This is, of course, one obvious way of showing ethical listening. But let's remember there are other kinds of feedback too. Cheers and boos, for example.

Remember there are two kinds of listening postures being discussed here: the kind that helps you, and the kind that helps the speaker. I'm sure many people can lie down and be attentive listeners, but unless you show something to the alternative, it doesn't mean the speaker can tell.

It's natural to come into a listening situation with your mind already made up on particular ideas about the speaker, the topic, etc. How are you making sure you are opening yourself back up to critical thinking?

In other words, limit the noise on your end.

Of course, second language listeners have an extra challenge of language processing to consider, yet still are expected to be ethical listeners. How do you adapt yourself to a second language listening situation?

Of course, this message gets complicated in an asynchronous, digital context. How might a YouTube viewer be an unethical listener?

Even in monolingual circumstances, communication takes place. Poor listeners - and obvious ones at that - should not complain at a speaker's presentation if their own biases or distractions interfere with receiving signal.

Remember that as you are free to share your view and form of expression, others are as well.

One frequent assumption of most speeches is that someone out there doesn't know, or doesn't 'get it.'

It's also hardly inclusive, isn't it?

Sort of like "we're all in this together."

Your ability to recognize other points of view, other stakeholders and other relevant persons goes a long way towards establishing your credibility.

Some students forget this one. ALL content that you borrow for a presentation must be cited.

My rule of thumb: Paraphrase ideas and quote interesting language or expression. Anything you cite should be used for making your own rhetorical point.

All three types count as bad ideas.

Understand the difference between common knowledge and ideas. If it's something you and others have known, it may be common knowledge. If you learned that from someone, you might need to identify that source.

The only important difference between spoken plagiarism and written plagiarism is the former is perhaps harder to distinguish. If you are caught copying, you still look bad.

We're seldom interested in misleading or inconsiderate speeches, and we rarely need to sit and listen through it all.

In other words, what you put into it becomes what we'll make of it. Poor preparations will make for a poorly received speech.

This entails that the speaker has a responsibility to not simply be considerate of delivery. It is quite possible to be considerably knowledgeable and yet an unethical speaker.

If morality is about standards, ethics is about considerations.

We connect civic engagement to ethical engagement as a recognition of each other. If both members of a debate care for virtue, even in their disagreements, then how they treat each other's communication and ideas is of importance.

And what defines good sense, good will and good morals? Culture, for a start, and context for another. Understand that in a philosophical argument, all ethics are negotiated, yet built on human and societal influences.

This is especially true in situations where the journalist must negotiate access. If they get too close to a subject, that can skew their reporting.

Journalistic objectivity is often admired, but there are circumstances where interpretation is required. Let's say a journalist found out that powerful chemicals companies colluded on the sales price of a compound. How would we know to react?

Here is the accountable part for journalists. For us to trust the reporter, they should align perspective and practice with such considerations.

This is less often characterized as a genre and more a code of ethics, and as such is a developing term. In the end, the question being asked is how journalists practice accountability in their methods just as much as how they themselves are accountable for their work.

Polemics is distinct from most academic writing in that academic writing does not focus on conflict between parties, but rather distinct and controlled contributions to a problem. It would be incorrect, however, to suggest academics do not engage in polemics. Perhaps the communicative mode or medium might be worth focus here.

Contentious people, contentious issues. The connection is important to understand as we seldom come to clear and easy answers with such topics.

Unlike philosophical or some political argumentation, the polemicist's goal is assert the dominant argument. Most polemists assume they have arrived at the best informed argument.

Almost but not quite past, present and future.

Notice the word 'should' here, as well as the following content on reliability. Coding text often demands correspondence and scrutiny, as we are discussing language and culture. Answers and interpretations aren't always simple, but differences can contribute to more refined understanding.

Understanding what either approach tells us is important for critical consideration. For example, what would a frequency count tell us about one category's presence in text?

When we see content analysis applied in non-fiction writing, we obviously have a different expectation for this than with research writing. For example, sample data might be cherry picked to make a point, or little information in method is presented.

Let's understand that "text" can have many definitions:

• “Text” can be the content of language, that which is communicated.
• “Text” can be the whole repository of information in a transmissive form, like a book.
• “Text” can be any sampling of content, such as one word or many sentences.
• “Text” can come in many types (written, oral, iconic, audio-visual, and hypertext)

Relevant to your presentation, what are your enticing your audience to do after you have finished? Can they look up something on their phone, or contact you for more information?

