Bermudez 1

Angela Bermudez

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100: First- Year Composition

28 September 2010

Keen and Lessig: Offering Insight into Key Rhetorical Strategies

As the 21st century unfolds, technology is constantly evolving and thus debates ensue.

One of the largest debates arises out of the increased access to information technology offers.

To some, this access to technology is detrimental and will degrade the quality of art and

knowledge, while to others it offers unlimited opportunities for younger generations to grow in

creativity and intellect. “Web 2.0,” written by Andrew Keen, and “In Defense of Piracy”,

Lawrence Lessig, offer differing viewpoints on this hotbed topic and through the use of

rhetorical strategies attempt to persuade an audience. “Web 2.0” argues against the uncontrolled

access to both sharing and accessing information that the internet creates. On the other side of

the argument, “In Defense of Piracy,” criticizes restrictions on the access to online information,

such as copyright, and argues that instead of restricting access, society should embrace the wide

array of information available. Despite some weaknesses, both articles effectively argue their

points and make use of techniques that are critical to persuasion. Though far from perfect, both

should be included in the next edition of They Say/I Say to offer readers good examples of the

use of rhetorical devices that are essential to a well written paper.

In “Web 2.0” Andrew Keen makes a case against information sharing technology. He

attempts to persuade by exposing the degradation an abundance of authors will have on the
 Bermudez 2

quality of talent and our education. Keen describes Web 2.0, the newest venture into

information technology, as Marxism of information, where anyone will have equal ability to

publicize information, which will degrade the value of the information and be detrimental to

society. Quality writing and artistry, as far as Keen defines it, will disappear amongst the vast

array of information. Digital technology and the overload of information that results from it, in

Keen’s perspective, hinder our culture.

In “Web 2.0” Andrew Keen successfully conveys his message by appealing to his

audience and establishing his credibility. In a rhetorical piece it is essential that a writer be

aware of their audience to effectively convey a message and succeed in persuading them.

Andrew Keen is a master at appealing to a specific audience. Throughout the article, Keen

disdainfully makes cultural references that make it apparent that he is addressing conservative

individuals. In a comparison that almost seems absurd, Keen likens the growth in Web 2.0 to

Marxism. Keen claims that the Web 2.0 movement is “eerily similar to Marx’s seductive

promise about individual self- realization in his German Ideology, ” and goes on to quote Karl

Marx’s Communist Manifesto. A conservative group of individuals will obviously hold disdain

for communism, thus responding in fear to something that has its “seductive promise”; in

knowing his audience Keen uses a reference and comparison that will evoke fear, appealing to

pathos and also to logos by presenting an idea that many of his audience have logically rejected.

Besides references to Marxism, Keen also makes reference to another movement conservatives

are not fans of: the countercultural movement of the 60’s. According to Keen, “The movement

[of Web 2.0 and technological growth] bridges the counter-cultural radicals of the ’60 such as

Steve Jobs with the contemporary geek culture of Google’s Larry Page”. Keen’s use of the word

“radical” in reference to the countercultural movement of the 60’s shows obvious criticism of the
 Bermudez 3

movement, and serves as a reminder to his conservative audience of their negative feelings

towards the era and political changes it incited; thus by making the comparison, Keen hopes to

demonstrate that new efforts to expand access to information through technology are just as

“radical”, convincing his audience it is detrimental to society. When Keen speaks of the dangers

Web 2.0 poses to culture and art he again brings up the “legacy of the 60’s –the creeping

narcissism… with its obsessive focus on the realization of self.” A common criticism of the

counterculture movement as “narcissist” echoes the feelings of conservatives towards it, thus by

comparing technology to a movement viewed so negatively in the eyes of his audience, Keen

succeeds in planting seeds of opposition towards technology. Many would argue that this

tactic is extreme and would turn off those that do not identify themselves as conservative, but it

is appropriate for the audience Keen is aiming at. The article appears in the Weekly Standard

website, a publication that clearly has a conservative leaning and audience, proven, besides the

various articles slamming Democrats and promoting conservatives, by advertisements selling

shirts which bash liberals. Keen’s constant referral to the countercultural movement and

Communism, thus, echoes the overall ideology of the publication his article is featured in,

therefore he is intelligently appealing to his conservative audience. Keen is targeting a specific

audience, and as such brilliantly laces in elements that will appeal directly to them that would

likely not appeal to a broader, more general audience.

