Audience and Writing Style in Technical Debate

As some of you now know the focus of my inquiry has been the preservation of an open internet through the breakup or weakening of internet service provider monopolies. Specifically I am focusing on the creation of municipal networks to create real competition, but this is not all that unrelated to the broader net neutrality battle that is currently being fought in Washington DC and abroad. While the positions and questions raised in this debate are often nuanced and steeped in both rhetoric and ideology, the whole thing can largely be simplified down into a fight between market and government forces.

The Atlantic is a well-known and respected publication in the US. When the net neutrality debate was renewed after a SCOTUS decision overturning the FCC's Open Internet Order, The Atlantic released this article providing a brief history on the debate. The language is clear and easy to understand and care is taken to explain some of the more technical aspects of the debate in order to make it more accessible to a broad audience. While a lot of sources are referenced throughout, this piece serves as more of a primer for people new to the topic than an in-depth inquiry into the net neutrality debate. It is also worth noting that while both sides of the debate are discussed, more emphasis is placed on the pro-FCC/neutrality side that appeals to the moderate to left-leaning audience.

For an alternate take on the ISP monopoly debate I came across an article in the Wall Street Journal  via the university library databases. For context the Wall Street Journal generally takes a more conservative and pro-business stance on issues and is generally written for a investors and other white collar workers. This shows in an article that relies more heavily on statistics and dollar figures than its counterpart in the Atlantic. Less time is spent explaining the more technical financial concepts it references because the intended audience is one that is already quite familiar with finance. It also takes a far more pro-market stance and engages in a lot the ideological rhetoric that has plagued the broader debate at the national level.**

I know that this particular blog post hasn't been the most exciting, but I think there is one key takeaway in all of this. Audience matters. Due to their different intended audiences both publications have adapted their writing and editing in order to maintain the wide readerships they have today.






**As an aside the WSJ article was an opinion piece written by the executive director of the Progressive Policy Institute, a progressive think-tank. I find it odd that he is so openly critical of the same municipal solutions that many other progressives so actively support.

Serial: An Inquiry into Memory

I first came across the Serial podcast in October 2014 while listening to This American Life on my way to work. I found the story it tells to be enthralling, yet somehow let it fall to the wayside due to stressful nature of my work at the time. When I saw it assigned for homework I was quite happy to have a reason to dive back into it.

What were you doing at 12:30pm last Friday? Three weeks ago? Fifteen years ago? I'll be honest with you, I can hardly remember what I had for lunch today let alone specific details about where I was and who I was with. Yet in the case of the Serial Podcast, the entire story is in those kinds of details. Ultimately the Adnan Syed case, still working through the appeals process after 15 long years in the US court system, boils down to what occurred during a 21 minute window in the middle of an otherwise ordinary January afternoon. Sarah Koenig's inquiry into the case has brought new life, and more importantly new doubt, into a case that had otherwise been considered resolved for the last 15 years.

Serial is a prime example of how the inquiry process should be approached. Despite the emotionally charged nature of her investigation, Koenig is able to take a meticulously impartial approach toward the facts and materials surrounding the case. As you progress through the series you can often hear from the tone of her voice that she very much wants to prove Adnan's innocence, yet she does not allow her personal feelings on the case keep her from evidence and lines of inquiry that point to his guilt. This is ultimately what makes Serial so enthralling to the listener. Every bit of information serves to make the situation seem even more uncertain. But the inquiry process is more about discovery than merely finding an answer.

Sometimes the first answer you get isn't the correct answer. However, without critical inquiries you might never know the difference. Koenig's inquiry has certainly brought evidence to light that might have significantly altered the original outcome of the case. It has also recently led to a key witness, Asia McClain, coming forward and releasing an affidavit on January 15, 2015 that may very well decide his appeal. We will have to wait and see though.

Academia and the Rhetorical Situation

While reading the article about academic writing I was struck by a theme that the author repeated on several occasions:

Academic writing and research may be knotty and strange, remote and insular, technical and specialized, forbidding and clannish—but that’s because academia has become that way, too.

 In effect Mr. Rothman's point was that we should not expect academic works to appeal or address a larger base because they are intended for academia. In the rhetorical context of academia, it makes sense to write this way, but I think Mr. Rothman is overlooking the real issue at hand in his defense of academic writing. Academia has largely isolated itself from the rest of our culture has worked itself into a self-perpetuating cycle of pandering to itself. This separation of academia and mainstream society can have dire ramifications when the people shaping public opinion and policy are not the same people who have the necessary knowledge to draft such policy. We can see examples of this in places like environmental and economic policy, where the people engaging in the rhetorical situation often misrepresent academic findings for personal and political gains. Meanwhile the academics who have devoted their careers to the very same topics do little more than sit back and grumble among themselves about how their findings are being misused or ignored. Ultimately I find myself agreeing with Nicholas Kristof in many respects, although I think that the problem goes beyond simple outreach. There needs to be a cultural change within academia and a shift towards opening up its vast wealth of knowledge to the public.