some assumptions about what it means to be a woman (second persona)—someone who is devoted to a man. However, if we consider the third persona—members of the target audience who are marginalized or ignored by the message—we’d see that there are lots of women who don’t fit this ideal because they aren’t (and possibly don’t want to be) in a relationship with a man. Chances are the song wasn’t intended to alienate these members of the audience. Nevertheless, like all language, it promotes a certain perspective about what is true or normal.

Similarly, the way that we respond to the ideology in a message tends to be automatic and deeply ingrained, reflecting our own core beliefs that we are often unwilling to question or reexamine. As opposed to forming a logical response, we fall back on identifications and familiar ways of thinking and seeing. According to Stephen Pimpare, this is even more true the older that we get:

By the time we are adults, we have constructed a robust set of positions and beliefs. When thinking about the political world, we begin with those beliefs, those inherent biases, and then work backward (often unconsciously) to fit whatever facts we are being presented with into that preexisting schema. Our minds use this motivated reasoning to protect us from cognitive dissonance—information that could unsettle our established beliefs or worldview. As a consequence, our brains literally process information differently depending on whether it fits with or challenges a preexisting belief.…This helps explain why presenting people with evidence showing that they are incorrect about something can make them less likely to change their minds—they double down on their position, adopting a defensive crouch. (146)

The point is that our language is steeped in ideology, sometimes in subtle but nevertheless powerful ways. As we’ll discuss in the next section, language does more than reflect reality. Rhetoric is so important because of its ability to shape reality, to frame a topic in particular ways that change how an audience understands an issue and affect the choices they make. It has tangible consequences in the world.

Rhetoric and Moral Action

A common misconception is that words don’t matter, that they are nothing more than air. Kids on the playground like to say, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but words will never hurt me.” Teenagers and even adults when confronted by dialogue they don’t like will shrug and say, “Whatever,” to show they aren’t affected at all by what was just said. But the whole purpose of this unit on rhetoric is to show that words do matter. Through the power of language, ideas take shape, personal connections form, perspectives change, emotions swell, and people take action. Ideologies inform policies, legislation, legal proceedings, codes of conduct, and individual behaviors—all things that have tangible effects on people’s lives. As discussed above, Hollihan and Klumpp wrote two essays focusing on the moral consequences of rhetoric, arguing that rhetorical criticism is about more than unpacking the underlying purpose and rhetorical strategies utilized to persuade an audience but that it should also consider the ethical implications of the message: How moral are the underlying motives of a message? How will it affect audiences in positive or negative ways? What actions does it compel, and how do those actions affect different groups of people?

Morally engaged critics owe our democracy attention to the multiple forces at work in discursive practices that mislead the public, limit their ability to act in their own best interests, transform their disagreements into hostile uncooperative factions, and reallocate political, economic, and social power from the ordinary citizens to increasingly wealthy elites. Such citizen critics, when fervently but soundly engaged, seek to bend the curve of history in a new direction in which aroused public and resilient institutions regain democratic sensitivities and reclaim democratic civic virtues. (Hollihan and Klumpp, “Rhetorical Criticism as Moral Action Revisited” 334)

In their original 1989 essay, Klumpp and Hollihan discussed three shifts in rhetorical criticism that put the focus more squarely on the moral consequences of rhetoric, and these ideas are still incredibly relevant today. This first shift relates to our understanding of rhetoric as being situated in a cultural and historical context. An individual speaker has a purpose and a unique way of persuading an audience, but their words are always part of a larger “social milieu” that significantly enhances the meaning of their words and the effect on the audience. “The question of ‘Who is the author?’ is thus answered with attention to the forms of the culture from which the speaker draws, or the speaker becomes interesting as an authority who speaks for society even as s/he speaks to society; thus the shift to rhetor as socially grounded” (88; emphasis original). In other words, a speaker presents ideas and perspectives to an audience, but they also use language that is inscribed with cultural significance, carrying a socially agreed upon set of values and emotional responses. Michael Calvin McGee coined the term “ideograph” to refer to words and phrases that are imbued with meaning to generate particular responses from an audience. They connect to larger ideologies and can be used in rather vague and abstract ways to induce a reaction from an audience. For instance, the word “equality” is an ideograph, deeply embedded in historical events and cultural values, and when used as part of a message—even when its meaning in that specific context is ill-defined—it tends to automatically garner attention and support. In summary, the first shift in rhetorical criticism examines the moral consequences of a message by considering the larger cultural and historical significance of the message and the way key words and phrases are used to invoke particular reactions.

The second shift identified by Klumpp and Hollihan pertained to the power of rhetoric to create meaning, informing the way that people perceive a topic or event. Instead of seeing rhetorical discourse as a reflection of meaning that has already taken place as part of an event, scholars began to see the power of rhetoric to create meaning through selections (and deselections) of details and word choice. It shapes our way of seeing and knowing about the world, our sense of reality about how things are and how they should be. According to this view, “rhetoric transform[s] material contexts into social order” (Klumpp and Hollihan, “Rhetorical Criticism as Moral Action” 89). It doesn’t reflect a fixed reality; it creates a sense of what is “real” or “true.”

The third shift in rhetorical criticism put more focus on the motive of the speaker—their intended outcome regarding the way that the audience perceives and responds to reality. You’ll recall from chapter 7 in this textbook that all rhetoric is grounded in an exigence—an imperfection or problem that the speaker hopes to remedy as a result of rhetorical discourse. In that view of rhetoric, only the audience—through their response to the message—can resolve the exigence. Rhetoric compels action, and it’s through this intended action that the ideology and ethical implications of a message can be evaluated.

The point in all three of these shifts is that rhetoric has a significant impact on the lived experiences and material reality of people in the world. Ideology has a direct influence on our views of right and wrong, shaping everything from parenting strategies to university admission standards to hiring practices to school curriculum to legal proceedings. And because language is the vehicle through which ideologies are established, language is the place where we begin to examine social values and the material consequences of rhetoric.

The Effect of Digital Media

Much has changed since the Ideological Turn of the 1980s, largely as a result of the prevalence of digital media as the primary means through which people receive information. It used to be that people received most of their news from newspapers, which had more information and were organized as an inverted pyramid with the most important information near the beginning, which made it easier for readers to process information (Xenos et al. 709). What’s more, the format of the newspaper allowed readers to take in information at their own pace, perhaps going a bit slower and rereading important information. The fact that it took more mental energy meant that readers concentrated more and typically processed information on a much deeper level than they would have from a television news story (Xenos et al. 709).

As you probably guessed, as digital media emerged and grew in popularity, newspaper readership diminished. According to recent statistics from the Pew Research Center, the circulation of U.S. daily newspapers was 55.7 million in 2000 and has decreased dramatically in the last two decades, down to 24.3 million in 2020. In contrast, 68% of Americans report that they get their daily news from social media platforms like Facebook, YouTube, X, and Reddit (Shearer and Matsa). This number is especially high considering that so many survey respondents in Shearer and Matsa’s study admit that they believe much of the information they get on social media is “inaccurate,” but they continue to use it for news information because of the “convenience.”

