Is it Ethical? Says who?

Ethics and Persuasion - Nov. 30th Reading Questions

1. “Time concluded, ‘Ethics, often dismissed as a prissy Sunday School word, now is a new national debate’” (Larsen 22). Why, assuming we live in a rather “unethical” world, has unethical behavior progressed over the years? Is the problem, or part of it, that we believed good and honest behavior to be so “prissy” for so long and so we acted as “bad guys” to prove something? I am not referring to ethical behavior around the subjects of abortion, death penalty or adultery, but rather people’s choice to commit fraud, lie on a grand scale or purposely take advantage of others and/or incite them onto wrong-doing. The main question here is not how people should be punished for their actions, if at all, but why they committed those actions. Are we really worse now then we were ten years ago? Think of a current event where such behavior is apparent and relevant. How did the audience perceive the event? Does the reason it was done justify its means; for example, would a lie told by a presidential candidate be justified if its purpose was to win the election?

2. In a recent episode of NPR’s This American Life, host Ira Glass investigates stories of “Bait and Switch” (Episode and its description found here). Each story told here applies to the debate of ethical responsibility presented by Larsen in his chapter “Perspectives on Ethics in Persuasion.” Listen to just the first act about a strategy applied by police departments to catch car thieves. It is argued that just as some police officers dress up as a hooker in attempt to arrest any customer, a car is parked for some time on any given street with the keys in the ignition in attempt to arrest any person who tries to drive away in it. This tactic has been successful in arresting quite a few people. How ethical do you find this practice? Does it really rid us of potential criminals, or is it an unnecessary and manipulative test of people’s behavior?

3. In the school of ethics in Western philosophy, there are three prominent ideas, briefly noted in our textbook, dominant in the discussion on the subject. Aristotle and Plato focus on the benefits to the person delivering the message and the benefits to the receivers based on the given society’s virtues (like justice and generosity). In Kantian terms, moral action is only worth when performed for the sake of duty, so are the intentions innately good? The third idea is utilitarianism, which discusses ethics in terms of whether the greater good is considered in a rhetor’s message, so does it contribute to the benefit and happiness of the greatest number of people. In the composition of a persuasive message, what school of thought do you think should be most closely applied and followed in order to deliver a purely ethical message?

Persuasion and Consumption at Trader Joe’s

“Welcome to Trader Joe’s, Your Neighborhood Grocery Store” reads the top of this store’s website. When you go into the actual store, an equally welcoming message awaits you, and not only in verbal form. On Capitol Hill in Seattle, Trader Joe’s (or TJ, as often referred to by loyal customers) is located on 17th and Madison, about five blocks east of the Seattle University campus. The interior of the store has a comfortable and approachable feel to it, helping promote its affordability and community involvement. The ongoing theme in stores as well as on the website are Hawaiian flowers and cedar planks, which decorate not only the walls, but also the staff’s t-shirts. Already, you are in the right mood to walk around the place and check out their products.

Around the store, are featured items, which are often chosen according to season and piled up at the end of an aisle. Now, these items include apple cider and maple leaf cookies. With four or five of these around, the piles often need restocking. Featuring them and making it impossible not to pass by is a successful marketing strategy. Another vey successful strategy here is the tasting booth. This one is not like Costco where they have a woman of age whose hair doesn’t have a smidge of oxygen underneath her plastic cap yell out about the delicious packaged chili. Here, there is a stand of more substantial structure that looks like it’s made of straw and bamboo (Hawaiian theme). Behind it is an employee serving out small portions of whatever has been prepared. On this day it’s beer bread topped with some butter. It was delicious, and yes, I considered purchasing it to have my roommate taste. They marketing ploy almost worked, but I set it down, figuring I should spend the $3 on cheese instead. But I’m certain other equally satisfied customers did buy this TJ product.

