Rhetorical ethics in handling of information

In a world in which the strategic use of disinformation is becoming more and more the rule, it is necessary to ask how the credibility of information can be measured. The text gives indications as to why rhetorical skills are necessary for this and what the criteria for a credible style of speech are.


About the difficulty of construing information
The colloquial use of the term information encompasses a broad spectrum, ranging from description via notification to instruction, and the academic debate has not yet yielded a uniform definition that would clarify what is it to be understood by information. Today's media plurality has enabled people to access ever larger amounts of data and to acquire 'information' or say 'knowledge'. Thus, on the one hand, the knowledge available is ever augmenting. On the other hand, the communication media increasingly determine the forms of representation and in this way presuppose such changed forms of handling of information. Robert Feustel (2018), for example, traces the contradictions of today's so-called information society; his thesis is that the inflationary use of the term information would contain something quasi-religious. He refers to a religious handling of information in those cases in which the guiding principle is their fundamental usefulness, thereby forgetting that the question of meaning and validity must always be asked.
Moreover, it sometimes seems as if currently we are living in a world in which there is little that can be set against the strategic use of disinformation and the idea that complexity of social problems can be countered with simple solutions. To promise simple solutions to the world that has become complicated, as a new message of salvation, so to speak, seems like an ever-valid recipe for success.
Besides, the illusion seems to be gaining ground that, in order to get along in this world, taking decisions does not depend on having knowledge, i. e. being educated, but on being able to access existing information, rarely being able to construe them. The jeopardy of then uncritically relying on -sometimes even self-appointed -experts is undoubtedly due to the complexity of information the interpretation of which one is afraid of. What are the criteria for selecting the data that are offered in an increasingly confusing manner? How is it possible to The allegation that the technologies currently available make it possible to handle information in a new manner and that this is exactly the potential for selfdetermined action, turns into another difficulty. The expanded possibilities of access to resources shall promote the ability to appropriately interpret important situations, to develop the right strategies and to act independently with and on the basis of information.
For Feustel, this has led to the fact that apparently everything can be translated into information. He ascertains as follows: They are stored, processed, passed on or retained, collected, falsified or traded. You can inform yourself or be disinformed. We consist of genetic information and process it neuronally. When we communicate, we exchange information. Even physical interactions can be understood in this way. Gestures and clothing, for example, send out information in a hidden and sometimes unintentional way, as pick-up artists and behaviorists say. The significant right neighbours in the grammatical sense of information aretechnology, -center, -management, -service, -system, -lifestyle, -officer,security, -act or -worker. But it is precisely this universal distribution, this omnipresence of information that is perplexing [1].  (1), 2021(1), , pp. 92-103 ISSN: 2301(1), -1378 contributes to finding problem-related solutions in the dispute of opinions. Of course, this always implies that there must be something inherent in the information that enables it to be assessed as correct or credible. The absolute question of the responsible citizen will be, how to handle information, or, in other words: How can an ethically justifiable handling of information be developed, and how can the necessary critical distance be achieved in order to filter out the important data from this great wealth of information? At a time when the manipulation of data is becoming technically ever easier, when so-called 'fake news' or even 'deep fakes' are being massively distributed, primarily via the WWW, it is becoming more difficult to rely on the integrity of information. As ignorance increases at least as much as the knowledge that is available to society, it becomes more difficult to assess the credibility of information. This is always and simultaneously an ethical issue which, according to Rafael Capurro (Capurro 1992; 2020), is to be assigned to the field of information ethics.
Moreover, as a general point, it is not the data that embody ethics, but the way they are construed and the way they are handled. Ethics always feature a changebearing moment, because they do not aim at consolidating the factual, but require cooperation, i. e. they serve the objectives of a society or a group or even an organisation to be worked out through communication (cf. Burisch 1982). It is therefore a matter of the ability to express both agreement and disagreement, in the sense of dialogical ethics, the basis of which can be grasped by the category of credibility.
The discipline of rhetoric has been interested in the issue of credibility (cf., on the very often faced with the problem of having to make and represent decisions without being able to completely rely on facts and reliable forecasts.
Despite justifiably demanded scepticism about overly simple explanations, they must find a way to communicate their objectives in an appropriate manner.
Admittedly, appropriateness always means that everyone must meet the exigences of rationality, verifiability and justification. In the case of speakers who want to be considered to be credible, the claim to truthfulness must not be lost. This raises the question of what criteria are available for this. How can we credibly handle the truth which exactly in crisis situations cannot exist? And how can we handle the fact that even the obvious does not automatically lead to the right action, but must be communicated?
The COVID-19 pandemic may serve as an example for everyone here, on the one hand of the problematic question of where a lack of information can lead with regard to necessary action, on the other hand of how important it is to be able to interpret the information.

