Our starting point in this webtext is the work on ethical considerations and issues in digital writing spaces. Laura Gurak (2003), Jim Porter (1998, 2009), Stuart Selber (2004a, 2004b), and others have all suggested critically and rhetorically situated approaches to understanding practices of writing in networked space. We use the work of these scholars as a launching point to attend to the ways in which rhetorical ethics and visual representation rub up against one another in digital spaces.


The media education community has devoted itself to ensuring that students in K-12 contexts have rich experiences in critically interacting with digital multimedia (see, for instance, the work of Renee Hobbs at the Media Education Lab, and the work of the National Writing Project on the digitalis web site). Computers and writing scholars (including Ball & Kalmbach, 2010; Handa, 2001, 2004; Selfe, 1999, 2004, 2007; Wysocki, 2003, 2004 and others) have argued for a critical technological literacy that requires being both critical consumers and producers of digital media.


To be critical consumers, we must be aware of the possibilities of digital manipulation, and be equipped with honed, careful eyes. To be critical producers, we must be aware of the possibilities afforded us as creators of visual information, and must recognize the spaces where visual manipulation is useful for critique or parody.


In this webtext, we share a series of examples, all of which pose particular visual, rhetorical, and ethical quandaries. Most of the examples are recent, as the web and graphic-editing tools have accelerated the ease of manipulation and the rhetorical velocity (Ridolfo, 2009; Ridolfo & DeVoss, 2009; Rife & Ridolfo, 2011) of manipulated images. We include photojournalistic and news images, popular publication images, and circulating web-based images to tease out ethical differences and issues related to each set of images. We hope to expand critical and rhetorical perspectives toward digital literacy to better encompass digital-visual critical analysis, and examine the ways in which visual representation can be situated ethically and interrogated rhetorically as visual representation can divide and unify, identify and disassociate, and more.


Throughout the webtext, we references the images above as figures. Click on the related figure to view a full-size image.



Carolyn Handa (2001) aptly noted that "preparing students to communicate in the digital world using a full range of rhetorical skills will enable them to analyze and critique both the technological tools and the multimodal texts produced with those tools." The world for which we are preparing students to communicate as thinkers, researchers, professionals, and citizens has changed in recent years. For instance, up until fairly recently, the fairly expensive and incredibly powerful graphic-design application Adobe Photoshop was only available to a small group of highly trained designers. Now "Photoshop" has become a verb, and many college campuses make it accessible on their computer networks. Further, shareware applications like Gimp and online image-manipulation tools that create a Photoshop-like environment (e.g., Pixlr and Splashup) are readily available.


Not only are the tools more readily available, but the spaces to distribute graphic work are more easily accessible. Returning again to a world in which Photoshop was primarily used by high-end designers, graphics had to be printed to be shared, and full-color, high-resolution printing was incredibly expensive and it was often time-intensive to prepare images for print production. Today, there are abundant digital spaces on which and through which composers can post and share graphic work, including social-networking sites.


Cindy Selfe (2004) defined visual literacy as necessitating a relationship between both consumption and production: "the ability to read, understand, value, and learn from visual materials (still photographs, videos, films, animations, still images, pictures, drawings, graphics)--especially as these are combined to create a text--as well as the ability to create, combine, and use visual elements (e.g., colors, forms, lines, images) and messages for the purposes of communicating.... visual literacy (or literacies), like all literacies, are both historically and culturally situated, constructed, and valued."


Other scholars in rhetoric and composition have emphasized the importance of both looking at and making different types of texts (George, 2002; Hocks, 2003; Shipka, 2005, 2011; Yancey, 2004), and, certainly, producers of multimodal work recognize the ways in which analysis and production inform each other. In this article, we attend more to the analytical practices, because although rhetoric and composition has a long, rich history of deeply interrogating texts (both alphanumeric and image-based), we haven't particularly honed in on the ways in which digital tools allow for the easy manipulation of images, or attended to the ethical implications of such manipulation.