Besides appealing directly to his audience through the cultural and political references he

makes, Keen uses references to classical culture and first-hand experience with technology to

establish his ethos. Building credibility is essential in a rhetorical piece; if an author can gain an

audience’s trust, they are more likely to favor their argument. From the first line of the article,

Keen establishes himself as an intellectual and educated man. Right from the start, Keen
 Bermudez 4

references classic culture by stating, “The Ancients were good at resisting seduction. Odysseus

fought the seductive song of the Sirens by having his men tie him to the mast of his ship as it

sailed past the Siren’s Isle. Socrates…”. In alluding to technology as a “seduction” the audience

must avoid and, in a sense, encouraging his audience to emulate the ancient Greeks, well-

respected and revered for their intellect, and resist such a seduction, this reference to ancient

Greek epics and philosophers creates an image of Keen as a well-learned man, thus someone

who has the education to offer adequate insight on a topic. In addition to referencing various

intellectual movements and the ancient Greeks, Keens further establishes ethos and more

specifically his knowledge in aspects of technology by conveying a personal experience. Keen

narrates, “Last week, I was treated to lunch at a fashionable Japanese restaurant in Palo Alto by a

serial Silicon Valley entrepreneur who, back in the dot.com boom, had invested in my start-up

Audiocafe.com”. Not only does Keen know dot.com investors, but he himself ventured into the

business of starting his own website, demonstrating that he must be quiet knowledgeable in

matters of technology, which establishes his credibility with the reader and makes his claims

more believable.

Though Keen adequately targets his audience and establishes his credibility, the article

lacks in specific evidence and examples. Keen relies heavily on building assumptions and

claims but gives little data and specific examples of the damaging effects of mass media

technology and information to back these claims, such as failing to include an antidote of a

specific way it has proven detrimental. For example, when Keen makes the claim that the

quality of talent would degrade itself with Web 2.0 by stating, ”Instead of Mozart, Van Gogh,

and Hitchcock, all we get with the Web 2.0 revolution is more of ourselves,” he could offer

examples of the present artists that have risen as a result of new technologies and highlight the
 Bermudez 5

“inferior” art they produce. Also, simply in defining Web 2.0 specific data would be useful, such

as the potential scope of its users and the amount of money it would cost to establish; this

information would create a larger picture of the implications of technology. In any

argumentative piece data and examples are essential to illustrating points, particularly in

appealing to logos, or people’s rational side. Although ethos and pathos are vital tools, when

incorporated with logos it makes for an even stronger appeal. While Keen, despite his other

strengths, fails in this particular area, Lessig, who argues in favor of technology, on the other

hand, excels in offering examples to his audience.

In his editorial “In Defense of Piracy,” Lawrence Lessig argues in favor of technology

and critiques the copyright war that has infiltrated our culture.  Instead of devoting so much time

to cracking down on copyright, Lessig argues, emphasis should be placed on fostering the

opportunities for creativity such access to information brings.  Overall, companies and

government need to layoff file sharing which has become such an integral part of modern-day

society and embrace it. Lessig illustrates cases where citizens’ creative projects turned into

copyright wars in court when they innocently used material that was “unauthorized” and argues

that such cases are ridiculous and should be avoided. To conclude his argument, Lessig proposes

five changes to copyright laws and the enforcement of such laws that would enable more

technological freedom and avoid bringing people who merely were looking to explore their

creativity into court. People who are looking to use other’s creations solely for creative purposes

and not for financial incentives should not be penalized.

Lessig’s biggest strengths as a rhetorical author lie in his use of examples and his list of

solutions, which offers a direct appeal to logos and addresses claims that could be brought up by

the opposition. Lessig’s best and most elaborated example introduces the issues and the piece.
 Bermudez 6

Lessig tells the story of a mother, Stephanie Lenz, who decided to film her infant son dancing to

Prince’s song, “Let’s Go Crazy,” and placed it on YouTube. Somehow, someone from

Universal Music Group watched the video and had it removed and “on their view of the law, she

is liable to a fine of up to $150,000 for sharing 29 seconds of Holden dancing” (Lessig).