Perhaps the most prominent marketing strategy at TJ’s is its approachability. The prices below the items all look like they are handwritten with a sharpie, as do the big signs. Staff members will all greet you, a few strike up a conversation. Most of them are in their twenties and thirties. The cashier and I had a very friendly conversation about our Halloween weekends during which another cashier chimed in to remind him that his skeleton mask was left at his house. In our textbook “Persuasion and Influence in American Life,” Woodward and Denton claim that “the most effective form of persuasion is that which is created with a specific audience in mind” (267) and TJ has a rather specific audience. It is a grocery store, so it will tend to anybody who comes through its door, but its target audience, as the staff demographic portrays, is the young crowd (at this location at least). TJ has low prices and a wide variety of frozen and pre-made meals ideal for the student and those without families to cook meals for all the time. It also closely tends to the vegetarians and vegans by providing a number of items for their specific diets. Additionally, they sell a few bathroom and cleaning products that are environmentally friendly for the simple consumers who choose not to opt for name brand shampoos. TJ knows how to gain the attention of its audience (be friendly and casual), address its needs (low budget, special diet, environmentally friendly) and solve its problems (low prices, own products).

Trader Joe’s definitely tries to “promote the recognition of one’s uniqueness” (271) in its marketing techniques, especially by standing out from other franchise supermarkets, making its customers stand out, feel unique. Its strategies in general, as I noticed more during my last visit to the store, appeal to emotion with the use of humor in the rhetoric on their signs for example, the friendly staff who make you feel welcome, the maple leaf cookies as an ode to all, etc. They also use rational functional appeals by setting the norms for the “right” kinds of groceries to purchase and the “right” store to go to in the area. They do so also with reminder ads that you find in you mailbox or on someone’s tote or t-shirt that they bought at the store (297).

“The more pervasive and persuasive, the more invisible advertising becomes in terms of influence and impact. Its presence and images become natural, expected, and even desired” (268). I would say that this has certainly been the case for Trader Joe’s. The store has become a definite a staple in this neighborhood (I do not have another experience with TJ’s to compare this to). Undoubtedly, the marketing has played a large role in this. You like the store, you will talk about it to all your friends and they will become regulars there too. You will also carry the TJ tote that you will carry around town and everybody will somehow be exposed to TJ. The store also sends newsletters to neighborhood residents and participates in certain community events. We find it in a lot more places than we think and it has become so natural that we don’t notice when it’s actually being advertised. TJ marketing is marketing well done.

Questions; week of November 9th

1. “The historians and archeologists will one day discover that the ads of our times are the richest and most faithful daily reflection that any society ever made of its entire range of activities,” states Marshall McLuhan. To what extent, if at all, do you agree with this statement reaffirmed by a number of academics referenced in our textbook “Persuasion and Influence in American Life”? Consider our ads today, from those promoting cell phones that depict our lives from the phones’ points of view to others portraying a man chased after by beautiful women who sense the scent of his deodorant. If advertisements tell the story of societies, what is the story of the American society? The television show Mad Men, about the advertisement business in 1960’s New York, is acclaimed for its rather accurate depiction of the ad industry’s relation to society at the time. We see Marilyn Monroe lookalikes in the ads they produce as well as in the ad agency producing them. Cleaning material, food, etc. ads are only targeted at housewives and we hardly see any of the women (living outside of the urban city) do anything besides cook for their families or organize house parties. That is how we now view part of American Society in the 60’s. If a show were produced forty years from now about our ad agencies in the United States, what do you reckon would be the principal content? How will those viewing the show view the American society we are now living in and helping create?

2. When the subject of advertisement is alluded to, the first thing that usually comes to mind is product sales. Pepsi, Ford, Wonder Bra, Blackberry, Cheerios, etc. An aspect of the industry we often neglect to acknowledge, or perhaps connote as advertisement is advocacy. Woodward and Denton note on page 267 of their textbook: “by design, advertising is perhaps the strongest form of advocacy.” Those who sported a Barack Obama t-shirt during the President’s campaign were advocating his election. Anyone who changed their Facebook profile picture to “Vote Ref. 71” during the Washington state elections last week was advocating the passing of this bill. This is a more grassroots form of advertisement, one that doesn’t include all the expenses of makeup and a set, amongst many other things. Do you think advocacy is just as persuasive as other kinds of advertising? Can you think of anyway you advocated a cause, a person or a thing, or on the opposite end, was influenced by someone else’s advocacy efforts? Explain the advertised “product” and the impact (if any).