We understand class presentations are usually mandatory for audience members, and their interest in your topic will greatly vary. How can you get them to consider the WIIFM aspect?

Realize that this always shows. The audience can always tell when you don't care.

Don't assume your audience will be satisfied with just any source. If I can tell your source came from someone's blog, I might use that in determining your credibility.

Good presentations always show strong source usage. Good presenters are always prepared to discuss them in reasonable detail, especially during Q&A.

Consider why an audience member heckles a comedian. One reason is that heckler is a jerk, but another possible reason is the comedian has messed up. The rest of the audience will side with whichever fact is more apparent.

Let's think about this in a class presentation contest. Your antecedent credibility will be the expectation we have that you've been developing an amateur yet academic understanding of your topic. Your consequent credibility will show us that understanding.

Trust your audience that a credible delivery will be informative and persuasive. Don't count on theatrics or gimmicks to highlight the urgency or interest of the topic

Try adjusting your delivery to an imagined split audience. Assume some viewers will be skeptical and others approachable.

Do you want to focus on persuading while informing, or informing that leads to some persuasive arguments? Considering this early impacts your outlining and delivery.

Reconcile this right away. The objectivity of your informative speech most often comes out of your tone and commitment to making audiences aware of the topic's complex nature.

The definition of "cogent" is "clear, logical and convincing." If any premises turn out to be untrue, the argument becomes strong yet not cogent. For example, the argument that Earhart safely landed and lived out her days on a deserted island is strong (there are such islands out there; as a pilot she'd logically look for one) yet not cogent (she had limited time flying over a near landless ocean).

The strength of an argument relies in its ability to resist dispute or skepticism. While there are many theories on how pilot Amelia Earhart disappeared and died, these are usually based in what could have probably happened in the region where we lost contact with her.

Deductive reasoning can help us define what has been and what exists in the moment, while inductive reasoning can help us define what might have been or may exist in the moment.

Inductive reasoning can go into the future in ways deductive reasoning cannot. If we say something like "the sun will rise and set tomorrow," that is still inductive reasoning because it assumes circumstances or conditionals (i.e., the sun doesn't suddenly go supernova, or get blown up by an alien fleet).

Good inductive arguments are one that are hard to dispute, but the difficulty is based on agreeable and logical premises.

For example, consider the following arguments:

• Alien life exists on other planets.
• We will someday discover alien life on other planets.
• Aliens from other planets have already discovered and communicated with us.

None of these conclusions can be supported by deductive reasoning, but can be supported by varying qualities of inductive reasoning.

Deductive arguments must be valid before they are sound. We declare an argument sound when we cannot deny any of the presented premises.

Here are some examples to help.

• "Treason is wrong" works if we understand "treason is a crime" and "treason puts our country at risk."
• It's true that treason is a crime, because laws made it so. Risk, however, is open to interpretation and context, but generally this second premise is still assumed
• If one premise is a fact and another is largely agreeable, we have validity.

In other worlds, deductive arguments help us cut to where we can all agree. They provide a foundation on which to establish more deductive or inductive arguments.

Understand that truth is not the same as facts. Truth is sometimes agreed upon, and certainly based on perception. Consider, for instance, how the sun is portrayed as yellow and red in different parts of the world. Are some people wrong?

Case in point: Something like "murder is the most evil crime" will often serve as a premise for other arguments, like "murderers should get the death penalty."

This premise, however, is itself an argument. It is neither fact nor truth.

One (perhaps unfortunate) implication of this: You don't always have to worry about the logic of your argument, if you have found an argument that works.

Consider your positionality in political argumentation. Maybe you are arguing about health care because you have an important medical concern. Maybe you are sharing an argument because a politician respect influenced you, but you yourself have not further investigated the issue. We all can potentially take part in someone else's strategy.

We accept political arguments as having practical goals (like convincing you to vote), but these can of course be philosophical or (as we see on the Internet) intensely personal.

Another way of looking at it: Propaganda exists to discourage or eliminate debate. You believe or you don't, and that's all that matters, with propaganda.

Emphasis on logic. If we cannot rely on agreeable truths or facts, we cannot argue. For example, consider the difference between these religious arguments:

• "We should teach the Bible in school because this is a Christian nation."
• We should teach the Bible in school because God exists and demands it."

Notice what can be argued (the first) and not (the latter).

You'll only reach this point if a rebuttal was required, and sometimes qualifications can be as simple as using some hedging to allow for remote possibilities.

