Professional Documents
Culture Documents
CarterPerrin RHE
CarterPerrin RHE
9 December 2010
Informal Language, Credibility, and Humor: are Theodora Stites and Ellen DeGeneres’
Works Rhetorically Strong Enough to be Included in the Next Edition of They Say/I Say.
It is obvious that technology has a role in the lives of people today, but is this role positive or
negative? Theodora Stites and Ellen DeGeneres certainly don’t agree on the answer. In her
article, “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map),” Stites defends the use of technology
to foster relationships through the virtual world. In contrast, DeGeneres argues that modern
technology frustrates people, complicates small tasks, and is unnecessary. While both authors
effectively use conversational language and tone to appeal to ethos, Stites is more effective in her
ability to establish her credibility. Additionally, her more persuasive use of humor and logic
make her argument the stronger one. Stites’ article is rhetorically more powerful; therefore,
Stites’s “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map)” would make a better candidate for
In her New York Times article, “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map),” Theodora
Stites attempts to justify her usage of multiple social networking sites. Stites, a twenty-four-
year-old, is part of a generation that relies upon new technologies for social interaction; but many
believe that this new online world of “virtual intimacy” has negative effects on a person’s
development. Stites defends these sites and their users through a detailed narrative of her daily
use of such technologies. This personal format bolsters her argument in that it gives credence to
Perrin 2
her role as an author on the topic. In her article, Stites admits that no social networking site is
perfect, but she also upholds that these tools for online interaction are great ways to meet new
In contrast, Ellen DeGeneres, in “This Is How We Live,” argues the impracticality of modern
technology. DeGeneres uses an informal style of writing, allowing her to appeal to the average
person. In agreement with the informal tone and average person audience is a strong use of
humor, which pervades the whole of DeGeneres work. Additionally, by drawing on experiences
common to her audience, like technology in the public restroom, DeGeneres attempts to connect
with her audiences’ sense of pathos. With her rhetorical focus being on informal tone and
satirical humor, DeGeneres argues that technology can be frustrating, can complicate simple
Vital to understanding the rhetoric of both works is the realization that DeGeneres and Stites
write to different audiences, which is evidenced by the different medium each author uses.
Because Stites is writing for the New York Times, she is writing to a more educated audience.
While her language is not overly sophisticated, it is definitely more refined in its humor than
“average-person” type of audience, one that is not necessarily well educated. DeGeneres is also
writing in the context of her book, The Funny Thing Is…, which affects her purpose for writing.
DeGeneres’ main goal in her book is to make people laugh, not necessarily to effectively use
rhetoric to persuade. Because Stites is writing for the New York Times and DeGeneres is writing
for her comedic book, the two authors use different styles of rhetorical techniques based upon
their audiences.
First, Stites and DeGeneres both use conversational language and tone to effectively appeal
Perrin 3
to their audiences’ sense of ethos. Stites, through her use of background information about
herself, establishes her role as a “friend” of her audience. Stites begins with “I’m 24 years old,
have a good job, friends. But like many of my generation, I consistently trade actual human
contact for the more reliable emotional high of smiles on MySpace, winks on Match.com and
pokes on Facebook.” Her opening remarks are humorous, friendly, and effective at relating
herself to her audience. By opening her article in such a way, Stites effectively closes the
distance between the lives of her audience and her own, and thus puts herself in a position from
which her argument will be more compelling to her intended audience. Similarly to Stites,
DeGeneres also masters the use of informal language to create an intimate perception of herself
in the minds of her audience. DeGeneres uses informal language to discuss how the technology
of phones has advanced and recalls when “the kitchen wall phone came along…[with its]…90-
foot-long cord that allowed you to walk all around the house…so that by the time you hung up
the phone, it had become a tangled wire of cord confusion. But what was fun about it was that…
you would hold the phone upside down and let it spin and spin, around and around, till it found
its center. Good times” (592). DeGeneres’ language here, and throughout her article, is not
particularly sophisticated or complex. While DeGeneres’ choice of writing style may appear to
be unrefined, in truth, this style of writing correlates to her audience of average people seeking a
laugh. Additionally, DeGeneres enforces her use of conversational tone by asking questions to
her reader and using phrases like “let me ask you…” (589). By asking questions, DeGeneres
effectively involves her audience in her argument, thereby solidifying her position of intimacy
with the reader. DeGeneres is effective at using tone to appeal to her audience’s sense of ethos,
as is Stites. Both authors use tone in a similar way to create a sense of camaraderie between
In contrast, Stites and DeGeneres differ in their ability to establish credibility for themselves
as authors. Stites uses her apparent knowledge of a wide variety of social networking sites to
appeal to ethos. Her tone may be informal, but Stites consistently appears knowledgeable of the
formalities of online social networking sites; in fact, Stites mentions and describes at least fifteen
different social networking sites. Stites even discusses a hierarchy system she created for
deciding which site to use to contact people based on how well she knows them. Because Stites
seems to be so knowledgeable of social networking websites, she puts herself in position from
which she appears to be a credible judge experienced enough to know the true nature of these
sites and the influence they have on one’s life. Therefore, Stites effectively appeals to ethos.