In addition to the misinformation that is so prevalent online, disinformation and misinformation permeate digital media, intended to produce division and distraction. Market segmentation and algorithms create an echo chamber effect that prevents users from accessing the full spectrum of perspectives on key issues, creating a false sense of “reality.” All of these distortions and cognitive shortcuts further entrench people in preset biases and beliefs and make them more resistant to anything outside of their own point of view. As Giroux argues, “Numbed into a moral and political coma, large segments of the American public and media have not only renounced the political obligation to question authority but also the moral obligation to care for the fate and the well-being of others” (14). Positive engagement in today’s digital realm requires users to proactively step outside of their perspective, purposely seek out alternative voices, and engage thoughtfully with rhetorical discourse to understand the underlying ideologies and social consequences.

Logical Fallacies

The discussion regarding language, ideology, and underlying agendas points to an important skill that will help you discern the logic of an argument without getting swept away in language that is designed to distract and deceive: the ability to identify logical fallacies. We’ve talked at length about rhetorical strategies (pathos, ethos, logos) and rhetorical devices that are intended to persuade an audience. In many instances, these are sound strategies that present evidence and help audiences connect emotionally with a specific point of view. However, many arguments aren’t sound. Whether intentionally or not, they present a line of reasoning that isn’t logical. Sometimes, there’s no “reasoning” at all. Instead, the rhetor uses emotionally charged words, hoping to evoke an emotional response. These are called logical fallacies, which the Purdue OWL defines as “illegitimate arguments or irrelevant points…often identified because they lack evidence to support a claim.”

We could spend an entire textbook discussing argumentation and logic. For now, suffice it to say that a sound argument is one that employs logical reasoning. It draws a conclusion (the position or claim) based on evidence and/or principles that are laid out for the audience to demonstrate that they are true and that they logically lead to the conclusion. In the case of inductive reasoning, specific events or examples are used to draw a general conclusion (Miller and Poston). For example, if you fail an exam every time that you cram the night before, you’d probably eventually conclude that cramming for a test doesn’t work, and you’d find a different way to study. In contrast, deductive reasoning (Miller and Poston) begins with a general idea or principle (often called a major premise) and applies it to specific circumstances (the minor premise) in order to draw conclusions. For example:

• Major premise: All birds lay eggs.
• Minor premise: A parakeet is a bird.
• Conclusion: Parakeets lay eggs.

Of course, arguments about social and moral issues can get a lot more complicated than that. However, once someone gives a reason that supports their position on an issue, then it’s easier to examine the premises that led to their conclusion. For instance, if one of your professors says, “I don’t accept extra credit because it undermines student learning,” then you can examine the major and minor premises that led to that conclusion to discuss if they are really true and if they inevitably lead to the conclusion:

Major premise: Anything that undermines student learning in a classroom is bad. (Most people would probably agree that this is true given that the primary purpose of a class is learning, though some people might have different ideas about how important a particular class really is and what “learning” looks like.)

Minor premise: Extra credit is an example of something that undermines student learning in a classroom. (This is especially open for debate. Some people might argue that it depends on the activity that leads to extra credit. Some extra credit assignments aren’t very challenging or meaningful, but some can do quite a bit to engage students with course material and further their understanding of particular concepts.)

Conclusion: Extra credit in the classroom is bad.

You can see how examining the premises that lead to a conclusion can be really useful in deciding whether they are true and whether they are valid (i.e., they logically lead to the conclusion). Premises are also helpful in examining the underlying values of an argument. This argument about extra credit is obviously valuing the importance of student learning and the integrity of the grading system. That doesn’t mean that this teacher doesn’t value students’ mental health or retention rates, but it does imply that when considering their policy regarding extra credit, they are prioritizing student learning. The reasoning behind an argument will help you uncover the beliefs and values implied in that position, which makes it possible for you to analyze the implied ideologies and your own position on the issue.

A logical fallacy is so named because there is an error in logic. The premises either aren’t stated or they don’t logically lead to the conclusion. There are too many fallacies to name here, but many resources exist that give a more exhaustive list of the fallacies (LogicalFallacies.org). For now, let’s focus on a few that are fairly common, especially in heated discussions intended to shut down the opposition instead of engaging meaningfully with the issue.

• Hasty generalization. This is especially common with inductive arguments that are built from specific examples. A hasty generalization comes to a general conclusion based on insufficient evidence—sometimes from just one or two examples. If, for instance, you talk to three women and they all say that they love cooking, it would be a hasty generalization to therefore assume that all women love cooking. It’s easy to see how this could lead to stereotyping and prejudice.
• Ad hominem. This Latin term refers to arguments that attack a person instead of refuting an idea or position. These arguments often resort to name-calling or statements that attack a person’s character, thereby ignoring the issue at hand and the premises that led to a specific conclusion. Many political ads resort to this type of fallacy. They assert that the opposing candidate is lazy, underhanded, or in some way unfit for office, which is a way of sidestepping deeper discussions about key legislative or fiscal issues.
• Straw man. This type of argument misrepresents the opposition in some way, often by making their reasoning look weak or immoral. The speaker can then easily “refute” this false account of the opposing view instead of engaging with their stronger reasons. For instance, if someone opposes a tax referendum that would increase teacher pay, it would be a straw man fallacy to say that the person hates teachers or doesn’t care about education.
• Bandwagon. The arguer claims that a particular position is the “right” one simply because it’s the most popular. Saying that we should get rid of speed limit laws because nobody follows the speed limit is an example of a bandwagon fallacy.
• Post hoc (also called false cause or causal fallacy). In this instance, an arguer assumes that since one event happened before another, the first event caused the second event. There might be a correlation between the two things (often occurring together based on a range of complex factors), or they might not be related to each other at all. A valid argument must demonstrate how one thing causes another. For instance, if you had Fruit Loops for breakfast and then got an A on an important test, it would be a post hoc fallacy to say that the Fruit Loops caused you to ace the test. Certainly, it might have helped that you had breakfast (a correlation), but other factors like how well you studied, how well you slept, and how much you were able to focus during the exam would also have to be taken into account.
• Appeal to pity. This type of argument attempts to persuade an audience based on making them feel sympathy or pity. Using your puppy-dog eyes to convince a friend or family member to lend you money is an appeal to pity.
• Appeal to authority. This fallacy claims that a position is the right one because an “expert” on the subject agrees. However, in this case, the person’s expertise is not relevant to the issue at hand, or it’s exaggerated. Having a celebrity or public figure endorse a brand of detergent is an example. While this person is popular and may have expertise on certain subjects, they aren’t an expert on detergent and aren’t qualified to make a credible claim.
• Circular argument (also called “begging the question”). The term refers to the fact that an argument makes the same (or a similar) statement for both the premise and the conclusion. In other words, the argument doesn’t develop clear reasons; it simply restates the conclusion in different ways. For instance, saying that we shouldn’t enforce the death penalty because it’s wrong to put a criminal to death is a circular argument. The reason and the premise are saying the same thing, and there isn’t any explanation about why the death penalty is wrong.
• False dilemma. In this situation, the arguer makes it seem like there are only two possible options or positions for a particular problem or issue, ignoring that there are other—often more reasonable—alternatives. For instance, to say that you can only afford a new car if you get a second job would be a false dilemma because it ignores all of the other financing options.
• Slippery slope. This type of argument is based on cause and effect, identifying a highly improbable sequence of events that will unfold following a specific decision or starting point. It has the “snowball effect” of making a problem seem really big and potentially out of control if we make the wrong decision. It would be a slippery slope if you say that you can’t miss one homework assignment because it will lead to more and more missed assignments and failed tests, causing you to eventually fail out of school and end up homeless on the street.
• Equivocation. An equivocation uses vague language to confuse listeners, to make the other side look guilty, or to avoid telling the truth about a topic or event. For instance, if you said you had a healthy lunch because you had a salad, your audience might feel deceived if they later discovered you had a taco “salad.”