Historically speaking, image manipulation is certainly nothing new. However, the accessibility of graphic-design tools and the spaces and places for distributing images are relatively new. Further, the tools and the spaces place significant expectations upon us as viewers/readers and producers/creators. Culturally speaking, although we generally know better, our culture tends to cling to a sense of photographic truth and machine objectivity. New technologies allow us to represent ourselves--and, more importantly--to represent others in ways that are potentially problematic. Indeed, we currently live in a culture of simulation--where images are created, or where arguments are created through photographic manipulation.


Rhetorical ethics, a framework and lens offered by Jim Porter (1998) for navigating online and internetworked dynamics generally lends itself well to negotiating digital-visual considerations. What makes an ethical approach specifically "rhetorical?" According to Porter (1998), "'Being rhetorical' means attending to situated contextual features that form, maintain, and constrain discursive relations... and acknowledging the role of technologies, institutions, disciplines, and other modes of system and production in constituting and constraining human relations" (p. 146). Rhetorical ethics situates "questions about human relations as they are constructed and maintained through discourse" (Porter, 1998, p. 146). Certainly, in a networked, digital world, images are part of the rhetorical landscape, and part of our discursive processes.


Porter (1998) defines rhetorical ethics against a universal, one-size-fits-all approach to analysis: "Rhetorical ethics is procedural, it is case specific, it provides some principles (although it does not trust them very much, as it is sensitive to the mandates of particular situations), and it privileges the specific and the concrete over the general and abstract. For these reasons, and because of its flexibility and adaptability in the face of tough cases, it offers an extremely powerful paradigmatic perspective" (p. xiii).


Porter emphasizes the collective nature of rhetorical acts, and the ways in which we act in "bound and localized" ways. Porter asks questions of rhetorical action, addressing the presence of ideological and power dynamics, but also asks questions of practical judgment: "How do we arrive at a standpoint, recognizing that any act of writing requires taking one? How do we decide what to do, what action to take in situations involving competing ideologies?" (p. 31). For the purposes of this article, here we expand the ways in which "writing" is situated, combining the multimodal work of computers and writing scholars with the rhetorical ethics framework offered by Porter. Writing, today, requires composers to draw across multiple modes of meaning making. Rhetorical positioning--that is, finding a standpoint from which to analyze and to act, to critique and to compose--requires attention to the ways in which both words and images are used to express, inform, persuade, etc.


Porter (1998) points out that "rhetorical acts presume both and obligation and a judgment, which are part of, not prior to, the rhetorical act" (p. 53). Thus, rhetorical ethics are those principles that account for and accept "the presence of ideology, power, and politics" but that also "address the problem of practical judgment" (p. 31). How does one do what Porter calls for? How does one sufficiently attend to the issue of "practical judgment" in specific instances of critical digital-visual analysis? We use Porter's approach to frame the questions--and how we ask those questions--when engaging in critical visual analysis.


Specifically, we ask:


  • What is the context--social, cultural, historical--for the visual analysis?
  • How is the visual analysis situated according to local ethical practices and conventions? That is, how is this instance situated according to the ethical practices of cultures, communities, institutions, etc.?
  • What is at stake for us in considering this visual? How are we positioned in relationship to the visual? What kind of producers/consumers are we?
  • What is at stake for others in regard to this visual? How are others positioned in relationship to the visual? How do we understand their roles as producers/consumers?
  • What are the specific technological/material conditions of the visual, and how do we attend to these conditions in making ethical judgments?


We present below four sets of visuals ripe for critical analysis. We introduce and briefly discuss each set of images, and pay particular attention to one image from each set. After discussing each set of images, we return to the questions we've crafted drawing from Porter's (1998) work and present some pedagogical and research-related implications and conclusions.

set one: popular media examples

The first set of images we want to share here come from popular media. Certainly we and the students in our classes are no dupes; we're well-aware of the fact that magazine covers, ads, and content (for instance) are heavily edited. Often, however, students aren't as well aware of the extent of the editing or the specifics of image-editing practices.


