Just as the information is received, there is a point of process engaged by recipients contributing to an overall narrative. Given the diversity of narratives surrounding media, Roberts-Miller gives specific deconstruction in her literary discussion Characteristics of Demagoguery.Roberts-Miller defines demagoguery by classifying an in-group and out-group. The in-group being the majority population and the out-group being the minority population. Members of these groups are included but not limited to classifications of religions, political identity, ethnic or cultural background, as well as, likes and preferences. The problem with in-groups and out-group functionality is when it becomes illegal to challenge the hegemonic values imposed by an in-group or the dictator of the hierarchy.  The continuum of demagoguery is attributed to the who continually back the mainstream claims, defending against the notion of accusations, -imposing a general acceptance as things are the way they were meant to be. In not rocking the boat, so to speak, propagation is furthered. The solution to this is in the activism in the area of media source transparency. The general public ought to critique credibilty of claims imposed in order for the general public to make (a) decision(s)/judgement(s) which are contingent upon quality of information given through media. 

With Palczewski teachings I am able to apply categorizes to deconstructing rhetoric as: symbols, symbolic action (expressive human actions), identification, agency, social reality, and reality understood (Palczewski:16). Conversely, Palczewski names and discusses constraints acknowledging we do not share the same experiences and therefore, are limited with shared interpretations of experiences.

Humanity has a history of progression in terms of the matter, for instance the creation story, where in the Garden of Eden, God gave Adam the task of naming the animals, or how Egyptian cuneiform was intended for business yet contributed to the formation of a universal written communication form. The Gutenberg press also receives much credit for the progression of shared communications, and of course the internet has globalized humans.

Giving account to a teen’s quality and quantity to technological access must also be considered around this rhetoric. As it is not safe to generalize, in this matter, we must. Socio-economics play a role in the quality and quantity teens have access to. In turn, the quality and quantity of access play a direct role in the amount of information and activity a teen participates in online. There is still much debate around funding of the educational system, this is mind, comes the implementation of programs and regulation. Much discussion has recently emerged around teens and technology as access causing for progressive dialogues and possible solutions continue to surface.

Boyd recommended teens not disqualify Wikipedia completely as often times professors and scholars are uploading the data. Furthermore, the history pages reflect scholarly debates on facts allowing teens to collaborate data and conclude upon a decision.

An important point Boyd brings up for discussion is, we cannot assume teens can be critical of content (Boyd: 177). On the flip side, we cannot assume parents, teachers and educators are equipped to inform teens to be critical of content as technology has only recently emerged. To ponder if a critical lens matters when comparing the interactions of digital “immigrant,” “native” and question the matter, -is to see we don’t know, what we don’t know. For this reason, the discussion is timely. The reshaping of society has been attributed to recent technological growth. The emergence of unexpected impacts upon society, such as how teenagers gauge appropriate use with such a tool. 

The literacy chapter goes through arguments and claims about teens and digital literacy which come across as intended, -to provoke thought.  

To split the oral and literate down the middle brings up an interesting point, when it comes to orality, Ong speaks of the importance arguing “writing slows down creativity (34),” whereas, in the Sundiata, storytelling relied on memory. Pictures are another interesting illustration which occur mentally in the Sundiata if receiving the story orally, compared to, reading and analyzing Ong’s Psychodynamics. Pictures hold representation and individual value, yet in a literate society, name values are placed. Lastly, although seemingly obvious, oral culture depended upon being able to recall, whereas, the literate culture is able to record and revisit information verbatim

 For instance, children of oral communities learned by trial and error because an oral culture had no concept of a written and pro-literate instructional system. 

Ong references the creation story to support this (32). Of course, the progression of agriculture received the blame for propelling the written language, as urban farmers implemented a written records system for business purposes and it evolved from there.

The text elaborates how unimaginable to exist in a society which is exclusively oral. 

The readjusting of my life, time management and priorities since becoming a student have completely changed my world view, expanding it to greater empathy. Taking up writing as a college major has also contributed to the changes I have endeavored, for example, I plan to use this as a tool to teach and contribute to education. The goal of teaching sparks emotion and creativity which keeps me motivated on days in the valley, pushing me forward. The insanity of metamorphizing as a student and when all seems to be unbearable, I dance.