3. An essential element in visual persuasion discussed by Paul Messaris in the chapter “Pictures and reality” is direct eye gaze. He claims that in advertising, “having a model or spokesperson look into the viewer’s eyes is a standard attention-getting device” (21). The example he uses to demonstrate his point is what is of most interest to me, the image of Uncle Sam saying “I want you for U.S. army” that he juxtaposes with another add of Uncle Sam that does not point to the viewer. In the latter, there is more text and less visual intensity, so “the illusion of entering the viewer’s space is considerably diminished” (21). Compare these two advertisements shown in figure 1.12 and 1.13 on page 22 of the chapter. Which do you find more powerful and why? Do you think less text makes an ad more persuasive?

Is the commonplace a good place?

Jamie’s Question 3

On page 169, a definition of a commonplace is given: “a commonplace serves everyone as a touchstone, an instrument of recognition. It is rarely quoted, but it is constantly present; it is behind thought and speech; it is behind conversation. It is the common standard that enables people to understand one another.” (Jacques Ellul). Commonplaces are links that connect people of a common cultural group and are important when identifying an audience. If commonplaces are the basis of audience identification, is it troublesome that they often remain unspoken? Does the fact that commonplaces are “constantly present” yet “behind thought and speech,” make it more likely that audience values will be incorrectly generalized? Should we engage more in conversation about what our true beliefs are to avoid possible mistakes?

Response:

The internal struggle of what to share and what not to is ever present in our quotidian. We fear that we might be burdening others with too much information, or leaving them underwhelmed with too little. We try not to bore, offend or harm while still wary of the need to input our own thoughts, ideas and feedback. In such a process that often occurs over a time span of mere seconds, messages are bound to get lost or neglected in the process. We often admire those who speak their minds without restraint, emitting a sense of confidence in their words as well as a disregard for how the listeners might react. But what allows them to feel this way? Is it a sense of belonging to a commonplace? How might this attitude be received in an environment they are unfamiliar with where the audience cannot be clearly identified? For this reason, “locating the right commonplaces is vital.” (W & D 169).

The commonplace seems to fit in the same category as the set of unwritten rules common in a large number of social setting, communities, groups, etc. The assumption that those we are communicating with have a similar general knowledge base facilitates interaction and often makes room for more fruitful and insightful conversation. I might even use the word efficient to describe this sort of interaction. It is so because in a commonplace, we do not need to present lots of background information about certain subjects, assuming those we are interacting with already have the same knowledge base. For example, in talking about health care in the United Sates today (amongst adults principally), it can be assumed that most people are aware of the general debate around this heated issue and some of the basic information about it, and this way the speakers can spend more time discussing the issue’s current standing and their thoughts about it instead of explaining its background.

However, Jamie’s concern here is certainly legitimate as it can be troublesome that commonplaces remain unspoken. Continuing with the example of the discussion around health care in the US, it is rather likely that some people don’t know where the senate stands on passing the latest bill or how the bill is actually going to affect citizens, whether it will fix the fundamental problem of the system that causes the bankruptcy of many and the confusion around insurance plans. The list of things to be ignorant about is long. Not everyone is wiling to admit their ignorance and this can often lead to discomfort within this so-believed commonplace and to a stunted exchange of ideas.

The presence of a commonplace is natural in any society because living in a similar environment inevitably leads to common behaviors, ideas, customs, etc. so it is often assumed that people are aware of the community’s on goings. This incites people to stay updated on the news, significant government issues, cultural events and so on. It is also what allows for rather superficial connections if you will; “commonplaces are useful…precisely because they are so unremarkable…” (W & D 170). For this reason, I think that engaging more in conversation about what our true beliefs are as to avoid possible mistakes about audience values should occur amongst smaller groups, or more specified commonplaces. The commonplace described in the textbook makes reference to general groups mostly where conversations are not in depth and where core values are not addressed. But it is this main commonplace that allows for a general understanding of people we share national and cultural customs with.