In 1990, Esquire magazine ran a cover story on Michelle Pfeiffer. On the front cover was a picture of Pfeiffer. The cover copy read "What Michelle Pfeiffer needs..." On the inside fold was another photo, and the copy read "is absolutely nothing." Adbusters magazine, however, obtained a copy of the Esquire editorial memo to their retouching company, which included detail as specific as "clean up complexion, soften eye lines, soften smile line, add colour to lips, trim chin... soften line under ear lobe... add hair to top of head." The bill for the retouching services for the two images was $1500. (See Figure 1, above.)


The now-defunct Jane magazine, in a 2003 issue, featured Lisa Marie Presley. In a surprising move, the magazine published details about the photo shoot, including the time spent on hair and makeup, the number of photographs taken, the amount of time taken to select the cover photo, and the attention paid to retouching the final photo--the bill for which was $6500. (See Figure 2, above.)


In 2003, Julia Roberts appeared on the cover of Redbook magazine. She had appeared on the cover of Redbook multiple times in the past. On this cover, Roberts appears with perfect hair and makeup, wearing a shimmery, sequined red dress. The cover copy reads "The Real Julia." When readers raised the issue of Roberts' seemingly stout neck and giant head, Hearst Publications (the publishers of Redbook) admitted that they combined two photos of Julia Roberts. Rather than pay fees to secure Roberts for a shoot; devote the time and energy to hair, makeup, and fitting; to take likely thousands of photos; and to decide on and then drastically re-touch a cover image, Redbook's editorial staff chose to combine two photos. The headshot is from the 2002 People's Choice awards ceremony; the body shot is from the 1999 opening of the movie Notting Hill. (See Figure 3, above.)


More recently, in summer 2011, the British government banned a Lancome ad featuring Julia Roberts. The government has taken a strong stance (but a justifiably wishy-washy implementation approach) to "excessive" image retouching in advertisements. The code establishes what counts as "exaggeration" and prohibits "misleading" images. In this case, the excessive retouching of Julia Robert's photo for the ad presented a look unattainable with the use of the cosmetics (Sweney, 2011). (See Figure 4, above; analysis of Julia Robert's image).


Moving beyond magazine covers to movie posters, the 2007 posters for different releases of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix revealed several differences--some subtle and generally allowable if following standard photojournalist conventions (important to note, however, is that movie posters are not photojournalism), but one other dramatic change. The not-so-surprising changes include changes made due to the different formats of the posters: The standard-release poster is in portrait layout, whereas the IMAX 3D poster is in landscape format. Thus some cropping has been done. The somewhat-surprising difference is the disparate breast size of the character Hermoine Granger in the posters; in the IMAX 3D poster, Hermoine's breasts are substantially larger. (See Figures 5 and 6, above.)


A final example, popular yet Internet-born, is that of the 2008 "death" of teenage pop star Miley Cyrus. On September 5, 2008, a Yahoo! News piece obtained through Rueters, announced the death of the singer in a tragic car accident. For hours (which are essentially decades in Internet time), the rumor spread. Vigil posts, status updates, and web pages emerged. And, of course, what eventually emerged was the fact that the singer was not dead, and the "news story" was a hoax. Who didn't emerge was the designer of the fake news story, or any discussion of the purpose of distributing the fake news story. (See Figure 7, above.)

set two: news media examples

Because of photojournalist standards, expectations, and ethical guidelines, the liberties taken with popular visual material aren't as typical in news media examples. There are just as many questionable manipulations, however, and a significant (and underdiscussed) element of news media manipulation is that it requires an attentive public to keep photojournalists and editors operating within reasonable ethical practice.