The list goes on. Probably many of these seem pretty familiar, reflecting the types of statements you’ve seen people make in social media posts, interviews, or even political debates. For our purposes, it’s not that important that you memorize the entire list of fallacies. What’s more important is that you recognize an argument (especially if it’s your own) that isn’t logical, that relies on these strategies to trick or manipulate the audience in some way, or that lays out illogical premises that don’t match the conclusion. While these fallacies might seem obvious, people are often vulnerable to logical fallacies when the argument aligns with their cognitive biases—their preconceptions and tendencies to oversimplify complex situations and ideas. Because of their own ideologies, they take shortcuts when presented with information that confirms their own assumptions, which means they don’t take the time to examine the logic behind certain arguments. That’s why logical fallacies are often effective, even though they might seem so obvious.

Raising Your Awareness

The point of this chapter is to help you raise your level of consciousness when it comes to the ideologies that are embedded in the language that we use every day and to be equipped to logically and rationally engage in discussions with people about right versus wrong. On one hand, this is an internal exercise that first and foremost should challenge you to examine your own values and beliefs, how those ideologies are communicated through language, and what the consequences are as you interact with other people who listen and respond to your words. At the heart of rhetorical analysis and our discussion of rhetoric as moral action is a focus on people. Certainly, that means understanding your own perspectives and experiences and how that has led to specific opinions, viewpoints, and behaviors, but it also means seeking to understand the perspectives and lived experiences of other people, especially those people who are vastly different from you in some way. Whereas our tendency is to flatten the personhood of people in “out-groups,” who might seem far removed from our daily lives, true analysis (and problem-solving) requires you to ask questions and seek to more fully understand the complexity, the value, of other people and their perspectives.

In one of his most classic theories, Kenneth Burke identifies “systems of meaning” that people use to frame the “human situation.” “Out of such frames we derive our vocabularies for charting of human motives. And implicit in our theory of motives is a program of action, since we form ourselves and judge others (collaborating with or against them) in accordance with our attitudes” (Attitudes 92). Burke says that one popular way of framing a situation is through the lens of victim and villain, thereby setting up our position on the side of good in the battle against a clear enemy. As we’ve already discussed in this chapter, this is a very common strategy used in rhetorical discourse to rally support and ultimately villainize anyone with an opposing opinion. Burke identifies this tendency as scapegoating when we villainize members of the out-group and blame them for problems outside their control (Permanence and Change). Fortunately, Burke points to another frame—the “comic corrective,” which operates on a higher level of consciousness to see the misguided notions of the victim/villain dichotomy. Accordingly, the comic attitude “should enable people to be observers of themselves, while acting. Its maximum would not be passiveness, but maximum consciousness” (Attitudes 171). This is not so much a comedy in the traditional sense, as if you’d be laughing with amusement. It’s more about recognizing the inherent limitations in all of human thinking. As Jessica Chaplain writes, “Comedy involves the recognition of a shared humility in that all people, no matter how much they do know, cannot know everything. Comedy requires the ability to recognize and describe human foibles and mistakes in non-essentializing terms” (5). The point, then, is to use Burke’s theory of “identification” to find connections and common ground with other people and to find ways to rise above the dichotomous ways of thinking, speaking, and being that focus solely on “right” versus “wrong” or “good” versus “evil.” The world we live in and the people we encounter are far more complex.

In a similar way, there are a variety of web genres with specific features that help distinguish one from another, and those features correspond with particular purposes and audience expectations. In fact, like all rhetorical considerations, your selection of genre and your choice to follow certain genre conventions relate directly to your purpose and audience. The School of Writing, Literature, and Film at Oregon State University calls genre a “typified rhetorical action,” meaning that certain features are repeated across different genres “because audiences expect certain things to happen or they want certain kinds of experiences” (Pflugfelder). In other words, the audience is more receptive to a message when it follows conventional patterns that they are familiar with. While there might certainly be occasions to stray from particular genre conventions in specific rhetorical situations, following the accepted standards helps build your credibility with the audience, enhances readers’ understanding of the message, and increases the chances that the audience will respond favorably.

This chapter takes a closer look at the most common web genres and the conventions and rhetorical considerations of each one. It also provides a deeper explanation of genre convention, which will allow you to identify these conventions in other types of writing that aren’t discussed here. The main idea is to consider the audience’s needs and expectations and how certain conventions will create more positive and compelling reader experiences.

Defining Genre Convention

Before we look at specific web genres, it might be helpful to take a closer look at genre conventions in general and why they are so important for all kinds of writing. If a genre is a particular category of writing, then a genre convention is a particular feature that is definitive of that genre, helping readers to easily understand what it is and how it should be read. You might remember from chapter 8 in this textbook that rhetoric is inherently social. It facilitates human relationships and activities, which is why so much emphasis is placed on the audience. A genre is also social. New genres emerge alongside new technologies and new ways of interacting with other people. An X post, for instance, is a relatively new genre that has expanded the ways people can communicate and the variety of audiences they can communicate with. It enhances communication, and because it continues to address specific needs, people still use it. In contrast, handwritten letters and postcards, though not completely out of fashion, aren’t nearly as popular as they once were because new genres (and technologies) have taken their place. They aren’t needed because newer and faster ways of communicating are available.

So when we consider various genres and the conventions that define each one, it’s helpful to think more deeply about their social function—the activity or type of communication that a particular genre affords. In discussing the rhetorical interplay between genre and medium, the Purdue OWL explains that “genre is a form of writing with set functions determined by its social need” (“Genre and Medium”). For instance, a grocery list developed out of the need to remember a large number of items that you need to purchase, and so the list—along with its classic convention of short, bulleted items, separated on different lines—emerged as a way to quickly and easily identify the things you want to purchase.