“Some social theorists have noted hat we are less a ‘melting pot’ that blends variations than a culture that more or less accommodates differences” (W & D 165). This is perhaps what best describes the American commonplace and explains the difficulty of reaching a common understanding that allows for correct (or closest to) generalization and time to listen to evaluate everybody’s differences.

Deliverer V. Receiver: The Eternal Battle

Response to Gina’s question I (Questions for Week 4)

Product placement has become such a regular part of the American media and because so many celebrities have become spokespeople for various products, and because of this, it seems obviously unbelievable that each of them would be a veritable supporter of the advertised merchandise. Undoubtedly, their status and supposed use of the product at hand influence its sale and general success, but it is clear that their incentive is money, and/or exposure (and I will not speak of campaign advertisement, like supporting the fight again breast cancer). In regards to Woodward and Denton’s claim that "the person who has been the most effected by a persuasive message is the advocate who delivered it,” I would argue that the person referred to here is the actual producer of the product. They have to tell the advertising department or agency why they want to sell their product, who in turn will create a means to do so. It is the public relations team or the advertising group that has to believe in the product, be its advocate, in order to deliver it successfully. Of course, whether or not they really advocate it is indefinitely unknown. Is this ethical? Such is the open-ended and often heatedly debated question around the industry of advertisement and public relations. Take a look at this advertisement produced by the Corn Association;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVsgXPt564Q&NR=1

It seems rather unlikely that the deliverers, the producers, of this ad were unaware of the detriments of high fructose corn syrup, yet they found a way to deliver their message in a manner that might convince people that it is really is reasonable to consume. Would Aristotle consider their manner of presentation open-minded or objective? Would he consider the source (the Corn Refiners Association) to be fair, honest or reliable? Does the persuader “seem to have honorable intentions toward the audience?” (Woodward & Denton 109). This to me seems like nothing more than reputation management after a well-publicized debate over the hazardous health effects of high-fructose corn syrup and its high content in most food products sold in the United States. In retaliation to this, check out one of many parodies of this advertisement posted on You Tube made by unknown citizens as well as by organizations such as the HolisticOption.com;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hYiEFu54o1E&NR=1

Though this is poor video production and less aesthetically pleasing than the first commercial, the message delivered includes the facts left out in the campaign launched by the Corn Refiners Association. Of course, this video does not have valid credibility, which is what would limit its circulation outside of the realm of the Internet. What is important to note here is the difference between the two messages and the importance of delivering one message that includes both points of view so the audience is well informed. Additionally, in watching these two videos, the audience will likely already have their own opinions of high fructose corn syrup and their reactions will depend on their preconceived ideas. As Woodward and Denton mentions, “an audience’s awareness of an advocate’s place and character is often the first important moment in the communication process.”

The Value of Rhetoric and Dramatization

Related to this week's readings and the Seattle Times opinion piece by Ellen Goodman is Monday October 5th's edition of Talk of the Nation on NPR titled "What's the Value of Extreme Rhetoric?"

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=113506887
(This includes the show and its transcript - hosted by Neal Conan)

Week Eight Reponse

Social movements and opposing movements (voices) argue with each other because they believe their case to be just or (slightly) the better choice। Our text states that it is more difficult for social movements in arguing their view over opposing ones because they “have limited resources and find it difficult to prove that an institution, competing movement, norm, or value is utterly without value.” (PASM, pg.248) You cannot make everybody happy, so what do you do when a social movement and opposing movement have equal support? For example: Pro-life vs Pro-choice. Do you think one movement is more just than the other? What beliefs and/or ethics support your views? Does it always have to be black or white, or should ethical values be viewed in grey?