Not every claim requires a rebuttal, but it's imperative you consider it. Also, think of rebuttals as 'checks' against your work. If checks are necessary, that's where qualifiers come in.

We cannot expect readers to immediately respect our grounds or warrants, and the backing therefore may be necessary to guide them to our viewpoint.

Think of the warrant as an 'invisible bridge' between claim and grounds. It's the thing you don't necessarily have to say because the reader will understand it once the other two are established.

This is the backbone or impetus of your claim. Without this you are just stating a preference or generic belief.

In your own essays, you'll make many claims. There will be the thesis, of course, but all sorts of other claims within your writing.

What's the best approach for a problem we're looking at: theoretical or practical? Circumstances often dictate this. If I look at college rankings and think 'that doesn't look useful,' I consider a practical approach to making sure I'm right.

Toulmin is not the only source when it comes to argumentation theory, but he's a great reference. We will practice with the Toulmin Model for class.

Though note how different that may be in a monolinguistic circumstances. In essays, writers do what they can to before putting together these ideas, and attempt to coax you into their way of thinking after the fact.

Note how different this is from simply opinions. Many people can tell you their favorite color and never articulate the reason why.

Another useful item to consider. For example, what if the op-ed writer stands to profit from his advocation?

This should suggest the idea of op-eds being a source of pride for the NYT.

Among other things, op-eds are important for a media publisher's credibility. By entertaining input from non-affiliated persons, the media allows for multiple informative and persuasive perspectives.

We should also consider this in the context of opportunity cost. If a political figure publishes an op-ed on a controversial topic, there will likely be some kind of backlash that impacts their career.

This can be quite different in the American context.

If an American publisher shares an anonymous piece that details outstanding criminal activity, it can become a major court issue of freedom of the press vs. protecting criminals.

For op-eds, we are right to speculate at the choice of anonymous submissions, though such skepticism should be supported by logic.

This might seem like a lot of work, but remember one of the main point's of doing an anno bib is having a ready amount of information you actually might use in your research paper.

"An" introduction, meaning from you, as the following details indicate. Don't simply copy-paste an introduction from your source.

Note this is about the research problem, not the finished essay. Perhaps you might even annotate a tertiary source like a Wiki page, which of course you wouldn't reference in your essay.

Anno bibs are both learning-oriented and task-oriented. If it's a task demand, make sure you understand the expectations.

This can't be overstated when you have a deadline; defining the scope early on really helps to save time, especially since it might be easy to overlook such items.

Academic sources are superb, but depending on your topic and goals, maybe they are not enough. Run through a media list like this and consider where you might want to expand.

The higher a "cited by" count, the more influential a source may be, though there should be considerations for other circumstances like source type or date which can affect such results.

This strategy is useful because you are more likely to get a more informed and contemporary perspective while also getting a sense on influential publications.

Remember there might be many opportunities for evaluation, and you may want to categorize such. For example, "connections to topic" and "research limitations" might be two different labels in an anno bib.

The summative style is recognition that a source has value to your topic, though you have yet the need or time to evaluate. You might want to consider writing in this style for a first reading, then revisit the source later with the anno bib to analyze or critique.

One good use for descriptive annotations is for sources you don't plan to revisit much. If your source has quite specific yet few useable features, or if it's just not useful for any potential topic, you can save yourself by recording the essentials.

You'll want to have this every time. If you have real plans for using this for research and writing purposes, this is the most efficient information for accessing and citing.

One way to think about anno bibs is they provide a highly organized form of note-taking for a centralized purpose. You can take notes relevant to both that central purpose and for making connections to other research aspirations.

With fairness, we are recognizing conflicts, even if we take a side. With accuracy, we are representing those perspectives in ways agreeable to the source.

Note that even with subjective reporting, some of those virtues or practices of objective journalism still stand. For example, an editorial might come across as neutral or detached in its presentation, even if the language is clearly subjective.

Truthfulness is always required, even when being subjective. Neutrality rests in your angle and purpose for the piece. Detachment is a matter of tone, and its importance shifts with the reporting context.

As you take sources from other reporting, you'll want to consider how you represent them, and how that collection represents you.

Not every article requires complete objectivity or neutrality, but then we readers really start caring about issues of transparency and informed perspective.

Rather like references and citations in academia, attributions are vital considerations.

This is an important consideration as well. As well as possible, we want to confirm that anonymous sources aren't fiction.

In context to a class assignment, if the professor is something like a senior editor then you should be clear about source identities in your notes. Also consider that anonymous sources will often be taken less seriously than other options.

