In Fall 2004, my English 121 students watched Bowling for Columbine. After we were finished watching the film, I told them to read criticism of Moore and his techniques, something I’d not done myself at this point.* This was a good exercise for all of us, learning/thinking about the nature of any RHETORIC, looking beyond the surface, comparing Moore's techniques to our own when constructing texts. 

It was interesting for me to observe* how students reacted to Moore's "manipulation," his massaging of the "facts." Some students used this "shocking" information to fuel their I-hate-Moore stance, while others stuck by Moore no-matter-what. Some had little interest in the assignment. Some were inspired to make their own documentaries as part of the required course project. 

I hope my students left the course with a clearer understanding of how rhetoric is always about picking, choosing, blurring, magnifying, leaving things out, merging one thing with another, making it prettier, making it uglier, anticipating the audience’s response, attempting to head them off at the pass, confusing them when necessary if it accomplishes one’s purposes,* dressing it to the nines, dumbing it down, and perhaps convincing oneself that one is above any of these scurrilous tricks.

I tell my students that any knowledge obtained through sources other than oneself is to be suspect. I tell them that most of us will obtain much of our knowledge from these sources. I tell them that knowledge obtained from one’s own experiences is particularly suspect. I tell them to be sharp.

I miss Walter Cronkite.

--Rebecca Cook
UTC English



*certainly a more adept rhetorician would have left this information out
* “observe” sometimes carries more weight than “to watch”
* many rhetoricians would consider this crossing the line, wherever that is