McDermott 1

Daniel McDermott

Dr. Erin Dietel-McLaughlin

FYC 13100: First-Year Composition

29 September 2010

Sample Articles for They Say/I Say

In the era of digital technology expressing one’s own creativity and even

manipulating other people’s creative works has become easier than ever before. With new

tools like computers, mp3 players, and the internet we gain new abilities, but with these

new abilities come new ethical questions. Is letting anyone with a computer and an

internet connection create art a good thing? Do we need to change existing copyright laws

to coincide with these new forms of media? In many circles around the country these and

other questions are being debated heatedly. Two of the most prevalent advocates for both

sides of the debate have written articles on the subject. Lawrence Lessig, a professor at

Harvard Law School, advocates citizen media and changing copyright laws. He expresses

this in his article “In Defense of Piracy” which was published in the Wall Street Journal.

Andrew Keen, an entrepreneur and veteran of Silicon Valley, on the other hand argues that

if everyone can create art, art and culture as a whole will be diluted. He published his

article, “Web 2.0”, in the Weekly Standard. While both have well thought out arguments

Lessig’s article would be a better choice to publish in They Say/I Say.

Andrew Keen, the author of “Web 2.0”, starts his article by comparing the ancient

seduction of Odysseus by the Sirens with the seductions of today such as the

counterculture movements of the ‘60s and the digital revolution of the ‘90s. He states that,

unlike Odysseus, we are not very good at resisting these temptations. He then tells us the
 McDermott 2

new great seduction of the modern age, Web 2.0. Keen describes this seduction as “the

radical democratization of media”. As his article develops he states quite clearly why he

thinks this is an evil seduction which we must avoid. While he is definitely an expert in

his field and brings up many logical proofs, his article lacks the needed pathos to make it a

well rounded argument.

Keen is well practiced in aggressive writing, constantly attacking his opponents and

showing the reader why his opponents are wrong. While the saying goes the best defense

is a good offense, in this case it takes away from the reader’s sympathy toward Keen’s

argument. This is exemplified when Keen refers to Larry Lessig, the author of the other

article being critiqued, as a intellectual property communist. Attacking other people’s

point of view is a bad way to win converts over, more likely offending them than

persuading them. Generally Keen does a poor job of creating pathos; there are a couple of

exceptions, though. Throughout the article Keen builds a sense of fear about the coming of

web 2.0. At various times in “Web 2.0” he parallels this new technological movement with

socialism, comparing it to quotes by Marx and Kafka, both socialist thinkers, adding to the

sense of foreboding about the coming of web 2.0. Keen has a few emotional arguments,

but where he really shines is in his logical arguments.

Logically, Keen tears apart his competition. He is very good at pointing out irony.

He writes about a business associate who talks of smashing elitism in the media world by

advancing Web 2.0. Keen points out that this associate owns a four million dollar house

and that his children go to the most exclusive academy in the area. He also denotes that

Socrates, arguably the greatest thinker ever, warned about giving the masses the ability to

express themselves. Quoting the most logical person in the history of mankind about one’s
 McDermott 3

topic really helps to get one’s main idea across. One more of his many logically based

arguments he brings up is that this internet phenomenon is entrenching people in their own

opinions and preferences, and not introducing people to new ideas. This is because of

things like personalized searches and ads where only the topics that interest the user are

readily available. Keen’s varied logical arguments are backed up by a very strong resume.

Keen has spent time in the academic world as well as the business world where he

started his own dotcom business. He has been in the online business since 1995 and is a

self-proclaimed Silicon Valley veteran. He is still on the inside of the business world

shown when he relates a business meeting with another entrepreneur about an investment

opportunity in Silicon Valley. While his previous experience is a strong testament to his

ethos he does not do as good of a job as he could reinforcing the idea as he writes. “Just as

Marx seduced a generation of European idealists with his fantasy of self-realization in a

communist utopia, so the Web 2.0 cult of creative self-realization has seduced everyone in

Silicon Valley” (Keen). This quote clearly demonstrates Keen coming across as a strong

right wing advocate with his constant Communist bashing remarks. He also refers to his

opponents as left wing radicals yet again bring to mind the Communist scares and the

McCarthyism of the 50s and 60s that did great damage to our country’s reputation. He

comes across as close minded and unrelenting in his position, which is an unattractive

position to take when one is trying to convince readers of one’s argument.

While Keen writes a decently compelling argument, it lacks all the rhetorical

strategies that the book, They Say I Say wants to convey. A much better example of all the

strategies the book tries to convey is the article “In Defense of Piracy” by Lawrence

Lessig.
 McDermott 4

“In Defense of Piracy” starts with an unbearably cute story of a mother and her

baby son. The mother catches her baby dancing to a song by Prince, films it, and puts it on

youtube to share with her family. Basically it becomes a very popular video on youtube.