Perhaps the social function of a genre and its corresponding conventions becomes easiest to understand when we consider a genre that doesn’t follow the standard convention. What if you were asked by a friend to go to the store to purchase a few items, and they handed you a grocery list they had created, but instead of following the typical format of each item on a separate line, their “list” had everything running together so that it looked more like a paragraph. And instead of having just the name of each item they need, they wrote everything out in sentence form, explaining more about the item and why they need it. You’d have an entire page full of words, and it would be incredibly difficult to pick out the items on their list. It would take you a long time to read through everything, and because everything is run together, chances are that you’d miss some of the things on their list.

Another classic example of genre is the job résumé. Obviously, the content of a résumé is very personal, tailored to highlight individual qualifications and experiences and also adapted to a specific audience/employer. You might also have noticed if you have used some sort of template to create your own résumé that the layout might change slightly depending on your design preferences and the types of information that you want to highlight. However, there are some basic features that all résumés have in common. You can probably name several off the top of your head. They are typically written in black type with a legible font like Arial or Times New Roman. They have the person’s name and contact information at the top. They have clear headings for professional experience, education, special skills, and references. They are short, typically no longer than a single page. These are fairly simple conventions, but they are important. They facilitate the rhetorical purpose of the résumé by making it easier to quickly highlight key qualifications and skills that will be persuasive to an employer. They also make it easier to write the résumé, since the formatting and basic content are already established. What’s more, these genre conventions make it easier for the audience to read and interpret the résumé. Assuming an employer would be familiar with the genre of a résumé, they can quickly scan the document and easily pick out key information that will help them move forward in the decision-making process.

As you can see, a single genre often includes several conventions that make it distinct, and these conventions include a lot of different elements including formatting, tone, organizational structure, and the content itself. Understanding the underlying reason for various conventions and how they aid in the reader experience will enhance your writing in a few different ways. First of all, it will be more readable because it adheres to writing patterns that readers are familiar with, so they can more easily pick out your main ideas. Any time you come across a new genre, you will likely struggle at first to understand what the conventions are and how to adapt your writing so that it seems authentic but still adheres to the audience’s expectations. However, cultivating an awareness of genre will help you make this transition, as it will play a key role in the writing and revision processes. Second, genres provide greater opportunity for creativity and deep critical thinking. That might seem counterintuitive given that genres create parameters that seem to limit your creative options, but the reality is that a genre is a productive lens that guides your writing and thinking process. In terms of the rhetorical situation, genres are created to meet particular purposes that respond to certain exigencies; therefore, focusing on the genre conventions will enhance your ability to write something meaningful. Finally, following genre conventions increases your credibility because it signals to readers that you are experienced in this genre and have thought about their needs and expectations. Even conventions that seem relatively minor will demonstrate your expertise and attention to detail, which will go a long way to spark goodwill and similar generosity in your audience.

Emails

We’ll begin with a genre that most people are already familiar with—the email. From a rhetorical standpoint, your approach to an email depends largely on the context of your message—who your audience is and the subject of your email—but generally speaking, emails are considered more formal than text messages and should avoid being overly informal or using “texty” language and emojis. From a professional standpoint, there are a couple of different types of emails that you might have to write. The first and most obvious is a work-related email to a colleague, client, or vendor, in which case you obviously want to be friendly but also to the point. Just like other types of digital writing, emails should be fairly brief if possible with content broken down into individual paragraphs and bulleted information for enhanced readability. You might also need to hyperlink to websites and other documents that are pertinent to the conversation. You’d probably also have some sort of call to action (CTA) at the end, even if just to invite that person to let you know if they have more questions or to request that they get back to you about a specific question or issue.

The second type of professional email is a marketing tool, a message that is part of a targeted campaign, and it’s a way of reaching out individually to leads that your company has acquired. Remember that one of the functions of a website is to generate leads. Companies then use that list of current and prospective customers to send targeted emails, often giving them more information about a specific promotion, letting them know that the latest blog post is available, inviting them to an event, and so on. Obviously, these types of emails can get annoying, and people will quickly “unsubscribe” or assign them to their spam folder if they don’t find the information to be useful. That’s why you should be very intentional about the type of content (and how much content) that you send and focus on the leads that have expressed genuine interest in your organization. For emails that are part of a concerted marketing campaign, several genre conventions can be applied:

• Have a clear subject line. Just like blog articles and social media posts will engage attention with a specific and catchy title, so will an email title. Since most people get hundreds of emails each day, you want to create a title that will grab their attention and says something specific about what the message entails. While different email platforms vary, you’d generally want your title to be shorter than 60 characters so it doesn’t get cut off.
• Write preview text. Some email platforms also show preview text, sort of like a subtitle that provides additional information or a slightly different hook, typically 45 characters or less (Slater).
• Keep it short. Once again, less is more. A couple of short paragraphs are all you really have to engage the reader so that they understand the value of what you are offering and feel compelled to take action.
• Have a clear CTA. Since these emails are often used as an internal marketing tool to draw people to your site, the call to action does just that. It prompts readers to click a link so they can read the new blog article, get more information about a product or event, and so on.
• Provide contact information. A professional signature should include the sender’s name, company logo, phone number, and email address so that the reader can easily follow up with questions.

Websites

Almost all businesses maintain a website as the “front door” to their organization, realizing that before most customers set foot in the store (if there is a physical space), they will go to the website to get information about store hours, products, mission, and so on. It’s the first impression most people will have about the organization, so providing useful content, organizing information effectively, and using rhetorical strategies to engage readers will create a positive user experience and strengthen the organization’s brand. Even individuals sometimes maintain websites for personal or professional reasons, knowing that they will reach a much wider audience and have access to design tools that will create a positive connection.

As we discuss the various other web genres—blogs, social media posts, emails, and so on—it’s important to keep in mind that these are often used as collateral marketing tools that serve the primary function of guiding people back to the website, where they can learn more information about a particular event or product, make a purchase, schedule an appointment, and so on. Leland Dieno, an entrepreneur and expert in digital marketing, says, “Your website is the center of your digital ecosystem,” meaning that everything else revolves around the content you provide there. It’s the place where users will go to find information, and if it’s organized well, it will create a clear path to help them learn about your organization and respond positively to your call to action, whatever that might be. Kunjan Mehta explains it like this:

Web development can help you create a clear path for where you want your customers to go, how they will get there, and what the goals are for your audience. Everything else you do stems from these aspects and connects back to your website. No matter what else is involved with your digital ecosystem, the ultimate goal is to direct all online activity back to your website.