The first of three examples of non-ethical practice is that of the Newsweek cover featuring Bobbi McCaughey, who, in late 1997, gave birth to septuplets. Both Newsweek and Time magazines featured McCaughey and her husband on their cover issues in early December. Newsweek, however, dramatically altered McCaughey's teeth, while Time magazine ran an unaltered photograph of the couple. (See Figure 8, above.) After covers were compared and readers began a complaint campaign, Newsweek published a "clarification" related to the photo's processing and production preparation: Newsweek's full statement read as follows:


    In an attempt to lighten shadows on last week's cover photograph of Mr. and Mrs. Kenny McCaughey, our photo technicians altered the appearance of Bobbi McCaughey's teeth. While we often correct color values and contrast levels in pictures we use, it is not Newsweek's policy to change or misrepresent the subject matter in any way. We regret the error.


A second news magazine cover that provides an interesting example of image manipulation is that of the 2005 Newsweek cover featuring Martha Stewart. The photo is of a buoyant-looking Martha, wearing a pink sweater tied around her shoulders and showcasing beautifully manicured nails. She's parting a set of gold curtains, and the copy reads "Martha's Last Laugh: After Prison, She's Thinner, Wealthier & Ready for Prime Time." Martha Stewart, however, in early March 2005, was still in prison, where it was unlikely that manicures were standard prison-issued fare, or that she'd even be available for a photo shoot. A USA Today story about the cover followed up by an NPR interview between Robert Siegel and Lynn Staley, assistant managing editor at Newsweek, makes for an interesting set of considerations about photojournalistic ethics and "photo illustrations." (See Figure 9, above; analysis of Martha Stewart image).


The last example of news media manipulations we've included here were taken by Brian Walski. On Monday, March 31, several major publication outlets in the U.S. ran the first photo at the far left, above. Many of the publications ran the photo front page, above the fold. (See Figure 12, above.)

The other two images included here (See Figures 10 and 11, above) were some of the other images Walski filed from Basra.


A photoeditor at another publication quickly realized that the left side of the first photo was particularly compelling, with the soldier featured with his gun up and his finger on the trigger guard, holding his other hand out in a "stop" gesture. The photoeditor also realized that the right side of another photo, the second photo here, was particularly compelling, featuring not only the soldier, but a man holding a child in his arms, almost offering the child to the soldier, looking up with an imploring expression on his face. The photoeditor suspected that Walski had merged together the left side of one photo with the right side of another photo, and contacted the L.A. Times, Walski's employer to comment. Walski admitted he merged the images, and was fired. The L.A. Times editorial staff called public attention to the publication's policy forbidding the alteration of news photos.

set three: internet examples

Internet-born examples are readily available for discussion and analysis. Admittedly, prior to sites like snopes.com (which gathers and debunks or provides supporting evidence for Internet lore), manipulated photos spread like wildfire on the web, bouncing from emailbox to emailbox and from email list to email list. Today, hoax images are typically debunked within hours, but the current and ongoing production of hoax images make them still worthy of attention in a world of digital-visual manipulation.


The text that accompanied Figure 13, above, which circulated primarily between 2000 and 2001, was that a Canadian gentleman rescued two cats from outside an atomic energy research facility near his hometown in Canada. He and his wife named the cats Lost and Found, and the cats (one male, one female) produced a litter of kittens. The couple kept one of the kittens and named her Snowball. The story circulated with "actual" quotes from the cat's owner:


    As her proud owner claims: "She started out a big kitty and she just seemed to keep growing. She always meowed for more food and would climb up on the counter to eat food which I forgot to cover. Chicken is her favorite. Once I left a cooked chicken on the table that I was going to use for a boat picnic, an hour later the chicken was gone."


The reality of the photo is almost as delightful as the story. Soon after this picture became popular and was widely distributed on the Internet, the Ottawa Citizen traced the source of the photo to a man living in Washington state, Cordell Hauglie. According to Mr. Hauglie: "My daughter wanted to send an electronic photo of her cat to her friend. I got a little carried away. When we sent it to her friend, we never dreamed anyone would believe the photo was real."


