Blog #2

Today we'll be working off of the prompt and talk about ethos (credibility) of Thompson's "Public Thinking." If the introduction by now hasn't bored you past the point of not caring already, you have a lot of patience.

Thompson's article was an interesting read for me. Specifically, Thompson approached his subject in a personal way. The voice he uses for the piece we read was not only in first person by very conversational. You'd expect that to mean that he was not credible. However this style of voice actually seemed to strengthen his argument in a way that kind of resembles breaking the fourth wall. What I think Thompson was doing was immolating the conversational fluidity of a blog post. Doing this enables the reader to see how persuasive his argument is. At the same time, I believe he also recognizes that this wouldn't meet the requirements of a scientific research journal. You know the kind where the page is broken up into two, three, or four columns and has footnotes that occasionally take up 3/4's of the page space--and thus making the article appear longer than it actually is. Even though Thompson's article isn't loaded with credible sources of that caliber, he does insert quotes from other researchers and people who are making an impact on digital writing. I also want to note real fast that for a long time I didn't know Thompson was a male writer. Thus, for about seventeen pages that thought I was reading an article by a female writer. This could be a sign that as a reader I expect female writers to be a little unconventional. It might also be the fact that certain sentences seem to carry some quasi-emotional quality. Such as, "The secret is the work Coates puts into his board," where he makes it seem like he's telling you an as-of-yet unknown discovery and he seems extremely excited to tell his readers about it. I know for some people think that linking "emotion" to things we associate with "female" is wrong, but as of now I have no opinion on that. All I know is what I've seen and read thus far, and when I find a male/female writer who breaks the "normal rules" that I'm used to I get a little more interested in the writing and what's being discussed.

This might also explain why anonymous writing on a message board is intriguing, because you don't know the sex of the other person. Therefore, when you read what they have to say you are always kept in perpetual detective work and uncertainty about what defines an anonymous writer. Especially on Youtube, when a person hasn't connected their account to a Google+ account (which unfortunately means everyone can see everything you're doing) you're also required to give Youtube a first and last name. Before Google bought Youtube, a person was allowed to have any name they wanted. There are still ways to keep your anonymity though. And when people are anonymous, about half of those (that I've seen) who write comments appear educated, well-informed, and even use humor to keep conversations pleasant. Especially when Youtube and Google made changes last year, I noticed there were a lot more men with Google+ accounts who didn't mind telling the world their identity. Females were harder to come across. Of course, these are all observations from one person who has their one little niche in Youtube carved out. I don't go to watch news videos, make-up tutorials, vlogs, DIY videos, or even American music videos. The type of commenters that I'm used to are generally in the Let's Play's, Japanese music, or Vsauce (Check out Vsauce by the way. If you like TEDTalks you won't regret watching VSauce). Therefore, the things that I see on a regular basis may not encompass Youtube as a whole.