Ethical values should certainly be viewed as grey matter; at least I firmly believe so. Concentrating on the issue of abortion, there evidently is no black or white here. People have been arguing over what is ethical for decades and no solution has been attained. Either people are not listening to each other, not understanding the core of the issue or actions taken to advance either movement have been unsuccessful. Most recently, George Tiller, a doctor in the US who offers abortion services, was shot dead. He has already been attacked in 1993. Those who wish for his death are the anti-abortionists. BBC news succinctly overviews the situation; “To anti-abortionists George Tiller, who was shot dead on Sunday, was a mass murderer known as "Tiller the Killer". To his patients and many pro-choice supporters, he was a hero committed to women in need of help.” (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/8077021.stm). No matter how strongly people feel about an issue, murder should never be a means to spread a message. This act seems more due to anger and a desire for revenge than to a means to effectively change things. Committing murder decreases the anti-abortionists’ credibility and places their say and opinion on the line. Not only is this a criminal act, it also counters what the anti-abortionist movement is about. The murderer is ironically Pro-life. However, as noted in the text Persuasion and Social Movement, a large number of murders have been committed since the 1970’s so “It may be risky for pro-life members and leaders to condemn violence unconditionally because they risk fragmenting the movement. But they must do so for moral and practical reason.” (p. 244). This morality is not on everybody’s mind.
Going back to BBC News’ description, they seem to themselves create a feel for an issue that is black or white. The doctor is either a killer or a hero. They create sides to stir more reaction. The grey matter that is excluded here consists of people who are pro-life who don’t think committing murder is justified in this movement and those who are pro-choice who don’t consider Dr. Tiller a hero. Quite honestly, it seems difficult for even one person to feel so strongly about one side. Our own views are often grey when it comes to issues like abortion. Circumstances always exist. The two movements won’t recognize this; “True believers of each movement are extremists in the sense that they accept no compromises or exceptions to life or choice” (PaSM p. 247). Though many do oppose violence as a solution, they also justify violent actions when committed by “militants [who] defend these higher principles and do not act through self-interest” (PaSM, 244).
Because of the violent acts that continue to occur by the anti-abortionists, the title of just seems out of reach at the moment. It seems there will always be people who strongly believe in one cause or the other; the next step to is to listen to one another and respect alternate views and values.

The cliché “a picture speaks a thousand words” was reinforced when photographer and Seattle University professor Claire Garoutte came to speak about the power of photography as a means for social change. Concentrating on her passion for history, Claire illustrated some example of how certain situations changed as a result of the work photographers made public, such as the labor movement in the US. She argues that the child labor movement especially benefited from the stories told through photos. Finally, people were truly touched by what they were seeing and didn’t have to be literate to understand news and grasp the gravity of a situation. The use of photos is undoubtedly a successful strategy in advancing a social movement.However, this very same strategy can be equally stunting. A photograph can be used out of context, it can be misinterpreted, or used to harm. The use of photos now seems to be taken for granted now. We are bombarded with images daily and often times, they don’t phase us.

When Haven Ley of the Bill and Linda Gates Foundation came to speak, a number of questions arose after her presentation. I didn’t know very much about this foundation beforehand and was rather impressed by the number of causes they dedicate their work and effort towards. Haven is the program officer of the Agricultural development program. Her job includes presenting a project intended to aid a certain community with a new technology for example that will facilitate the agricultural development in this community. The areas targeted include Sub-Saharan Africa and Southeast Asia.
Every country has a distinct culture and distinct cultural behaviors that may not seem obvious to an outsider who is accustomed to a certain way of life, and this is mostly true of westerners who wish to share their discoveries with those who don’t know about them yet. While this may seem like an impressive and grand gesture, sometimes, it requires a little more consideration, and this is part of what Haven does. One of the groups receiving a the Gates Foundation grant used the bicycle as a watering tool so that people who farm could bike up and down and water what they need, accelerating the process and saving time and extra labor. A great innovation, to most at least, this project fell through in Ethiopia. In their culture, as is the case in the majority of sub-Saharan countries, women make up the greatest number of farmers. What is distinct here is that it is not socially acceptable for a woman to ride a bike. “Men don’t want to see them riding bike and the women themselves don’t want to ride them” said Haven. Inevitably, no one used the bikes in Ethiopia.
What is fundamental in this story is the mere importance of communication. How can we ignore how a culture may respond to a concept another is trying to introduce or impose in the community? Where is the middle man who is able to communicate between the two cultures involved? Where is the desire to truly understand and work together?
The failure of a project such as the bike project is indicative of a failure at communication. This is what needs to be fixed.