Another relatively infamous Internet hoax image circulated in the late 1990s on email, and was typically titled "a really shitty day at work" or "National Geographic's photo of the year." (See Figure 14, above.)


National Geographic responded with online articles, news reports, and public service announcements, and still maintains an area of the nationalgeographic.com web site devoted to explaining the photo, and disclaiming its authenticity (http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0815_020815_photooftheyear.html). The image was created by merging together a U.S. Air Force photo taken near San Francisco's Golden Gate Bridge (see Figure 16, above), and a photo of a shark from South Africa (see Figure 15, above).


The photo raised some interesting discussion about permissions and rights when the shark photographer responded to the image in an interview:


    "I'd like to make contact with the person who did this--not to get him or her into trouble, but because it's a lot of fun and it is a good job," Charles Maxwell, the photographer of the shark said. He continued with: "However, I must make clear that I would not like to see this happen to one of my photographs again. It is wrong to take images from a Web site without permission."


A more recent Internet-born example emerged on the digital scene in 2008. A Google search using some combination of "obama," "palin," and "dancing" will result in upwards of 700,000 hits, most pointed toward the original image (although it now lives on thousands of servers and is hosted on thousands of web sites). (See Figure 17, above; analysis of Martin Rice's image).


In October 2008, disgusted by the fact that the most recent presidential debates were outshined in terms of viewership by "Dancing with the Stars," Martin Rice, a Florida-based graphic designer, merged together headshots of then-candidate Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, onto the bodies of two "Dancing with the Stars" contestants. Rice sent the image by email to a few friends, with the message "unfortunately, this is what the country wants." Within one week, CNN, ABC, and other major media outlets were showcasing the image on their television broadcasts and on their web sites.


Earlier in 2008, Figure 18, above, emerged on the web, typically under the header "there Is an International Crisis at 3 A.M.; President Obama Answers the Call." The image refers to a scenario posed in a TV campaign ad released by Hillary Clinton in late February 2008. The ad featured a video panning a typical suburban home late at night. The voiceover of a male's voice was:


    It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. But there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing. Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call. Whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military--someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. It's 3 a.m. and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering the phone?


This image could also be regarded as an homage (or a rip-off) of a similar visual joke targeting George W. Bush that circulated in 2005 (see Figure 19, above, for the original Obama pic, and Figure 20, above, for the 2005 version.)

race and representation

Certainly, altering the appearance of an individual to sell cosmetics, visually twisting an image to represent "news" that may not have happened, and the proliferation of visual-digital hoaxes on the Internet pose just an initial set of complexities. Photo manipulation has also been used to craft (or distort) a display of inclusivity and/or diversity.


In summer 2009, Microsoft released a campaign on its web site for its business solutions tools. Different versions of the ads appears on different regional sites. The U.S. ad (see Figure 21, above) featured a group of professionals made up of one Asian man, a black male, and a white woman. The same ad, distributed in Poland, however, featured an Asian man, a white man with a black hand, and a white woman (see Figure 22, above; analysis of Microsoft ad).

For the Polish ad, a graphic designer in the company replaced the head of the black man, but left his hand intact.


Figures 23 and 24 above feature Wisconsin Badger fans at a football game. The original image was taken at a game (see Figure 23). The second image appeared on the cover of the 2001-2002 undergraduate application booklet, distributed by mail to thousands of prospective students (see Figure 24). On the booklet cover, a black man has been added to the group of fans. The black man was, in fact, a Wisconsin student, but the photo was taken by the university relations office during a minority student icebreaker event during welcome week for the university.


