Learner's Full Name
Assignment Title
“It’s basically the cause of, and solution to, everything that plagues our culture (Lovett 2014).” In his 2014 article for the Atlantic, The Culture of Shut Up, Jon Lovett, the former presidential speechwriter and producer of Newsroom bemoans that the internet has led to a collective regression of our speech into "vicious personal attacks" and "self-righteous calls for apology." He argues that the freedom of speech as guaranteed by the first amendment is under threat not by any overlord but by the cacophony of too many voices and opinions that the internet has provided everyone with. He makes a strong argument for the protection of freedom of speech by appealing to the reader's belief in rational thought and constraint. Lovett begins his article with an analogy of the remote village with just three rich elders who could speak. The rest of the villagers could not speak and had to just hope that the villagers would speak for their cause. If they did not, the villagers just kept quiet about it. This was until the villagers found out they could communicate through a leaf and rock. But having suppressed anger and doubt for so long, what came out eventually was either personal attacks or self righteousness. Lovett fits this analogy of the village beautifully with the world that we live in. The internet is the rock and the leaf that people use to voice their differing opinions and the three elders are the establishment. However unlike the villagers who got tired of the constant squabbling and eventually shut up, Lovett says we would not, but we would also have to understand that there are differing opinions and if we were not to practice constraint there would be just more talk about less. He argues that the freedom and anonymity that the internet provides should not undermine the freedom of speech and prevent the people from making constructive arguments. Lovett appeals to the people’s ability to listen and accept that there are different opinions. His analogy helps in capturing the essence of modern life where by trying to confirm, take sides and vocalize our views on anything and everything we are not actually doing any constructive work. Each individual in his or her crusade to be right and do the right thing is asking the other to shut up. Lovett peppers his article with a lot of examples from current news to show how there is no constructive debate on any issue but how the people attack each other personally because they do not share the same views. He talks about Alec Baldwin, the duck dynasty guy, the CEO of whole foods, Dylan Farrow and others who were asked to shut up because a lot of others did not like their ideas or what they stood for. In effect, the idea or a thought is not defended or put across. Rather the person with a different perspective is attacked. Lovett says, “you don’t beat an idea by beating a person. You beat an idea by beating an idea (Lovett 2014).” Lovett’s article appeals to the audience because he does not take sides. His examples include everyone with differing views. He speaks for everyone who had been asked to shut up. By including different people and incidents as examples, he puts his point across that it should be an idea that should be debate and not the person who puts it across. Personal attacks are just counter productive. Lovett uses personal anecdotes from his life to show how online response to his writing sometimes makes him a little cautious about what to say and how to say it. Even though he admits tat he does not get vitrous comments, he is aware that some of his jokes or messages might be taken the wrong way. The personal account of his online presence helps him get closer to the reader and makes them feel like is also one of them. These also help the readers to analyze the merit of his argument. He welcomes all the differing opinions that each post or article gets (not just his, but others as well) but also cautions that too much noise should not bury the actual discussions. Although the exercising of freedom of speech helps in healthy discussion, Lovett also cautions against this freedom leading to one st of narrow beliefs be replaced by another instead of bringing about a solution to the problem or a healthy debate. Lovett asks his readers to accept the differences, not shut up but embrace the differing views and be a part of the debate without really drowning each other out. Too manyy counterarguments and vitriloic attacks only dilute the argument. In many cases the attacks are so prominant that the original debate gets buried under. In his article, Lovett uses analogies, anecdotes and current examples to bring out his thoughts on the freedom afforded by the internet and the freedom of expression as guaranteed in the first amendment. This rhetoric technique keeps the reader interested in his article and also enables them to think about what is wrong with the current culture of trading attacks and apologies against each other. Even though he make his position clear, he never takes a stance against people who differ from him. Rather he acknowledges that people are different, they are going to have differing views and that in order to have a meaningful debate, a person should just embrace the differences and still be a part of the discussion without drowning other views. His work as a speechwriter to the president and with the secretary of state and also as a producer of Newsroom gives him the credibility to talk about the current issues that plague the society and meaningful debate. Lovett also puts forth his credentials right at the beginning to add to the credibility of his argument. Through a combination of analogies, personal anecdotes and current examples he appeals to the emotions as well as the logical thinking of the audience. What makes the article good is that he doesn’t take a preaching tone. He rather appeals to the thinking and reasoning capability of his readers.
References
Lovett, Jon. (3 Apr, 2016). The Culture of Shut Up. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/04/the-culture-of-shut-up/360239/