Website development is a very big topic, and there are many nuances in functionality (which continue to evolve quickly with new integrations and plugin updates) and differences from one web platform to the next. Many businesses pay web developing companies thousands of dollars to create and update their website, but advancements in digital tools and user-friendly platforms have also made it possible for people to create and maintain their own website—if they are willing to take some time to learn how. While it’s beyond the scope of this textbook to discuss the “how-to” aspect of the different web hosting platforms, there are numerous resources available that do. For instance, WebsiteBuilderInsider has created a resource guide for web development that discusses many different aspects of the planning stages (Brandon). There are also a number of articles online, like this one by Niel Patel, that give an overview of the different website platforms and the pros and cons of each one. Once you decide on a platform, there are also numerous YouTube videos, created by the hosting services as well as experienced users, to help you get started and to troubleshoot various issues.

The main goal of this section of the textbook is to help you think more clearly about the purpose of the website and how to develop content to help you meet that purpose. We’ll also discuss best practices in website design.

Functionality

A website has a number of different purposes, and while the specific functions of a website will obviously vary from one circumstance to another, at its core, a website is typically designed with five key purposes in mind:

1. Attract visitors. One of the main functions of a website is to attract people’s attention, to engage them with the information presented and the overall mission and service that is provided. We’ll talk in more detail in the next chapter about SEO and ways to optimize a website so that users can easily find your web page. For right now, we’ll focus on the idea of inbound marketing, which relates to strategies that web developers and content writers use to draw people to their sites (Hubspot). As opposed to outbound marketing tactics that push content out to a broad audience (think billboards, magazine ads, television commercials), inbound marketing works harder to identify the wants, needs, and values of the target audience and to create web content that is relevant to those expectations. As content is developed, there is special consideration given to users’ pain points and the potential search terms (keywords) they might use to find information about how to solve those problems. This is one way that a website becomes “optimized” so that a website becomes easier to find and use (Fitzgerald). Other strategies include
   • Creating unique meta descriptions for each web page. A meta description is the information that appears on the search engine results page (SERP) (Google Search Central), and it includes the URL, a title of the page that users can click on to get to the web page, and a “snippet” of text that gives a description of the content on that page (Riddall). By providing relevant and interesting information and a call to action, a website is much more likely to attract visitors. The image below is an example of a meta description of what a snippet might look like if you searched for the best beach destinations in the United States. It even includes a picture to entice visitors.

1. • Creating meta tags for other content on the page—titles, alt tags for images and graphics, headers (Hughes).
   • Creating a Google Business Profile that provides contact information, business hours, customer reviews, and other helpful information for potential customers (Caplan). It not only builds awareness about a business but also builds credibility and provides a path directly to the website.
2. Provide useful content. This goes hand in hand with the purpose listed above—to attract visitors. Many of the strategies used to attract visitors have to do with meta descriptions and strategies that make a website visible to potential customers. However, there are many SEO practices designed to mislead users so that it looks like a web page has relevant and interesting content. For instance, keyword stuffing is an attempt to rank higher on the SERP by continually repeating keywords and phrases over and over (BigCommerce Essentials). Even if this were to position a web page higher on the SERP (which it doesn’t), it creates a negative user experience because a page that uses this strategy is often difficult to read and doesn’t provide the types of information that a visitor is looking for. So they will very quickly bounce off the page. Successful content writers carefully consider the needs and expectations of their target audience. They think through the types of information that users will be looking for, the questions that they might have as they navigate the site, and they are intentional about making that information easy to find and easy to understand. In fact, a large part of an organization’s content strategy revolves around pinpointing the type of content that users are looking for and making it easy to find (Forsey). This relates directly to the meta descriptions you provide for each page, but it also includes choices regarding website navigation, titles and subheadings, the way information is organized on a page, and the design choices you make. It also relates to the language you use and your effort to be upfront and specific. This will not only engage visitors but create a positive experience and help build trust with potential customers.
3. Strengthen your brand. An obvious function of a website is to communicate the unique identity and mission of an organization to the audience. It’s an opportunity to fully develop your story—the history of the organization, profiles of organizational leaders and staff members, the mission of the organization, customer testimonials, and so on. Remember that a brand is your image—the way that you want others to perceive you. It relates directly to the way that people perceive your values, personality, work ethic, community culture. When visitors have positive experiences and impressions on a website, it not only strengthens their perception of the organization, but it increases the chances that they will leave positive reviews, share information about the organization, and use their personal social media accounts to like, share, and repost content that will shape others’ perceptions of the organization as well. Since we talked at length about branding in chapter 9, we won’t rehash it here. Suffice it to say that an organization’s efforts at branding can sometimes be explicit, related to things like its logo and tagline, mission statement, history, credentials and certifications, staff photos and profiles, charity involvement, and customer reviews. It can also relate to more subtle cues—how easy it is to find information on the website, how well information is organized, how company policies are communicated, the tone of the language and overall design, and of course, how satisfied customers are with the service they receive when they do engage with an organization.
4. Prompt action. Remember that rhetorically, websites are developed with a purpose in mind—a particular way that the speaker wants the audience to respond. To that end, everything on the website should be working toward that end goal to compel readers to respond. However, an effective website will also give a call to action (CTA) that explicitly tells readers what they should do next and then points them in the right direction (Optimizely). Of course, different messages might have different CTAs depending on their purpose and where visitors might be in their buyer journey. Some CTAs might simply prompt readers to “read more” about a particular service or concept or to “schedule an appointment” or “get a free quote” to help move them forward in the buyer journey. Others might want readers to sign up for a newsletter, share something on social media, volunteer for an event, sign up for a free trial, or “buy now.” Web pages that direct readers about what they should do next and provide a clear path to take that action are much more likely to meet their communication goals.
5. Generate leads. It’s probably not a first priority to collect contact information of potential customers, but one important function of a website is to generate leads so it’s easy to communicate with current and potential customers about services, events, and product updates (Boyarsky). For instance, many websites have contact forms where users can put in their information (an email probably and maybe an email address or mailing address) in order to get more information or to receive a response about a question or problem. Other websites have pop-up windows inviting users to subscribe to a newsletter or sign up for a free trial. Using these and many other strategies, user information is collected and stored in a spreadsheet or a lead management platform that makes it easy to deliver content directly to users via email, text message, or mail. This can be a very effective way to drive more traffic to your website and create consistent engagement with people in your target market. On the other hand, many websites use deceptive strategies to collect user information (Baydin). Maybe a visitor wants to get more information about a product or service, but they are required to put in their email address in order to access that information. Deceptive lead generation strategies trick users into providing their contact information or they collect this information without user permission, through some sort of third-party organization that sells leads. That’s when people receive what they consider to be spam emails and text messages and feel bombarded, even harassed, by marketing schemes they don’t care about. Those are the types of experiences that create negative impressions and undermine the brand that you are trying to create.

