Friends or Just “Friends” ? A Rhetorical Analysis of “Friends with Benefits: Do Facebook Friends Provide the Same Support as Those in Real life? ” Henry Adams, a famous historian, once said “Friends are born, not made. ” Is this true? One enquiring woman, author Kate Dailey, wrote “Friends with Benefits: Do Facebook Friends Provide the Same Support as Those in Real Life? ” published in 2009 in the Newsweek, and she argues that Facebook is able to provide and create “friends”. Dailey argues that while Facebook serves as a great alternative for real world’s social life, Facebook is not a replacement to the same support as those in actuality.
Dailey starts building her credibility by incorporating personal stories and using reliable sources, quoting convincing facts and statistics, and successfully using emotional appeals; however, towards the end of the article, her attempt to summarize the other side of the debate ultimately undermines her platform. Dailey’s credibility begins with the article’s publishing in Newsweek Magazine on June 15, 2009. The Newsweek Magazine attracts to it’s readers by providing an in-depth analysis of news and view about international issues, technology, business, culture and politics.
By this time, Dailey ad graduated from the School of Journalism at Columbia University and was the health editor of Newsweek Magazine. The tone of the article is relaxed while also friendly. The language overall is sympathetic and easy to understand with her simple sentence composition. In order to understand this article , the key term “friend” must be understood. There are many varying definitions of “friend” but Dailey ultimately defines “Facebook friend” as being people who you interact with most frequent.
This definition is supported by Rebecca G. Adams, a professor of sciology at the University of North Carolina, Greensboro. Adams states that “friends” are not as voluntarily as they seem but rather is restricted by education, age, and background (203). Like the definition of “friend”, Dailey’s assertions are supported with sufficient and convincing evidence from research and studies conducted from graduate work and research from students or professors at distinguished universities. Dailey provides many logical appeals in her argument.
A common logo Dailey used was the “better and worse”(140) logo presented in her argument that “because happiness spreads more easily than unhappiness, getting positive comments from your Facebook friends is more likely to ake you happy than sad” (204). Dailey presents the case that Facebook is is better at bringing happiness than sad because her logic is that happiness spreads faster. She incorporates this logo from a study conducted by James Fowler who is an associate professor of political science at the University of California of San Diego.
Another use of this “better and worse” (140) logo is when Dailey discusses the benefits of Facebook for shy, introvert people. She argues that “because people don’t have to interact face-to-face, that’s why we’re seeing them having relationship: they can think more about hat they have to say and how they say it” (204). Ths argument’s source came from a study conducted by Craig Ross, a graduate student at the University of Windsor who researchs online social networks.
This assertion presents a cause-effect relationship that since introverts have a harder time in engaging in socialization in real life, Facebook allows a safe haven for those such. This relationship is clearly causal as opposed to temporal because it is not related in time of occurence. It is related in behavorial and the way of socialization for the introvert individual. Overall, Dailey’s usage of logos do not versimplify the issue or over generalize the basis of too little evidence.
Dailey presents the arguments in its context without avoiding incomplete evidence because Dailey had originally stated that Facebook “friends” do not provide the same support as friends in real life. With the assertive logos appeals, Dailey also effectively makes appeals to the emotions in her article. Her hook in the beginning of her article is filled with emotional appeal that draws the reader into the topic. Dailey does this by introducing her friend Sue. Sue had recently lost the youngest son and made a post about it on Facebook.
Dailey’s use of “hook” in her introduction is filled with sympathetically phrases such as “ask unknowingly about her son and force her to replay the story over again” (203). The emotions Dailey evokes of Sue reliving the same tragic event of her youngest son’s death brings awareness to the practicality Facebook serves as an avoidance to being ill-informed, as well as a great platform to be able to offer condolences swiftly whether it be of a close friend or just a “friend”. Dailey’s goal is to make the reader feel sympathy for Sue.
Adding to this idea are words and phrases such as “grief”, painful”, and “ashamed” (202). These words evoke empathy within the reader about death, which makes the reader sympathize with Sue who is grief-stricken. Consequently, Dailey refers to “Sue and the death of her youngest son” frequently in her article to tie in all of the article’s points and to remind the reader to sympathize over Facebook’s convenience. Nonetheless, at the end of the article, Dailey introduces the opposing side of the article’s argument: Facebook keeps individuals living in the virtually phony realm as opposed to living in realism truth.
Therefore, the opposing side of the rticle’s argument undermines the level of effectiveness in the appeals to emotions that Dailey has been discussing throughout the article. For example, Dailey summarizes from a study from Michael J. Bugeja, a professor of communications at lowa State University, that the different worlds, virtual and real, provides different levels of support when encountering difficulty (204). The car crash example presented describes this idea in depth.
If an individual is in a car crash, Facebook “friends” can only provide blessing comments or at best a sad face but the friends in real life could provide you help by offering a ride or come to he individual’s side and offer assistance (204). This damages the strength of Dailey’s argument and potentially weakens Dailey’s credibility because Bugeja is a credible source and he has provided extensive research in his book Interpersonal Divide: The Search for Community in a Technological Age, which contradicts Dailey’s argument.
Although Dailey begins the essay by successfully coaxing her readers of Facebook’s ability to provide a sense of support among the vast “friend” network, she loses her credibility in the end, where she needs it the most to end the argument strongly. The audience can empathize easily ith Sue and the death of her youngest and this allows the audience to understand the usefulness of Facebook “friends”; however, Dailey’s shift to present the other side of the argument with Bugeja’s forward truth of the flaws in online social networks.
Bugeja convinces the reader that reality provides a more intimate level of support that the virtual world can never offer. Dailey could have ended the article on a stronger note that Facebook “friends” only serves as an additive to friendships to reality. In reference to Henry Adams infamous quote, Facebook “friends” cannot be made but built from existing relationships.
