Weber 1

Twitter Rhetoric and Natural Disasters

In this essay, I attempt to discuss the rhetorical value of Twitter as originally theorized by
Jeffry C. Swift in his thesis, Twitter Rhetoric: From Kinetic to Potential, against the backdrop of
Twitter communication during natural disasters. In his proposition statement, Swift explains that
the rhetorical influence of Twitter lies not chiefly in the influential nature of the tweets
themselves but in the overall impending power that tweets, tweeters, and their networks within
the Twitterverse have in shaping unknown future events. In which case, Swift observes that the
rhetorical clout of Twitter functions not in a more traditional style of persuasion but in the same
way proposed by Kenneth Burke in his article Rhetoric-Old and New: the rhetorical influence
is achieved by tweeters establishing identification or common ground with other tweeters as
there grows a dialect that, properly developed, can lead to views transcending the limitations of
each (Burke 203). According to Swift, the pre-existing body of conversational text in the
Twitterverse, tweeters following one anothers posts, and general networking creates a power
grid of rhetoric that stores a potential wealth of persuasion that bears influence on events
when they emerge-albeit in undeterminable ways (Swift 3).
It is clear that Swifts discussion holds merit; if microbloggers were not able to establish
this feeling of community, or if collective intelligence and sentiments were irrelevant, then
perhaps the subject of researching microblogging platforms would not be so heavily studied.
Mining microblogging archives from a variety of angles and through a number of different filters
has uncovered a plentitude of information and patterns about human behavior that can plausibly
be useful in everything from marketing to politics. Twitter databases have also been examined to
better understand how crisis events unfold, such as in the investigation of tweets surrounding two
natural disasters described in Pass It On? Retweeting in Mass Emergency. The study refers to

Weber 2
the Oklahoma Fires and the Red River Flooding, both of which occurred in 2009. There is
speculation that the trends unveiled will offer government agencies and emergency response
groups insight for better managing extensive traumas (Starbird 1).
All the same, a small number of research studies pertaining to Twitter data collected from
instances of crisis indicate that Swifts proposal needs modification. While Twitter maintains
rhetorical potential in shaping some future events with a pre-existing body of networking,
following, and discussion, it is important to note that not all future occasions allow for an
antecedent body of persuasion to develop. Rather, events like natural disasters are often abrupt in
their development or altogether unforeseen, which severely limits or completely denies the
dawning of potential rhetoric and therefore any weight it might carry.
One of the clearest ways to show how the potential rhetorical influence of Twitter
struggles during natural disasters is to consider the way that the ethos of tweeters manifests
during these instances. Swift argues that tweeters either have twitter ethos or they develop
twethos. Persons who have extensive persuasive power outside the realm of Twitter (generally
those people or entities that are famous or otherwise well known) will use Twitter to supplement
their already established popularity, and this is Twitter ethos (Swift 18). Those who are lesser
known beyond the domain of Twitter but are well respected for their wisdom, savvy or expert
knowledge in a specific area and therefore whose rhetorical power lies largely within the value of
their posts and their online persona in the Twitterverse have thwethos (Swift 19). As there is no
opportunity to show expert level knowledge and wisdom relevant to a specific natural disaster
that arrives without warning, it is apparent that the potential rhetoric as manifested in a tweeters
character cannot thrive.

Weber 3
During a weather related emergency, people will use Twitter to learn about the crisis, to
learn about the extent of damage in the area of trauma, and to coordinate relief efforts; such is
described in the study, Towards a real time Twitter analysis during crises for operational crisis
management, that relied on the Twitter research tool Twicident to track tweets surrounding the
Pukkelpop Storm of Belgium in 2011 (Terpstra 1). In a natural disaster, Twitter ethos is more
trusted than twethos because crises cause the Twitterverse to flood with tweets, mostly with
unhelpful, irrelevant, or flat out untruthful information; in fact, research from another study with
the Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology (Credibility Ranking of Tweets during
High Impact Events) shows that in response to handful of world events, only 17% of the total
tweets posted about the event contained situational awareness information that was credible
(Gupta).
Therefore, tweets containing useful, true and relevant information about the event carry
the most sought after information, and tweeters trust posts to be sound when they come from a
source known already for its wisdom in handling such matters (Starbird 9). In other words,
groups with Twitter ethos like local media agencies and emergency response organizations have
significant rhetorical sway. Research shows further that common people who use Twitter still
have rhetorical prowess during emergencies, but as they generally lack Twitter ethos they face
the challenge of competing with false posts, and so the rhetorical presence of such agencies with
Twitter ethos remains welcomed (Starbird 9).
It is also clear that tweeters struggle to be effective as potential beacons of rhetorical
impact because tweeters cannot antecedently have expert level knowledge of an event that is
almost entirely un-anticipatable. Even in natural disasters that are tracked before they make
impact (such as developing storms and hurricanes), there is not enough time for Tweeters to