The handling of information in crisis situations
The current pandemic (COVID-19), known as the Corona crisis, has been the predominant topic in all the media for several months now, partly because of the uncertainty as to the most effective way of combating the spread of the virus and partly because the measures introduced by the political authorities have had a major impact on public life. At times like these, people demand for reliable information: How dangerous is the virus? How can I protect myself and others?
When will the measures take effect and when will they be withdrawn? What impact will current actions have on democratic and economic conditions and ethical concepts? And finally the question that can no longer be answered: What will the world of tomorrow look like? There is generally an increased need for true statements which, despite all the uncertainties, are supposed to give hope that the crisis will end soon. At the same time, however, there is also a great uncertainty as to whose statements can be trusted.
As a result, digital platforms such as Google, Facebook and Instagram are even deleting fake news and conspiracy theories and automatically directing those FAZ.Net 22.03.2020). It is precisely the fact that these deletions are now so easy to implement that increases the credibility of the information on these sites, but not that of the platforms themselves. To the contrary, the ease of the deletion process confirms its arbitrariness.
Serious sources refer to science, especially virologists, as regards the spread of the virus. However, they can only explain the respective current situation, make assumptions and point out that they are not able to be held responsible for the decisions. The German Ethics Council, for example, has also emphasised that the democratically elected representatives are the decision-makers, that they must evaluate how health and civil rights and liberties can be equally respected.
Nevertheless, politicians depend on the advice of scientists, even though their advice may contradict each other corresponding to the respective developments in the spread of the virus. A good example of this is the virologist Christian Drosten, who defended himself against claims and hostilities, which expect him to provide reliable statements at one hundred percent: I do not see my job in cutting the truth, but rather in explaining the aspects of truth, but also in allowing uncertainties to arise and saying: You don't know it that way -and that a political decision is then necessary. And as long as it is communicated as a political decision, I think that's fine [3].
His warnings of the potential dangers have also led some people to believe to have to hold him responsible for them. These people seem to be guided, as it were, by the ancient-medieval idea that the messenger should be punished for the news.
This shows that many a citizen in Germany, too, has little confidence in the independence of science and, moreover, feels «von der Komplexität der Erklärungsversuche der intellektuellen Eliten erdrückt» (Renn 2019, 7) (translation: overwhelmed by the complexity of the intellectual elites' attempts at explanation). For the virologist Christian Drosten, who in the first weeks of the crisis constantly presented the results and forecasts of science in the media and in his own podcast, the idea that the scientist is also the decision-maker has meanwhile led to the consideration of whether it would be better to withdraw from the media world (Drosten 2020b).
What becomes obvious here is that political decision-makers are called upon, on the one hand, to make it clear that it is they who take these decisions and, on the other hand, to communicate this in such a way that citizens support the decisions without creating panic, defence or aggression and without the need to threaten The mistrust towards rhetorical skills, which still exists today, is justified by the art of the speakers, who can use emotions to lead on the wrong track, thus knowing how to instrumentalise the art of speech for their own purposes alone.
Rhetoric would then only be rhetoric of affects, according to Aristotle «all those affections which cause men to change their opinion in regard to their judgements, and are accompanied by pleasure and pain; such are anger, pity, fear, and all similar emotions and their contraries» [4].
Of course, scepticism about using emotions for persuasion is absolutely necessary.
This is not only taught by the experiences with National Socialism or with today's demagogues, this is already conveyed to us by the simple messages of advertising.
A thinking that is committed to rationality wants to convince men through participation in reason, and no one will deny that this is a goal to be held high. But Informatio 26 (1), 2021(1), , pp. 92-103 ISSN: 2301(1), -1378 everyone must be aware that a focus on rationality deprives itself of the mediating power which comes into effect in the medium of rhetoric (Ptassek 1993, p. 51).
All those who change their style of speech accordingly and want to address the listeners also on the level of emotions remain quite credible if it is not a matter of acting solely through affects, Aristotelian-speaking through pathos, but rather of the interaction of ethos, pathos and logos. Especially Aristotle's «Rhetoric» is primarily argumentation theory, in which affective arousal is bound to factual reasons and thus linked to the argument.

The importance of credibility
Current textbooks of rhetoric also emphasise the different ways of making a credible case that should work together: these are «three methods of making credible: first, the arousing of a certain view of the speaker, second, the arousing of a certain psychological disposition in the listeners, and third, the logicalargumentative proof in the matter» [5].
In the canonical words of Aristotle: Of the modes of persuasion furnished by the spoken word there are three kinds. The first kind depends on the personal character of the speaker; the second on putting the audience into a certain frame of mind; the third on the proof, or apparent proof, provided by the words of the speech itself [6].
In order to acquire the ability of a credible style of speech, the expectation to wish to gain and convey true insight must therefore be internalised. This means, related to today's decision-makers, that they too must be convinced of the need to apply, Credibility in no way implies the abandonment of one's own ability to critically judge, and it does not render verifiability unnecessary. It does not replace the necessity of justification, but rather presupposes it. In rhetoric, the reference to truthfulness is explained by the focus on the listeners. In order to reach them, the speaker approaches conventional wisdom. In order not to lose the listeners during the justification of their point of view, in their argumentation, they use the enthymeme rather than syllogism, at the same time being aware of always having to approach the listeners' world of emotions. Even if everyone must be aware that it is precisely those who want to make untrustworthy assertions public who like to use affectively charged language, even those who argue plausibly and credibly, who rely on facts, will only reach their listeners if they are aware of their moods and feelings, i. e. if they take them seriously, and thus arrive at a most balanced approach to logos, ethos and pathos.

Conclusion
All those who consider themselves committed to rhetorical ethics when handling information and thus want to represent their actions as a responsible actor before themselves and others, make credibility a decisive element within the argumentation. These insights also result in an increasing importance of rhetoric, because the present times are characterised by the indeterminacy of the social situation, the difficulty of handling information and therefore require rhetorical skills to an increasing extent.