Abstract

Abstract Despite consensus that Russia’s interference in the 2016 election did not extend to actual hacking of voting technology, Russian efforts to intervene on behalf of the Trump campaign have been defined as “hacking” by elements of the liberal media. This definition is broadly accepted in liberal circles, and there is now a widespread misperception that Russia tampered with voting technology to alter the outcome of the election. In this essay, we trace the emergence of this definition of Russia’s role in the 2016 election and explain the factors that led to its acceptance, arguing that the debate over Russia’s “hacking” illustrates that definitional arguments may operate differently than scholars have previously conceived. Traditional studies of definition emphasize the role of political leaders in crafting salient definitions, adopting a top-down approach. We argue that definitions also emerge from the bottom up, moving from media sources toward institutional centers of power. Our findings both illustrate the dangers of efforts to define Russia’s influence campaign as “hacking” and extend previous scholarship on definitional argument.

Journal
Rhetoric & Public Affairs
Published
2019-09-01
DOI
10.14321/rhetpublaffa.22.3.0389
Open Access
Closed
Topics

Citation Context

Cited by in this index (0)

No articles in this index cite this work.

Cites in this index (1)

  1. Rhetoric & Public Affairs
Also cites 15 works outside this index ↓
  1. 20. Bruce Schneier, “Cyberconflicts and National Security,” UN Chronicle 50 (2013), https://unchronicle.un.or…
  2. 24. B. Scott Titsworth. "An Ideological Basis for Definition in Public Argument: A Case Study of the Individu…
  3. and Brian McGee, "The Argument from Definition Revisited: Race and Definition in the Progressive Era," Argume…
  4. 27. David Zarefsky, “Strategic Maneuvering through Persuasive Definitions: Implications for Dialectic and Rhe…
  5. 29. Kenneth T. Broda-Bahm, “Finding Protection in Definitions: The Quest for Environmental Security,” Argumen…
  6. 35. David Zarefsky, Rhetorical Perspectives on Argumentation (New York: Springer, 2014), 122.
  7. and Robert C. Rowland and John M. Jones, "Reagan at the Brandenburg Gate: Moral Clarity Tempered by Pragmatis…
  8. 43. David Zarefsky, Carol Miller-Tutzauer, and Frank Tutzauer, “Reagan’s Safety Net for the Truly Needy: The …
  9. 83. David Zarefsky, “Presidential Rhetoric and the Power of Definition,” Presidential Studies Quarterly 34 (2…
  10. 84. Justin Kirk, “Mitt Romney in Denver: ‘Obamacare’ as Ideological Enthymeme,” Journal of Argumentation in C…
  11. 88. Adam Badawy, Emilio Ferrara, and Kristina Lerman, “Analyzing the Digital Traces of Political Manipulation…
  12. 96. G. Thomas Goodnight, “The Personal, Technical, and Public Spheres of Argument: A Speculative Inquiry into…
  13. 100. Mark Rolfe, The Reinvention of Populist Rhetoric in the Digital Age (Singapore: Palgrave Macmillan, 2016…
  14. 102. Sherry Turkle, The Second Self: Computers and the Human Spirit (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 2005), 189.
  15. 109. Reid Skibell, “The Myth of the Computer Hacker,” Information, Communication, and Society 5 (2002): 336.
CrossRef global citation count: 3 View in citation network →