In reading and writing in this technical and scientific sphere, the content and subject matter is far beyond my scope of familiar topics. Combined with jargon that remains exclusive to only a certain intended audience, it presents this genre as difficult to unpack at times. However, once the sphere went public and more was being published, the likelihood of misrepresentation and illegitimate articles increased. More could get passed off; bogus articles were published, under the false pretense that if it looked or sounded scientific, then it must be true. This is where George H. Kaub’s article would fit into theory. The fact that he built is argument following the scientific progression of stases and threaded legitimate and established environmental concern and fact throughout his article, it was made more likely that his readers would be duped into believing his outrageous claims. The mixture between fact and fiction in this article help to disguise, at least for a while, what would otherwise be considered a tabloid article, grounded in no real truth or science at all.
In Kaub’s article, “National Geographic, the Doomsday Machine” the first three paragraphs establish a sense of credibility for the author. He addresses common and well known environmental issues such as pollution and natural disasters, and in doing so, Kaub gains the initial trust of the reader; as if some guard is put at ease in reading about these well documented issues. He discusses issues of pollution “in the air we breathe and the water we drink to the soil we till, as well as visual and audio pollution, and in recent years, pollution of outer space from junk exploration hardware” (Kaub). These concerns are not time sensitive and remain real issues affecting the general public today. He goes on to describe issues particular to the San Andres Fault in California. In grounding his argument to a real place, with real issue, Kaub establishes himself some credibility; nothing to doubt when all is believed as fact. Even after his sham theory of the magazine causing this disaster, he is backing up his claim with numeral figures and percentages. These figures would solidify his argument, as the numbers are unbiased, factual information.
He positions his audience as the attentive public whose growing concern for the environment positions them to take action based on his findings. The outlying motivation of this article, the exigence, would appear at first glance as a response to a social movement at the time of publication. Grant-Davie might analyze the exigence as being motivated by the huge environmental push that emerged in pop culture of the 1970’s. If he considers the exigence to play a role in answering the “why” behind the discourse presented, what background knowledge I have of environmentalists at the time would support that claim. At least, that’s what you think would serve as the exigence, the push to action.
The beginning of the article follows the progression of stases that Fahnestock/Secor address; “…introduce a topic by defining it and commenting on its extent, go on to consider causes and consequences, then evaluate the phenomenon, and finally turn to the future by predicting or recommending certain action” (Fahnestock/Secor, 429). In the lower level stases of fact and definition, Kaub uses the aforementioned details of environmental concern to establish this argument. There is some merit to the concern he has with the environment, and these stases allow him to create a foundation for his argument to be believable. However, in scrolling a little past his opening remarks, in the section where he begins to apply the cause and effect, he loses all merit and credibility in blaming the crisis on the weight and publication of National Geographic magazines. In building these higher level stases arguments, I felt like Kaub lost any force behind his claim. The more ridiculous the allegation, the less likely I felt to continue reading or believing anything else he had written. At that moment, the higher levels began to work against his argument, and to negate any kind of ethos he had established previously.
I think this is also where the lines are blurred by Kaub on his purposing of the article. The second of Galin’s Fair Use test factors, “The confusion/misuse could be seen in the nature of the work, whether it is factual but passed off as creative, or vice versa”, helped to determine the fallacies of this article. It is possible that Kaub might have misrepresented his argument. It is formatted to be read as an accredited article, based on fact and not conjecture. Yet the topic in reality is so absurd, it could have been intended to be passed off as a creative work, a satire or comedy of sorts. This confusion would result in it looking like one thing, and in reality, being something totally different. There is more than the surface level text operating in this article, and with that, you may see a legitimate article but read a bogus study.
Works Cited:
Grant-Davie, Keith
Fahnestock/Secor
