Exam 1

Respond to seven of these prompts. Examples are encouraged where appropriatewrite as much as necessary, but Im expecting roughly a paragraph or two. The two primary standards are: 1. Can you demonstrate a good command of the concept, with reference to the reading? 2. Can you explain why it might be important (this is where an example would help but isnt necessary)? The best answers will directly, specifically engage and cite the readings in addition to lecture material and original examples. You do not need a separate bibliography if you only reference course readings, but clearly note which ones you are discussing when you do so, including page numbers where possible. 1. What is infoglut, what is symbolic efficiency, and how does infoglut contribute to the demise of symbolic efficiency? 2. Explain Edward Bernays case for the importance of propaganda. What do you find convincing in it? Unconvincing? What has changed since 1928 that changes the persuasiveness of his argument? 3. Explain Elluls concepts of orthopraxy vs. orthodoxy and vertical vs. horizontal propaganda. How could these older ideas be used to understand your contemporary media environment? How does Elluls view of propaganda agree with or depart from Bernays? 4. What is bullshit, how is it distinct from lying, and how is the concept helpful in understanding mis/disinformation? 5. What is cognitive dissonance, what is confirmation bias, and how do the two relate to one another? 6. Explain Habermass concept of the public spherewhat it is, how it emerged historically, and why it is important. 7. Explain the Toulmin model of argument, including its component parts, and create an example identifying all six parts. 8. What are heuristics? Describe the concept, why it is important, and explain two kinds of heuristics with brief examples. 9. What is agnatology? How would you classify misinformation, disinformation, propaganda, and bullshit within the three kinds of agnatology defined by Proctor? 10. What is McIntyres concept of post-truth? Is McIntyres claim that we live in a new post-truth society persuasive given the history of mis/disinformation we have studied (for example, in Tucher)? Why or why not?