Alternatively, DeGeneres relies upon her career in comedy to establish her credibility as an
author. While her credibility as a comedian may be enforced by the brief biography of her career
placed at the beginning of the article, DeGeneres’ credibility as an author is not. Because of her
history with comedy, DeGeneres’ audience expects to laugh. DeGeneres is humorous, however,
as this humor continues throughout her article, she begins to discredit herself as an author. This
is a failed attempt to apply DeGeneres’ history with comedy as justification of her role as the
DeGeneres falls rhetorically short because her history as a comedian does not give credence to
her argument on technology, Stites succeeds by highlighting her own knowledge of social
networking sites.
Both Stites and DeGeneres use humor to appeal to their audiences, but Stites uses humor in a
much more effective way. Stites utilizes the humor of storytelling as a way to appeal to pathos.
She tells the story of her attendance of a party hosted by Flavorpill, an online social networking
site: “I was sucking down a cigarette with the head of Flavorpill when our cell phones rang at the
Perrin 5
same time. We flipped them out to see who was contacting us. He turned to me and said
‘Dennis? He’s really got to go someplace new.’ I looked down at my screen and noticed that
Dennis had sent out a Dodgeball message that he was at a bar on the Lower East Side – the
fourth such message that week…I couldn’t believe it. Here we are in person and both in Dennis’s
network but not in each other’s. That almost never happens.” This story is a successful appeal to
pathos because Stites’ audience of New York Times readers will find the story humorous, yet also
see it as an informative example of how social networking sites can help create relationships
outside of the digital world; Stites cleverly ends her article in such a way so as to leave her
readers with that idea in mind. Additionally, Stites uses dry humor to further her emotional
appeal, often playing off public perception of people who, like her, use social networking sites
addictively. At one point Stites says that she prefers “ a world cloaked in virtual intimacy.” She
then defends that statement by saying “besides, eye contact isn’t all it’s cracked up to be and
facial expressions can be so hard to control.” Obviously, Stites is using strong humor to explore
her own situation, but the point she makes here is valid: Stites appreciates virtual intimacy
because it gives her the advantage of being in control. By using humor to convey her argument,
Stites is effectively appealing to pathos. While Stites utilizes dry humor, DeGeneres uses
exaggerated satirical humor to attempt to bolster her argument. Unfortunately for DeGeneres,
however, her appeal becomes too strong and begins to discredit her role as an author and to
overshadow the main points in her argument. One problem with DeGeneres’ appeal is that she
applies this over-the-top sense of satirical humor to very miniscule aspects of technology, such
as the automated sink in public restrooms or GoGurt, the on-the-go yogurt. At one point,
DeGeneres even says microwaves are “from the devil” (588). Yes, the comment is funny, but is
it persuasive? No. Although DeGeneres makes a strong attempt to use humor to bolster her
Perrin 6
rhetoric, she fails in the end because her exaggerated satirical humor overpowers the central
ideas of her argument; Stites, on the other hand successfully uses humor to appeal to pathos and
One of the strongest aspects of Stites’ argument is its function as an enthymeme, which
serves as an excellent appeal to her intended audience of educated readers. Stites exposes the
information, but her argument is based totally in logic. Nowhere in her article does she explicitly
say that social networking sites are beneficial; Stites presents the information in the construct of
her intended argument in order to impact her audiences’ logic in an indirect way. It is in the
mind of the reader where the real conclusion to Stites’ argument is formulated. In complete
lacks factual evidence, outside sources, and an appeal to the logic of her audience. While
DeGeneres’ lack of logos causes her whole argument to fall short, Stites’ ability to indirectly
influence her audience’s logic affirms that Stites’ argument is, rhetorically, much the stronger of
the two.
Although it is apparent that Stites’s argument is much more coherent and powerful than
DeGeneres’s, one may say that because DeGeneres is focused on an audience of “average
people” that her lack of logos and her over-the-top humor are more appealing to her intended
audience. While this may be true in the context of her own book, it is not what They Say/I Say is
looking to publish in their next edition. DeGeneres’ lack of an appeal to logos causes the
rhetorical aspect of the article to flounder, while her exaggerated humor tends to cover up her
key focus in the argument. They Say/I Say highlights rhetoric, and DeGeneres is not focused the
rhetorical aspects of her argument, but rather on making people laugh; therefore DeGeneres’
article does not meet the qualifications of and should not be included in the next edition of They
Perrin 7
Say/I Say. Alternatively, Stites’ ability to connect with her audience through dry humor and her
bold use of an enthymeme make her argument rhetorically strong. Thus Stites’ “Someone to
Watch Over Me (on a Google Map)” makes an ideal candidate for inclusion in the next edition of
Works Cited
DeGeneres, Ellen. “This is How We Live.” Remix: Reading and Composing Culture. Ed.
Stites, Theodora. “Someone to Watch Over Me (on a Google Map).” New York Times. New