In context to a class assignment, you most need to worry about this as it concerns publishing anything online. You'll want to be quite clear with your human sources about how you'll use their information.

Note that multiple sources suggests multiple perspectives. For example, an article about a politician's speech might have multiple reactions from the crowd, not just one. Yet in addition, the article might have recent polling data to contextualize the event.

This of course reminds us that evidence has a hierarchy. A direct eyewitness, or a knowledgeable expert, often has more to tell us than some random person.

A good way to think about how to seek out sources is to consider what entities have connections to the news. For example, are there stakeholders or influencers?

As with academia, primary and secondary sources are vital and abundant in journalism. In this field, however, the rigor of source collection is defined by the journalist's attempts to reach a complete perspective on an event or phenomena where controls seldom exist.

This is closest to where you'd want to go with an interactive presentation. It's probably the most forgiving of mistakes, it encourages outline and goal focus, and most importantly, it's the easiest style for allowing you to communicate with your partner.

Some adoption of the memorized style is a good idea, but you should reserve that for the denser material (like lists of information or heavy statistics and quotes). Going verbatim could lead to real stress, especially if you lose your spot.

Being impromptu does not mean lack of preparation. Impromptu is more about knowing what you will discuss rather than how you will go about it. In other words, you really need to nail your topic and be comfortable with your performance style.

This style is a poor idea for interactive presentations. The more you rely on a script, the more you limit opportunities for flexibility and responsiveness.

In testing your equipment, you're going to want to think about how you sound. Do not assume your audience will forgive you for bad sound, or watch more than once.

You absolutely need to test and re-test your equipment as you prep your presentation. Assume a mistake very much can happen.

Obviously you don't have a real podium for this presentation, and yet you are still stationary, in a forced position.

In this presentation, your room is both physical and digital. Our view of you taking this space is distinctly informed by your camera and microphone.

Though of course you'll want to acknowledge such as they pertain to your thesis. Your job will not often be to cover every point of comparison.

Let's ask general questions about our sources. How do they differ in trying to provide information and perspective on the same topic or event? How do they come to distinct conclusions or points?

The idea of synthesis is to use the original source's ideas to make your points. Any summary detail is only as important as what it can do to help you synthesize.

Do remember that disagreements can come in degrees, and are more than just a yes vs no or pro vs con. Do any of your sources disagree on fine points in a larger argument, or speak with a different force?

Think about the expectations of both the subject and the audience. Subjects want to tell their side of the story, but audiences want to know (to the best of ability) the truth.

Note that the 'story' can be organized by thematic points. We don't need a strict chronology of life events.

This takes greater importance for audiovisual media like radio programs. We want to hear the subject's voice just as much as learn about them.

We often want to learn about the profiled person - their character, their beliefs and attitudes - which are not always accessible in other circumstances.

This is probably one of the important differences between a profile and a biography. Many biographies are comprehensive and dense, whereas profiles are often shorter and consider a particular context.

In some cases, the profiler might be part of the narrative, but you are less likely to be interested in the profiler than in the subject.

Profiles are an exploration, not witness testimony. We don't want "just the facts."

This seems obvious, perhaps, but recognize that researching informs perspective, and vice versa.

What determines poor style and unacceptable tone? Context.

In other words, the relations among your vocabulary choices create diction. Two experts, for example, could use much of the same vocabulary, yet still have quite different diction.

If voice is how you want to sound (ex. authoritative), tone is how you want to influence (ex. commanding).

Can there be more than one voice? Surely, but genre conventions often influence our own inferences of particular dominant voices.

We often talk about style in summary (and perhaps vague) terms, but recognize that style comprises patterns, shifts, and hallmarks of various writing choices.

More important than having three body paragraphs is having paragraphs with clear main ideas and purpose. Don't assume, for instance, some vague three-reason structure, as it often will lead to complications in your idea formation.

A sense of completion is largely determined by the quality of your thesis. Adjust your working thesis to suit the paper's goals.

Notice how this example topic is focused on information, not persuasion. There are likely to be debatable elements within the complete argument you construct, but with expository writing you should focus more on interpreting the significance of an idea rather than trying to persuade us to some action.

This note should suggest to you the variety of options you have at organizing your information and rhetoric.

Many of these features will appear similar to other essay genres you have practiced. This should not confuse you so long as you have control on the main thrust of what defines the expository genre.

Notice the emphasis of investigating an idea before setting forth an argument. This helps us distinguish the genre from both argumentative essays and exploratory essays.