Genre Conventions for a Website

Genre conventions are always connected to purpose, allowing readers to quickly and easily engage with the ideas of a text. Website conventions are no exception. However, a visitor arrives on a web page—via a Google search or a link on a social media post or in an email—chances are they are looking for specific information. They are interested in learning more about the product, service, mission, event, or concept highlighted on that page, but as we’ve already discussed, most visitors don’t spend much time at all reading a web page. They scan headlines and subheadings. They skim through bulleted lists. They might quickly scan the navigation bar at the top. And if they don’t find what they are looking for, they will bounce away. The best practices for a website listed below are reader-centered, geared toward engaging visitors and making it easy for them to quickly find the information they need.

• Streamline the content. Be selective as you prioritize the information on a page and the number of pages on a website. Though larger organizations might need larger websites with more menu items and web pages, big websites are often more difficult for users to navigate because there is more content to sift through, and it’s often harder to find the information they are looking for. Having a streamlined site map with a few key menu items and shorter web pages that are easy to read will go a long way to keep readers engaged. In other words, sometimes less is more.
• Put the most important information first on the page. This is called an inverted pyramid structure (Purdue OWL, “The Inverted Pyramid”). Putting the most important information first will help it stand out to readers, who can then read on to get more detailed information about that particular topic as they move down the page. However, if they have to scroll or if the key information is buried within large chunks of text, readers are much less likely to stay on the page. And if they don’t stay to read the entire page (as most readers don’t), then they will have at least gotten the main idea. Clearly labeled titles and subheadings (in larger, bold font than the rest of the text) will also help.
• Be intentional about organization. According to The Web Project Guide, successful website organization entails three things: grouping like content together, creating a logical navigation system, and providing clear labels (Vilhauer et al.). Often a useful way to organize content on your website is through categories, where pages are grouped together because they have similar content. For instance, many websites have an “About” section on the main navigation menu at the top of the home page. This could include a drop-down menu with several content pages: mission statement, employee profiles, company history, and so on. Figuring out how similar items should be grouped together is the first step. Then you need to create a site map, demonstrating the organizational structure of your site and using clear menu labels. This Creately.com website provides free tools that allow users to create their own site map, or you can always draw it out on a piece of paper.
• Focus on readability. This includes all of the strategies that guide a reader through the content of a web page so it’s easy for them to pick out the main idea: Headings, subheadings, bulleted lists, short paragraphs, simple sentence structures, and word choice that is clear and specific. Readability also relates to the formatting choices that you make. For instance, websites tend to use a font that is sans serif, which makes it easier to read. Similarly, higher-level text like titles and subtitles might be in bold and in a larger font than the rest of the text. Items should be spaced appropriately so that things aren’t crammed together, but readers can still tell which items go together.
• Be specific. People visiting the site are looking for certain types of information about products, services, upcoming events, pricing, and so on. It’s your job to carefully consider the information that readers are looking for and to provide that information so that it’s clear. Readers will quickly become frustrated with vague, flowery text that doesn’t really tell them anything. Product descriptions, for instance, would go beyond a list of adjectives to also include product dimensions, items that are included, capabilities, other outside items needed for use, and any other information that would help them determine whether they want to buy the product. Certainly, there’s a balance between streamlining content and providing enough detail. The point is to use the space that you have to give content that is meaningful for readers, and to provide opportunities to get more information.
• Use hyperlinks. Hyperlinks help visitors make connections. This can be especially helpful as they are navigating your site. Internal links to relevant pages guide readers to more detailed information on your website about a specific topic. Similarly hyperlinks at the bottom of a web page that coincide with the call to action to schedule an appointment or get more information increase the likelihood of a user taking that action. External links to credible, relevant web pages are also useful in building your own credibility and providing important information to readers without taking up more room on the page. Obviously, you’d want to be strategic about hyperlinks, limiting the amount on a given page so readers aren’t overwhelmed. You’d also want to be selective about the words that you choose for a hyperlink so that it’s fairly clear what type of information readers will find if they follow the link. For example, let’s say that a fitness blog has the following sentence: “There are many different methods for increasing your stamina during a workout.” If the words “different methods” or “increasing your stamina” were hyperlinked (as evidenced by the telltale blue, underlined text), then readers would expect that it links to more information about what those methods are. On the other hand, if they are taken to a product page with running shoes for sale, they’d likely be confused and probably a little frustrated.
• Use visuals. Consider the types of pictures and other images that will help engage readers. Visuals have several different purposes on a web page. On one hand, they can be used to help clarify information. A map or a pie graph, for instance, is a visual that can be used to support written content on a page and help readers more easily process that information. The same might be said for a table, chart, or photo. A company that sells cars, for instance, would obviously include pictures of the car that they are trying to sell so that readers have a clearer understanding of what it looks like. Visuals can also be used for branding—to help visitors get a clear sense of the personality or mission of a person or organization. For instance, a children’s hospital would likely use photos of doctors working with children, particularly pictures where the children are smiling. These types of photos would go a long way to demonstrate the level of care and compassion the hospital provides. It would also be a very persuasive element that would make visitors more likely to bring their children to that hospital or to donate money. Visuals serve several different rhetorical functions, which is why they are so important to include on your website.
• Think aesthetics. A website that is visually appealing is much more likely to engage readers. As discussed in chapter 10, various design elements can be used to help convey meaning. Color choice, font size, font design, graphics, and images can all be used to direct readers’ attention and help them more easily read and understand the information. But design choices also affect the overall user experience and develop the ethos of the organization. According to this Crowdbotics article about the “Aesthetic of Modern Web Design,” the aesthetics of a website includes the overall layout with different components, menus, buttons, images, icons, colors, fonts, and so on. It also incorporates interactive features, such as sounds, animations, and symbols. Together, these features create a user-friendly appearance and leave an impact on the intended audience.
• Provide clear calls to action. Almost every page on a website has a call to action that explicitly invites users to take the next step to find out more information, to donate money, to buy a product, to read a full article, and so on. These might be as buttons or clear statements with a hyperlink at the bottom of the page.
• Keep content updated. One way to quickly lose credibility is to have information on your website that is clearly outdated. Maybe there are links that no longer work or information that is no longer relevant. Perhaps the calendar of events still hasn’t been updated and still includes information from previous months. This is a cue for readers that maintaining the website isn’t a big priority for you and that much of the information might not be accurate. In addition to updating the information, swapping out new pictures or videos is a great way to keep the website fresh, demonstrating an active online presence and an effort to continually engage with your target audience.

Blogs

While blogs are often housed as part of a larger website and utilize similar genre conventions, they are listed here as a separate genre because their rhetorical function is a little different. For most organizations, the purpose of a blog is to further develop their brand with the target audience, strengthen their credibility in a particular area of expertise, solidify connections with readers through meaningful content, and increase traffic to their website (Cardenas). One of the genre conventions listed above for a website is to keep the content “fresh.” However, this might be difficult to do on the larger website since the overall mission and service offerings aren’t likely to change very often. Posting blog articles every week or so is a great strategy for keeping the content fresh, offering readers new and relevant information, and getting people to come back again and again to your website, where they are more likely to not only read the article but also follow your call to action at the end to get more information, share your blog post with others, or buy a product.