1। Think of a well-recognized speech that you are familiar with or would like to read/listen to such as Martin Luther king JR’s I Have a Dream or Cesar Chavez’s Commonwealth Club Address (May be interesting to analyze a speech given in recent history). Each of these speeches had a tremendous impact on a large portion of the population and helped move the respective cause each speaker is fighting for a number of steps further towards its success. In the third chapter of the text “Persuasion and Social Movements,” the authors quote William Gamson who classifies social movements as “struggles over the definition and construction of social reality.” How does the speech you are analyzing construct the social reality at the time it was given? What is the exact problem the speaker addresses and how is language used to create the way the intended audience views the given problem? For example, MLK who is fighting for equal rights in the USA and equal treatment of African-Americans mentions the past by referencing the hardships black people have endured, the present by talking about how very little has changed in a hundred years and how all people are still not treated equally, and finally he mentions the future, which is a portrayal of the results of his present suggestions as to how to move forward in the success of the movement. This is an essential with which MLK changes the perception of social reality and helps drive people to fight for change.

2। In chapter seven of PaSM, slogans are defined as “definitive statements of the social movement’s truths and rely on audience dispositions to achieve expected responses.” Choose a cause you would choose to fight for today. Based on your chosen cause, what would be your target population? What slogan would you use? Would you use humor, would you use shocking language, etc.? Which type of slogan do you presume would be most effective to reach and affect people – sanctioned or advertising; or would you rather create a spontaneous slogan?

3. Look at the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy (check out this Washington Post article http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/02/17/AR2006021702499.html). Would you consider this an attempt at a social movement or a media-created controversy? What characteristics could indicate a beginning of a social movement? Could one of the reasons of its inability to create an alternate discourse around the representation of Islam in western media be that the Muslim population is not prepared for this turn in history? Does the journalist’s work indicate that the attention it received was intentional? Share your thoughts on this controversy and whether or not the media is a proper means through which to begin a fight for a social movement.

Ideas, stories, interpretations; all these things exist, but they only become relevant to us when they are part of our own existence। They come to life for us when we know about them। How we view an idea or a story depends on who its narrator is and how the narrator presents it। This is the notion alluded to in Chapter 9 of the text Persuasion and Social Movements, as the authors discuss a certain view of persuasion that “hinges less on changing beliefs, attitudes, or values than on integrating beliefs and behaviors into a story regarded by the audience as coherent, relevant, compatible, promising, and proper” (204)।
It is more effective, or perhaps easier, to adapt the narrative of a social movement to something that is relevant and applicable to an intended audience than it is to change beliefs and values of potential members. To change somebody’s beliefs implies that the narrator has to prove that whatever the audience believed before is a faulty way to think, whereas changing the discourse, or the narrative of a movement to adapt to an audience is less problematic. The emphasis here is on the word “adapt.” Because, as noted in the text, each narrative enacts a set of values that govern its audience appeal, it would be unrealistic to attempt to change the values of a wide range of individuals of whom many will not have a great level of interest in the narrator’s cause. Having an intended audience guarantees a higher likelihood for success because they will find good reasons to follow the cause that will affect them positively and create a change they want to see and experience. However, it seems that a decent narrator, given the story is believable and worthy of a fight, should strive to and succeed at changing the minds of those who may not be in line with its ideas immediately.
According to the text, the two main elements people will question before becoming involved in a story are its “coherence (does the story work?)” and its “narrative fidelity (does the story use the audience’s beliefs and values?)” (204). The story told certainly depends on the narrator, or the person creating the narrative because “it is the narrator’s vantage point in time, intellect, wisdom, values, and character that positions the story for the audience” (204). The narrator must be knowledgeable, inspiring, passionate, etc. in order to draw in an audience that will be stirred to join the cause and take action. There could also be a form of identification and/or identity, helping unite followers by highlighting their common attributes and by identifying an enemy figure against whom to fight. This inevitably leads to the creation of a reality unique to the social movement; a means of both unity and division – a dialectic notion of sort (Philpott, Class lecture 04/27).
Dr. Jeff Philpott’s presentation about the Hawaiian Sovereign Movement illustrates how much the discourse created around and within a movement depend on how the story is presented, the vocabulary used, the “enemy” created, etc. All stories have at least two sides, even if the cause or motive is similar and this seems to be true of all movements. The direction they take are also highly contingent on the storyteller, their background and their beliefs. There is no set formula for the success of a movement, clearly, but its narrative vision is a sure determinant.