Starting off the article with this story is an excellent way of captivating the audience’s interest

and appealing to the audience’s pathos. It is a relatable story since many of Lessig’s audience

have likely posted videos on YouTube, and thus this story will spark sympathy and rage. The

exact figure of the amount she could be fined for such a short video has the effect of shocking

the audience, making the whole incident seem ridiculous. Throughout the article, Lessig cites

other cases of copyright issues, including cases involving politicians, appealing to the more

serious individuals in her audience. A clear example of cases involving politicians is apparent

when Lessig states, “Fox News ordered John McCain’s campaign to stop using a clip of Sen.

McCain at a Fox News-moderated debate in an ad. And two weeks ago, Warner Music Group

got YouTube to remove a video attacking Barack Obama.” These incidents offer proof that

Lessig is not exaggerating his claims, and that even the powerful have felt the infringement of

copyright laws, helping his audience see the extremity of the situation.

After providing various examples to support his claims about the extremity of copyright

laws, Lessig offers a list of specific solutions to the current copyrights laws. Lessig introduces

these laws by bringing his focus to the kids, which helps to stir the ethos and bring out common

values in his audience. In an appeal to emotion Lessig argues, “Our kids live in an age of

prohibition, where more and more of what seems to them to be ordinary behavior is against the

law. They recognize it as against the law. They see themselves as “criminals”. They begin to

get use to the idea.” Such a statement stirs the emotions of the audience who do not want a
 Bermudez 7

society where children see themselves in such a negative light. The repetition of “they” helps to

emphasize that the focus is the children and the detrimental effect such laws have on the

children. When Lessig begins to list his solutions, the audience has joined him to fight the cause

for the children. With this pathos, he brings in the logos. Lessig lists five specific changes and

follows each with an explanation. Such a strategy gives resolution to his argument and is

convincing in that it proves to the audience that he is invested and informed. These solutions

also help to refute those that would insist on the need for copyright laws by accepting them but

with alterations.

Lessig’s largest weakness is likely his lack of developing ethos. Besides the mention at

the end of the article that he is a professor of law at Stanford, a reputable institution, he offers

little to help build trust in his claims as Keen does. For example, when stating his suggestions

for alterations to copyright laws, Lessig would benefit from referring to experts in copyright law

to emphasis his knowledge of the subject and research skills even more. Such added

information, as well as possibly quotes from esteemed philosophers or scholars, would greatly

add to the effect of the paper since ethos is vital to winning over an audience because an

audience that trusts its author is more likely to be convinced of what they are saying. Despite a

lack of well- developed ethos, overall, Lessig is quiet effective at conveying his claims through

the use of examples and offering of solutions.

Both articles are persuasive and offer clear cases for their arguments. Lessig’s

advantage is that he appeals to a wider audience and uses more hard evidence than Keen whose

approach appeals more narrowly to conservative individuals. Keen, though, is a perfect

example of taking an audience into consideration when creating a rhetorical piece. Both are set
 Bermudez 8

in a modern context, thus making them applicable and relevant to issues of technology and

information sharing.

In some instances, both pieces have areas in which they are rhetorically weak, but in the

areas where they are effective they truly excel. “Web 2.0” should be included in They Say, I Say

as an example of knowing and appealing directly to a specific audience and establishing ethos.

“In Defense of Piracy” should be included for its excellent use of examples and its innovative

strategy of listing out solutions. Both pieces, despite their weaknesses, but due to their

strengths, offer clear examples of effective rhetorical strategies from which any writer could

learn from, including those who read They Say, I Say.

 Bermudez 9

Works Cited

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0.” The Weekly Standard. The Weekly Standard. 15 Feb. 2006. Web. 23

Sept. 2010.

Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” Wall Street Journal. Dow Jones and Company. 11

Oct. 2008. Web. 23 Sept. 2010.