Countering

I liked this section because I'm a terrible arguer. Once in my high school speech and debate class I received zero out of eleven votes for a debate I was in. The fact that I was arguing against lowering the drinking age might have come into play, but regardless, it shook my  debating confidence a bit.

Joseph Harris thinks that...
"to counter is  not to nullify but to suggest a different way of thinking...respond to prior views in ways that move the conversation in new directions".

Thinking of political debates, all candidates every do is argue and attempt to prove how smart they are and how wrong their opponent is, when a more constructive use of their time would be countering, "opening up new lines of inquiry". But this is understandable, I think, because America would rather have a "winner" and a "loser", a "good" and a "bad", because it is easier to cheer for your team that way. 

When you are countering another author's text, first you have to come to terms with their work by identifying their purpose. Then, you can..

Argue the other side- show the usefulness of a term or idea that a writer has criticized, or note problems with one that they have argued for

Uncover vales- surface a word  or concept for analysis that a text has left undefined or unexamined

or

Dissent- identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits.

A large  majority of the Onion's articles are "countering" articles, but it is difficult to assign them to one of the three sections that Harris writes about. Most of them use sarcasm as their main countering tool, and I'm not sure which section that falls under... so if any of you know, that would be great if you let me know :)

I'll try to use the article "Obama criticized for Living in Lavish Mansion while Most Americans Struggle to Make Ends Meet". I'm pretty sure that they are dissenting... but in a very sneaky manner. The author agrees with all of the commentators, but too much so. They take what criticizers say and blow it up to a whole new level, at times adding in false quotations of both influential people and others that I'm pretty sure are imaginary (I can't even imagine how the Onion deals with lawsuits).

This is an excerpt from the article...

"What message does it send to the American people when their president is living in a ritzy palatial estate at the same time they're struggling to keep their heads above water?" political strategist Robert T. Carlson said Wednesday, noting that Obama's gated home features a lush rose garden, a private balcony, an ostentatious room seemingly devoted to the color blue, a solar­ium, "fancy portraits" of John F. Kennedy and George Washington, and a movie theater. "So much for all that 'shared sacrifice' he keeps talking about.And just look at those gaudy columned porticoes," Carlson continued. "It must have cost a fortune to build that place."

I looked up "Political strategist Robert T. Carlson and could not find him in Google. Perhaps I should have known that this person did not even exist, I guess I'm gullible. But I think that this unique strategy of "identify a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits" works on most Americans. The others readers probably didn't think twice about the existence of Robert T. Carlson, only about the topic that he brought to light.

So I'm going to put the Onion in the "dissent" category- identifying a shared line of thought on an issue in order to note its limits". But they share the line of thought in a sarcastic way.

What is lost, gained, altered, or remains the same in that countering? 

Seriousness is lost. Also, if a reader is not familiar with the sarcastic tone to the Onion, they might believe that they are in agreement with this article.  What is gained is a fresh insight on the issue/ the hypocrisy, which is useful in some  cases but not to help further the conversation.

 I have a feeling that Joseph Harris would not be pleased with the Onion as a viable "countering" website because they argue the validity of the opponent but do not suggest any new direction of thinking.