Just before the publication of Wisconsin's application booklet, the University of Idaho ran, on the top level, front page of the university's web site Figure 26. The image supposedly shows a diverse and happy group of Idaho students. Figure 25, however, is the actual photo the banner image was based on. The face of an Asian student and a black student were superimposed over the faces of two white students. Soon after the new web image went live, complaints were filed, and eventually the president of the university was notified. The image was removed immediately, and the president made a public statement: "It was an isolated error in judgment, plain and simple... I understand that it was done in the interest of reflecting our commitment to diversity. However, it will never happen again." Around the same time, the associate director of university communications and marketing noted that they were under a great deal of pressure to find a diverse photo. Lacking one, they created one.

resources, revealing

Along with the many, many examples of manipulation, the spaces in which they multiply and spread, and the contexts in which they orbit are tools that help to peel back and reveal what we're seeing. Some examples include:

dove evolution

First, the Dove "Evolution" video--which is not only an exposure of the practices of advertising, but poses a particularly interesting case for discussion, as it's impossible not to argue that Dove's core motive is to sell a product. And, perhaps more interesting, the parent company that owns Dove also owns the Axe brand, which has its own interesting line of advertisements.

photoshop disasters

Second, a web site that exists primarily due to user posts and image sharing is Photoshop Disasters. The site's "about" page notes that the images the site "starts with having a meticulous community of readers who endeavor to catch and find these disasters." The editors choose the best-of-the-worst to display on the site.

greg apodacaiwanexstudio

Third are web sites where photographic retouching freelancers or companies post their "before and after" work. Two examples we regularly draw upon for in-class discussion include Greg Opodaca's freelancing portfolio (which is particularly rich, because he includes some discussion of the context of the photos and the clients' desires), and iWANEX Studios, a professional retouching company.

Although we're often recipients of the products of manipulation, and although we often suspect that image alteration is at work, rarely do we--as consumers--have access to the processes of digital-visual manipulation. These sites offer us a view that lends to our critical digital-visual literacy, shedding light on both analytical and production-related processes so that we can better tend to the ethical issues orbiting around visual manipulation.


Each set of images, each context, and the sociocultural dynamics in which they are embedded call for us, as rhetoricians and teachers of digital literacy, to pose questions such as the ones we listed earlier:


  • What is the context--social, cultural, historical--for the visual analysis?

  • How is the visual analysis situated according to local ethical practices and conventions? That is, how is this instance situated according to the ethical practices of cultures, communities, institutions, etc.?

  • What is at stake for us in considering this visual? How are we positioned in relationship to the visual? What kind of producers/consumers are we?

  • What is at stake for others in regard to this visual? How are others positioned in relationship to the visual? How do we understand their roles as producers/consumers?

  • What are the specific technological/material conditions of the visual, and how do we attend to these conditions in making ethical judgments?


We hope to have offered here is a particular triangulation--of rhetorical ethics, computers and writing, and media literacy. The framing discussion, set of questions for critical rhetorical inquiry, and examples, taken together, provide a robust context with which we can engage students and colleagues about the potentials and pitfalls of digital media. Certainly, as we stated earlier, photo manipulation wasn't born with the Internet (for a fantastic, historical glimpse into photo manipulation, see Burns & Cleary-Burns, 2008; for a specific analysis of the culture and history of the FSA photos in the U.S., see Curtis, 1991). As we also stated earlier, however, digital tools change the landscape of image manipulation, in terms of accessibility of tools, ability to manipulate, ease of transmission, and other variables.


New technologies force us to rethink our core values, and force us to negotiate new possibilities and new questions and new concerns about how we see and how we represent the world.


  • seeing is no longer believing
  • fiction and reality blur together: manipulated and "original" images appear together
  • readers become increasingly more skeptical, less willing to accept anything as "reality"
  • technology has created seamless manipulation and unnatural standards
  • we have to ask--and continue to ask--what's a minor or "acceptable" alteration? what's the purpose of the manipulation, in its specific context? how do we resituate our beliefs, our ethics, our understandings of representation in light of new technologies and their proliferation?


