Oxford dictionary's word of the year for 2016 was "Post-truth". This year, "Fake News" became a culturally viral phrase. In class, my students fretted about the legitimacy of their sources. It seems the trust in scholarship has declined, but I don't like comparing history to present because the context can be misleading. Misleading juxtapositions, phrasings and presentations can lead to convoluted opinions that can have very real consequences in life. 

Through my work I've come to recognize that through dialogue, we can craft or at least manipulate our reality. Through attempting improved perception, we tend to act differently, perhaps better in many situations. Misleading material can impede this process and make it so easy for our audiences to maintain paranoia, extreme distrust and conspiracy rhetoric on their own corners of the internet. 

Prior to 2004 and the launch of Facebook, I would argue that we were mainly consumers of content. Only few of us created and even fewer created material to be consumed by the masses. Today, where there are endless platform options for creation, we have all become media makers. But very few makers create with their audience and after effects in mind. It feels irresponsible to know we can endlessly push content, but take little pride in its audience impact. It has gotten so bad, the culture surrounding content creation is distrustful. There is an entire website dedicated to locating and archiving shitty headlines from all over daily. It's scary to me how misleading we allow our content lure's to become all in hopes of a news rating that's profitable. It makes sense, but it breeds all these other fringe issues that largely affect the whole. 

This is clearly a super large can of worms, one I'll likely visit in a more professional manner. What I'm attempting to guide you towards (my dear few readers), is the idea that as we move forward in our own careers, whether directly involved in profitable or for-fun content creation, we must maintain a responsibility for the things we create. 

I don't mean giving up on being recklessly artistic (go for it, go crazy, get all the bio-degradable glitter out) I just mean, if you're out there as an English or communications major, any journalists or young writers or musicians or artists, whatever it may be: Be Responsible. Think of the impact you have on your audiences. Remind yourself, if you're vegan, vegetarian, a millennial, LGBTQ+ identified, there is something in your heart that burns for something better in this life. You all have an idea of what this ideal society is. Language, our content, all of it, matters to that outcome. Although you may feel small, responsibly creating things that better our lives is a commendable, honorable choice. Make articles that challenge misleading headline culture! Make art that forces people to address themselves! Make music that screams about these issues! Throw shade! And throw it well! 

Earlier last week I mulled through a fair amount of Heidegger. I'm not fond of his work but the concepts fuel so much of my current research it's necessary to familiarize myself with the material. But in that lies a question, how important is reading the primary source when it's been synthesized better elsewhere?  Most colleagues that I work with will vehemently defend the need to read primary sources, but those same colleagues balk at reading sources from writers that conflict with their own views. 

Martin Heidegger was a Nazi. Worst of all, he was silent about the ungodly things happening aound him and a few bits of his writing even contained explicit anti-semetic language.  Further, he never apologized or rescinded his implied views. Since he joined the Nazi party in 1933 he was subsequently banned from teaching later in life. Although he lightly implied that he regretted his decisions, a man with all that authority and privilege never took a moment to discuss his mistakes. As someone who is toted so worldly and well-knowing, I would expect better. 

Times were different then. But it is 2018 and I don't necessarily agree with having to be forced to read primary material because it's synthesized so many other ways. There are many scholars that have done that work for us, taking something dense and turning it into something applicable. I believe they have more the right to be read than Heidegger. 

The values that the Digital Humanities and the general academic Rhetoric community don't seem to support requiring Heidegger source text. Just in case, my dear, few readers, you are reading this and would like to join the conversation, I've turned the comments on.

I feel so unjust when I read and use Heidegger as a source because I feel I have no excuse to use him when others have done better with his ideas. I also feel so slighted when I am forced to read works of problematic white men simply because other, better hearted people have crafted more sound works. This issue isn't necessarily a huge one for the Digital Humanities but discourse about problems such as these can open some great dialogue about what we can do better. 

Here is an unofficial, official mission statement: 

I am a slacker academic. I love school, but I have not been so eager to apply myself beyond the minimum. I challenge myself this year to write something (loosely) related to rhetorical scholarship each week. This link is a live reading list. If you happen upon this project and have any readings you'd like to share, feel free to add to it.