Before we get into the genre conventions of a blog post, let’s talk about niche. All successful blogs have a particular niche or an area of focus (Connell). It helps build their brand as an expert in a particular field or topic, and it keeps readers in the target audience, who are also interested in learning about that particular topic, engaged. For instance, there are quite a few travel bloggers on various platforms who write about their experiences in various travel destinations, providing travel tips and an overview of things to do and see. Their “niche” is travel, which means that if they suddenly began posting about DIY projects around the house or gardening tips, their audience would be confused. Their brand as a travel expert would be weakened by messaging that doesn’t relate. This is a mistake that many novice bloggers make—trying to write about a lot of different things, which makes their blog somewhat eclectic and scattered. It might do a good job demonstrating their own interests and experiences, which might engage that person’s immediate family and friends, but it won’t be as effective in attracting other followers.

Obviously, whatever niche you pick should relate directly to your brand—either your individual brand if you are developing your own website and blog or your organizational brand. A hardware store, for instance, might develop a blog around DIY projects and home repairs, which is a way of developing expertise in that area and showcasing the products they have available for those jobs. Readers get useful information about how to do these types of projects, and they are more likely to visit the store to get individualized advice or buy specific tools. Similarly, a daycare might focus on a blog about childhood development and best practices for engaging with different age groups. A university might write a blog about student success, with topics related to academics, financial aid, housing, and so on. A local yoga studio might write a blog about different yoga techniques, benefits, basic exercises, and underlying principles, which would be of great interest to people who are interested in trying yoga. It provides them with useful content and it positions the yoga studio as an expert in this area who is genuinely interested in helping people be successful.

While it’s important to have a focused niche, you also want your topic selection to be broad enough that there are lots of new and interesting things to write about in that area. That way, you can easily post a new blog article every week or so. All of the examples above could be developed into very robust and dynamic blogs because there is so much room to write about various topics. The university blog about student success, for instance, is a very flexible niche. Blog articles could be about time management, how to decode a syllabus, how to schedule classes, how to understand graduation requirements, how to effectively study for an exam, how to get a meaningful internship, and on and on. Specific article topics in that larger niche would be never-ending and provide lots of meaningful information for current students, prospective students, and parents, who would develop a deeper connection with the university as they continue to engage with the blog. As you are considering your own niche, a good test would be to see whether you can come up with 10–15 article ideas within that niche. If you can’t, it might be a sign that your niche is too narrow and that you need to expand it a little more. For example, student success is a lot more broad of a niche than study skills. DIY is a much broader niche than window replacement. It might take some time to land on the right niche that is narrow enough to build your brand and yet broad enough that there are lots of things you could write about.

Once the overall niche is established, there are several standard genre conventions that most blog posts follow, which, once again, are directly related to the primary goal of engaging readers and persuading them to take some sort of action. Every genre convention is rhetorical in the fact that it influences the way that a reader will respond to the message. Some important genre conventions for a blog article include the following:

• Stay focused. A blog article should clearly relate back to the niche you’ve established and it should stay focused on the topic that it advertises in the title and the introduction. While blogs come in varying lengths, some as short as 300 words and others as long as 2,000 words, they should stay focused on the topic at hand and avoid unnecessary tangents. While longer blogs might spend more time developing background information or elaborating on each subpoint, everything should clearly work together to develop one main idea that you think will be of value to your target audience.
• Chunk your content. While staying focused on one key idea, it’s also useful for readers if blog articles are broken down into subsections with clear headings that make it easy to follow along with the structure of the article. For instance, a blog article about the cognitive benefits of yoga might begin with a brief hook about the obvious physical benefits of yoga and then transition into the little-known fact that it also benefits cognition. It might then have a section that defines “What Is Cognition,” followed by subsections that identify some of the main cognitive benefits: “Improved Memory,” “Better Focus,” “Enhanced Problem-Solving.” Each of these headings would help categorize different parts of the article so that it’s easier to follow. Each section might then have three to five short paragraphs focused on that particular subtopic.
• Be concise. Once again, you want to be concise with your writing. Keep paragraphs short with two to four sentences each. Use bullets when appropriate. Use simple sentence structures, and find ways to eliminate unnecessary words and phrases. Certainly, it might happen that you need to add words to your blog post to hit your desired word count (as blog articles should generally be consistent from one post to the next), but that doesn’t mean filling up the article with “fluff.” Instead, you’d add examples, statistics, or descriptions that add meaning and keep readers interested.
• Have an engaging, specific title. Blog titles engage readers because they are clear about the value proposition—the thing that readers will gain from reading the article. For instance, an article titled “Ten Best Travel Destinations on the East Coast” or “Reduce Your Debt in Three Easy Steps” are both very specific titles that tell readers exactly what the articles are about and how readers will benefit from reading them. This, in turn, is more likely to attract readers than titles that are vague or obscure.
• Use hyperlinks. Your blog article should be well researched and be transparent about where your information came from. Yes, you are building your own brand as an expert in a particular area, but it also greatly enhances your own credibility when you are able to link to other credible sources that support your ideas. The key word here is “credible,” meaning that you might connect to a recent study, a reputable organization, another well-known expert, a recent new article, and so on. You wouldn’t link to content that is old or where it is difficult to identify who the author is. You’d also avoid websites with a clear financial motive or bias. You might also avoid linking to a competing blog or company website that might steal readers’ focus. Hyperlinks can also be used internally as a way to link readers to relevant information on the website or previous blog articles about a particular topic. You’d want to be sparing with this to avoid too much self-promotion and writing that comes across as disingenuous, but a couple of internal links here and there could be useful to further engage readers.
• Write in a friendly, conversational tone. Blogs are generally less formal than the content of an organization’s website, which gives you the freedom to be more conversational. This is a great way to engage readers and build a rapport. If done well, it can also help develop your brand in particular ways. Generally speaking, a more conversational tone is more accessible. You’d avoid jargon and long-winded complex sentences that might otherwise come across as pretentious. You’d also have the opportunity to use language that’s a little more lighthearted and fun. However, you’d still want to maintain a level of professionalism, maintaining a focus on the main idea of the article and providing relevant information and hyperlinks to supporting information. Depending on the context, you might also want to avoid first person, which is completely appropriate for a personal blog but would come across as confusing and a little too informal for an organization’s blog.
• Post pictures and other visuals. Once again, pictures that are relevant to the content provided can be a great way of engaging readers and deepening their level of understanding. Charts, tables, and other graphics can also be a great way to break up written text.
• Proofread. Yes, a blog is more informal, but that doesn’t mean you can relax your standards for correct grammar, spelling, capitalization, and punctuation. Proofreading errors can be incredibly distracting, making it difficult to understand a text and diminishing the credibility of the author. Do your due diligence and proofread carefully.
• Update often. While other parts of a website tend to be more static, meaning they aren’t updated very often, a blog is meant to be dynamic with new content added consistently. Be sure to date your blog posts and provide new content every couple of weeks. This is crucial to reader engagement as well as other communication goals related to branding, increased traffic to your website, and the overall customer journey.
• End with a CTA. Remember that a lot of digital messaging ends with a call to action, explicitly directing readers to the next steps they should take and providing a clear path to take that action, usually in the form of a hyperlink. Many companies have boilerplate information that goes at the bottom of a blog article, meaning that it’s repeated word-for-word every time, perhaps reminding readers of their overall mission, the ways that they can help customers with specific tasks, and directing them to resources where they can find more information and get in touch with an associate.