The act of composing, as Porter (1998) put it, "requires a commitment." One of our commitments, as rhetoricians committed to the rhetorical affordances of multimodality, should be digital-visual analysis. Technologies are never neutral; they are created by humans and are situated socially, culturally, and historically. To deeply engage with--and to support students as they deeply engage with--the range of today's digital tools requires that we attend to the ethical possibilities and potentialities of those tools. A rhetorical-ethical lens can help us approach contemporary digital-visual spaces in responsible ways; a rhetorical-ethical lens helps us to effectively ask the complex questions of how we should proceed as composers and consumers.


Ball, Cheryl, & Kalmbach, James. (Eds.). (2010). RAW: Reading and writing new media. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


Burns, Stanley B., & Cleary-Burns, Sara. (2008). News art: Manipulated photographs from the Burns Archive. Brooklyn, NY: powerHouse Books.


Curtis, James. (1989). Mind's eye, Mind's truth: FSA photography reconsidered. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.


Freydkin, Donna. (2003, June 16). Doctored cover photos add to controversy. USA Today, Life. http://www.usatoday.com/life/2003-06-16-covers_x.htm


George, Diana. (2002). From analysis to design: Visual communication in the teaching of writing. College Composition and Communication, 54, 11-39.


Gurak, Laura. (2001). Cyberliteracy: Navigating the Internet with awareness. New Haven: Yale University Press.


Handa, Carolyn. (2004). Visual rhetoric in a digital world: A critical sourcebook. Boston: Bedford/St. Martin's.


Handa, Carolyn. (2001). Letter from the guest editor: Digital rhetoric, digital literacy, computers, and composition. Computers and Composition, 18, 1-10.


Hocks, Mary E. (2003). Understanding visual rhetoric in digital writing environments. College Composition and Communication, 54, 629-656.


Porter, James E. (1998). Rhetorical ethics and internetworked writing. Greenwich, CT: Ablex.


Porter, James E. (2009). Recovering delivery for digital rhetoric. Computers and Composition, 26, 207-224.


Ridolfo, Jim. (2010). Practice and theory: A new approach to rhetorical delivery. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI


Ridolfo, Jim, & DeVoss, Dànielle Nicole. (2009). Composing for recomposition: Rhetorical velocity
and delivery. Kairos: A Journal of Rhetoric, Technology, and Pedagogy, 13 (2). Available:


Selber, Stuart. (2004). Multiliteracies for a digital age. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.


Selber, Stuart. (2004). Technological dramas: A metadiscourse heuristic for critical literacy. Computers and Composition, 21, 171-195.


Selfe, Cynthia. (1999). Technology and literacy in the 21st century: The importance of paying attention. Carbondale: Southern Illinois University Press.


Selfe, Cynthia. (2007). Multimodal composition: Resources for teachers. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton Press.


Shipka, Jody. (2005). A multimodal task-based framework for composing. College Composition and Communication, 57, 277-306.


Shipka, Jody. (2011). Toward a composition made whole. Pittsburgh, PA: University of Pittsburgh Press.


Sweney, March. (2011, July 27). L'Oreal's Julia Roberts and Christy Turlington ad campaigns banned. The Guardian UK. http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2011/jul/27/loreal-julia-roberts-ad-banned


Wysocki, Anne. (2004). Opening new media to writing. In Anne Frances Wysocki, Johndan Johnson-Eilola, Cynthia L. Selfe, & Geoffrey Sirc (Eds.), Writing New Media: Theory and Applications for Expanding the Teaching of Composition (pp. 1-42). Logan, UT: Utah State University Press.


Wysocki, Anne. (2003) The multiple media of texts: How onscreen and paper texts incorporate words, images, and other media. In Charles Bazerman & Paul Prior (Eds.), What writing does and how it does it: An introduction to analyzing texts and textual practices (pp. 123-164). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.


Yancey, Kathleen Blake. (2004). Made not only in words: Composition in a new key. College Composition and Communication, 56, 297-328.






return to top of page