Weber 4
increase a following over the specific natural disaster to be able to have effective rhetorical
influence when the phenomenon makes impact. For example, in the study tracking the
Pukkelpop festival and storm, researchers noted that Twitter usage exploded just after the storm
struck, and speculation from the event indicates that the festival goers were unaware that a
colossal storm was pending (Terpstra 7).
In this case it is evident that although Twitter was used extensively during the storm and
after it, there was no opportunity for Twitter to serve as the persuasive vehicle through which a
communal battle plan could be formed beforehand, which would have strengthened the overall
response. After all, the research analysis showed that a gradual increase in tweet activity was
almost absent before the storm, and that few people interpreted the dark clouds as a threat
(Terpstra 7). This bolsters the argument that a potential form of rhetoric is not always possible
because some unexpected occurrences, like many natural disasters, are simply unforeseen, and
therefore are not discussed. Thus, collective persuasive feelings, energy and emotion do not
develop and carry potential impact.
One may argue that even if a tweeter cannot become a trusted and well reputed source
over the topic of a natural disaster (because there is not sufficient amount of time for rhetoric to
build up through retweeting, following and networking), the Twitter user may still be rhetorically
influential during an emergency based on an ongoing inertia of self-established authority that
existed before the event. Credibility on one topic may lend those with thwethos credibility over
other topics. That is to say, successful development of twethos over one topic may eventually
lend to a tweeter a Twitter ethos, which in theory would afford him the ease of being able to
tweet anything and still generate a following. Even Aristotle is thought to have taught that an
effective speaker is not an expert in anything but is a skilled orator in all subjects (Cooper 8).

Weber 5
However, the flaw of such a conjecture lies in that even if a tweeter is an exceptionally
skilled navigator of the Twitterverse and is experienced enough in a particular subject that he is a
rather respected and influential figure on the matter (so much so that he may be considered a
wise person in general), he still has to compete with tweeting entities that are professionally
practiced in emergency response (again, such entities as local media agencies and emergency
response groups). Those who have twethos (or even impressive ethos per the hypothetical
situation described here) have captivated an audience interested in the subject that he knows
well. If that same audience is uninfluenced by or uninterested in the natural disaster, then the
tweeter has lost the instrument through which he might contribute to change. There is no
guarantee the tweeter and his audience share common interest in every topic. As one research
study that investigated Sina posts (the Chinese equivalent to Twitter) observed, ordinary users
may have difficulty in gaining influence spontaneously, which would also apply to a tweeter
who has lost his crowd, and has to start anew (Liu 461-462). Thus, while some tweeters
potential rhetoric rooted in twethos may be able to lend them Twitter ethos (and thereby
justifying how, in fact, potential rhetoric can still occur during weather related emergencies),
such a manifestation of potential rhetoric must compete with the traditional mode of rhetoric
linked to Twitter ethos and the tweeter must keep his audience or work to develop a new one.
Although one of the most popular forms of social media, Twitter is still a relatively new
platform for electronic communication. Research on Twitter data is even newer, and it raises
important implications for this essay. Namely, it essential to acknowledge that while the research
cited in this discussion has value and provides impressive insight, the statistics and facts
presented here are from case studies that are not truly applicable to a wider audience. Only a
compilation of future findings, in a display of overwhelming support for particular trends, will be

Weber 6
sufficient to offer evidence such that the findings can be applied more generally to human
behavior during natural disasters. Nonetheless, the studies presented here are still worth
consideration and indicate support for my case that some types of emergencies do not provide for
potential rhetoric to manifest and be influential. Jeffrey Swift himself asserts that he does not
believe this new rhetoric to eclipse traditional modes of rhetoric and that there is still much to
determine about standard rhetorical principals when considered in the various contexts that
potential rhetoric evolves (Swift 7-23).

Weber 7
Works Consulted
Burke, Kenneth. "Rhetoric-Old and New." The Journal of General Education 5 (): 202-209.
Print.
Cooper, Lane. The Rhetoric of Aristotle, an expanded translation with supplementary examples
for students of composition and public speaking,. New York: D. Appleton and Co., 1932.
Print.
Gupta, Aditi, and Kumaraguru Ponnurangam. Credibility Ranking of Tweets during High Impact
Events. Case Study. Delhi, India: Indraprastha Institute of Information Technology, 2012.
Print.
Hadley, Mary Ellen. The Synthesis Essay. PowerPoint presentation. 19 Apr 2014.
Liu, Zhiming, Lu Liu, and Hong Li. "Determinants of information retweeting in
microblogging." Internet Research 22 (): 443-466. Print.
Starbird, Kate, and Leysia Palen. Pass it on?: Retweeting in mass emergency. Seattle, Wash.:
International Community on Information Systems for Crisis Response and Management,
2010. Print.
Swift, Jeffrey C. Twitter Rhetoric: From Kinetic to Potential. MA thesis. Brigham Young
University, Provo, 2010.
Terpstra, Teun, A. de Vries, R. Stonkman, and G.L. Paradies. Towards a realtime Twitter analysis
during crises for operational crisis management. Vancouver: , 2012. Print.