Social Media Posts

You’re probably familiar with the ways that individuals use social media platforms to post personal updates and photos, documenting important events or finding ways to connect with a larger group of family members and friends. While chapter 2 in this textbook dives into the positive and negative effects of social media usage from a personal perspective, this section focuses more on the genre conventions of social media posts from a professional perspective. Not surprisingly, the majority of businesses both large and small use social media as a key aspect of their marketing strategy because it’s a quick and inexpensive way to engage with customers, and it leverages algorithms and user-driven data to provide targeted marketing to the people who are most likely to be interested in their products and services (Turner). Also, as the LinkedIn article by Josh Turner confirms, the advantages go both ways. Customers also benefit from the ability to quickly connect with a business, and it affords a platform for them to share useful content and reviews with their own followers.

One reason that social media marketing is so popular is because it’s an incredibly effective way to reach people in the target audience with updates and engaging content that will (ideally) drive them to the website. Thus, companies are very intentional about their social media presence, selecting platforms where their target audience is likely to be and planning out content that will effectively grab their attention. Since there are literally hundreds of social media platforms, it doesn’t make sense that an organization would have an account on every single one. Instead, they’d do some research into the target market to find out which social media sites are most popular (Dean) and how certain demographics tend to use which platforms (Barnhart). For instance, a yoga studio would probably be most interested in targeting women in their thirties and forties, so they would focus on the social media platforms that women in their target market use.

Another key aspect of social media marketing is consistency. Some businesses post on social media every day in order to continuously engage with new and existing customers. However, they need meaningful content to post. That’s why many organizations create a social media calendar where they plan out the content they will post for the next month, often to promote upcoming events or report on recent organizational news (Kenan). However, to fill in the gaps in between events, many organizations will utilize content buckets, where they consider the different types of content they want to feature each month (Chickering). For instance, one bucket might be employee profiles, another bucket could be customer testimonials, and yet another bucket could be product highlights or an expert tip of some kind. However many buckets there are, content would be created so that a certain number of posts go into each bucket and then are placed on the monthly calendar to ensure that there are a variety of posts with unique content from one day to the next.

Finally, social media posts must be appropriate for the specific platform. For instance, LinkedIn is a social media platform geared toward professional advancement, highlighting career opportunities and professional development, so it wouldn’t be an appropriate place to highlight the latest yoga technique. The same goes for platforms like Tinder or Flixster. The content of your post should match the overall theme of the platform. Similarly, you’d want to match the specific genre conventions of a specific platform. There are far too many to list out here, so some general guidelines are listed below. Before posting on a social media platform you aren’t familiar with, you should get a clear sense of the types of the format that is most appropriate. X and Facebook, for instance, are more conducive to text-based posts, while Instagram is focused more on photos. YouTube is obviously geared toward videos. While you want your message to stand out to your target audience in a positive way, creating messaging that isn’t appropriate for a given platform will likely create confusion and weaken your credibility.

Specific platforms aside, there are some best practices for social media posts that span across all platforms:

• Be concise. Yes, this is a theme across all digital writing, but it’s especially true for social media platforms where readers tend to continuously scroll through their feed. You want to catch their attention right away and make it easy for them to quickly get the main idea of your post—probably in a sentence or two. X is a good example of a platform that limits the amount of characters you can use for each post, pushing users to be as succinct as possible. Other platforms don’t impose those limits, but they do collapse longer posts so that users have to click “read more” to see the entire post. Often readers don’t, and if they do, they will quickly move on if they are confronted with a wall of text.
• Use hashtags. You probably don’t want to overdo it with 7 to 10 hashtags, but having two or three hashtags (indicated by the # symbol) is a great way to connect the content of your post to other groups and to spread your message to larger audiences. Most platforms have a way for you to research popular hashtags for given topics so that you can use them appropriately.
• Title your post. Individual social media posts don’t usually have a title, but professional posts often do because it focuses readers’ attention and provides the same value proposition that a blog title does.
• Use appealing images. Readers are more likely to read your post if you engage their interest with a picture. For instance, a travel agency that posts an ad about “Affordable Beach Bungalows” would probably garner a lot more interest if they featured tropical pictures of happy vacationers lounging on their own bungalows. Some posts also use short videos and influencer testimonials to grab people’s attention.
• Give full URLs. Unless you have a button at the bottom of the post (which is often a good idea), social media platforms don’t use hyperlinks. If you want to link to a website, you have to give the full URL.
• Give a call to action. Once again, social media posts often give a call to action for people to learn more, which often links to a website or email address.
• Be engaged. As people in your audience engage with your post, commenting on the content, asking questions, giving reviews, then you should occasionally respond. You might not be able to respond to every single comment, but your presence will create a positive impression that you are genuinely interested in connecting with people. You might also receive more likes and followers if you are intentional about making connections with other people and organizations that are in your community or that are somehow complementary to your organization. They, in turn, would be more compelled to follow, like, and share your social media posts.

A Final Note about Genre

Of course, this chapter didn’t cover every digital writing genre. There are simply too many to cover. What’s more, the idea of genre gets even more complex when you consider the countless genres in specialized fields. For instance, while there are some basic principles that hold true for all websites, there are also different types of websites that have their own set of conventions. A university website, for instance, is substantially different from that of a restaurant, local charity, or used car dealership. A university would obviously post pictures of campus life, give details about the application process, and post specialized information about different majors and graduation requirements. When you look across a bunch of different university websites, you’ll see that most of them are organized in very similar ways and that they use very similar language to explain these concepts. Another example might be fitness blogs or churches’ Facebook posts. These too will be unique, having particular qualities that are unique that that more narrowed genre.

The point is that if you are confronted with a genre that you aren’t familiar with—as will probably happen at some point—then you can easily gather information from other examples in that genre and evaluate which elements seem to define it. What types of content are typical? What about graphic elements? Tone of voice? Design elements? Organizational structures? Once you understand the concept of genre, then you can evaluate new forms of writing and apply those genre conventions with confidence.