Unfortunately the mother ends up having the video taken off of youtube and sued for

copyright violations for using Prince’s song without consent. Lessig comments on how

ridiculous this is, and then tells his readers what he would do to stop atrocities like this

from happening. Lessig says we need “…changes in law, and changes in us.” According

to Lessig lawsuits like this happen all the time. He explains why amending copyright laws

would improve our society culturally and economically. Lessig’s argument was well

constructed with good portions of ethos and logos, but the rhetorical strategy that he makes

the best use of is pathos.

Lessig does a wonderful job in his article of making the reader sympathetic to his

cause. He uses pathos like an expert when he tells the story about the mother and her

child. Everyone but the coldest reader’s hearts melts hearing about the cute little baby

dancing. Just as many readers’ hearts break hearing how a large ‘evil’ corporation ruined

this family’s fun and innocent video by taking it off the internet and slapping the mother

with a lawsuit. Lessig also does an excellent job of using loaded vocabulary. He turns

around his opponents’ quotes and opinions to claim that they are calling our children

terrorists and criminals. Lessig makes himself out to be the protector of our children in

this section and at the end, one of five changes to our society that he suggests is to

“Decriminalize Gen-X”. By the end of the article the reader feels that if he does not agree

with Lessig he must hate babies and children.

His exceptional use of pathos is not Lessig’s only use of persuasion. His use of
 McDermott 5

logic in “In Defense of Piracy” is quite sound. One excellent point that Lessig brings up is

the double standard when it comes to quoting music and writing. He states that it has

always been acceptable to quote other authors while writing, but when it comes to music a

musician is not allowed to quote or use pieces of music from another musician. This does

not make sense, so later in the article Lessig demonstrates how his argument contains more

logos than this hypocrisy. First he rationally argues that with previous inventions like the

record player and the rise of professional musicians the amateur artist was left in the dust.

With new technology and the web, Lessig asserts that we can turn this trend around and see

the reemergence of amateur artists, but only if we change copyright laws. After he shows

the cultural benefits of less regulated creativity he shares the economic benefits. All

economists know that more production equals a better economy. Today more people are

creating art at a faster pace then ever before. Lessig argues that if the laws were not so

harsh this growth would become a boom in creative productivity, and to top it off we

would not be spending as much on prevention measures. Overall Lessig puts together a

very logically compelling argument about his views without going overboard with too

many examples.

Dr. Lawrence Lessig is a professor at Harvard Law School and commands much

respect in the real world as well as the academic world. He has been studying and writing

about copyright laws and new technology for years. When he started writing this article in

the Wall Street Journal he already had excellent credentials, and he reinforced them as he

wrote. One extremely important fact that Lessig stresses about his argument is that it is

nonpolitical. He emphasizes this by stating that both the presidential campaigns of Obama

and McCain were negatively affected by ridiculous copyright laws. At the end of the
 McDermott 6

article Lessig writes a list of changes he would suggest to make copyright laws more

effective and less cumbersome. This is a bold move, but one I think he can get away with

considering his reputation as an expert in the area, and the reinforcement of his ethos as he

writes.

Both Keen’s “Web 2.0” and Lessig’s “In Defense of Piracy” have strengths and

weaknesses. Lessig does an excellent job of creating sympathy for his argument by telling

heart breaking stories of injustice and turning his opponent’s words around so that it seems

they are calling children criminals. While Keen also uses loaded language he directs it at

his adversaries which is not as effective as Lessig’s use of loaded language, directing it at

children, at the expense of his opponents’ credibility. Logic is the one rhetorical strategy

that Keen uses quite well. He points out the irony of the elite trying to take down a system

that they are profiting from, and uses Socrates, one of the inventors of logical

argumentation, to advance his claims. Lessig also uses logos well, pointing out the cultural

and economic advantages of changed copyright laws. Both Lessig and Keen have

impeccable records outside of the articles, but while Lessig reinforces his ethos, Keen

injures it by seeming unreachable and close minded.

They Say/I Say is a book that teaches students how to argue using the three main

rhetorical strategies, ethos, pathos, and logos. While Keen puts up a good logical fight,

and there are some signs of the use of pathos and ethos in his article, they are few and far

in between. Lessig, on the other hand, does a better job of using all the rhetorical strategies

mentioned in They/Say I Say and would make the best choice to add as an example in the

book.
 McDermott 7

Works Cited

Lessig, Lawrence. “In Defense of Piracy.” wallstreetjournal.com. Dow Jones &

Company, Inc. Oct. 16 2008. Sept. 21 2010. Web.

Keen, Andrew. “Web 2.0.” weeklystandard.com. Clarity Media Group. Feb. 15 2006. Sept.

21 2010. Web.