Response to Shelsea; Mass Media - an open arena?

2.)“The mass media are the most effective channels to persuade people. Mass Media persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes. Why is this? One reason may be that there is only limited feedback in mass message systems (you cannot question, applaud, or respond), so certain ploys work that will not work in open arenas.” (Larsen). I think that this statement is not necessarily true today. With so many things online and so many ways for one person to respond to any particular situation they see on TV or hear on the radio, they have plenty of ways to express how they feel about something in the mass media. So my question is, is this statement true? Are we becoming just drains in mass media and taking what we hear and see for face value and believing in it? Or are we using our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there?

Today, more than ever before, we are very much involved in the media available to us and have a significant influence on what we read, see and hear in the media. The section the majority of us decide to click on in a newspaper’s website, for example the entertainment section, will likely cause the presence of more entertainment news on the website in the future as it will receive more “hits” and the producers will assume it is what the consumers want more of. This is to say that we, the consumers, have a fair amount of control over what we read, see or hear in whatever medium we utilize. Our participation does not end here.
Let us concentrate on the radio. This medium requires that we hear its content and could seem like a “hot medium” as described by McLuhan; a high fidelity or definition form that requires little participation. In this day and age, I would disagree with this claim as a fair amount of radio stations demand that its listeners participate. You can call, send emails or letters, and be heard on the station. You can input your opinion about certain discussed subjects or request that a song be played. You can participate in varying contests and send money during a pledge drive. This is to say that we have plenty of opportunity to give feedback.
Furthermore, on television, another medium that is considered “hot”, though we may appear passive, we have a say. If we don’t watch a certain show, it will be cut off the air. If we demand that a show continue, a new season will be produced. With the continuing growth of reality TV, we are now more able than ever before to be on the screen. We can call after watching an infomercial, or to ask a talk show host a question. We can be as involved as we would like.
The best and most appropriate example I can think of that demonstrates that we are not merely passive and that is most certainly an open arena is the worldwide web. The internet is perhaps the largest and most effective communication facilitator. It connects people across the globe and allows us to respond to anything in it and create our own content. It is a medium for the people, by the people. Because of it, we can engage in conversation with those trying to “persuade us to buy products, to vote, and to take up causes.” We post opinions and comments on various articles. We write blogs to share anything we wish to share with others. We join social media websites such as Facebook to converse with those we know, meet new people, network and show who we are and what we believe in. what is more, is that all this shared information is instantaneous and this makes us even more engaged and more connected.
To conclude, I cannot agree with Larson’s statement in this day and age. I think that we certainly do make use of our mass media resources to say what we think and get our opinion out there. Six-year-old children are just as involved in the online conversation as big corporate businesses are. We are definitely the “me” generation. We like to be heard, recognized and involved. This attributes to a near impossibility in filtering information in controlling media content, allowing for more transparency and a larger presence of faulty information. We chose to make our mass media this way and we must now master its use, which is not an evident and easy thing to do, but not impossible either.

Questions; week of March 1st readings.

1) Marshall McLuhan speaks of the states of high and low definition in categorizing the types of media. High definition, or a hot medium, is the “state of being well filled with data” and low definition, cool media, implies a provision of very little information where much participation and feedback is expected of the receiver of any message. Do you agree with McLuhan that certain media are more characteristic or appropriate to a certain culture as he suggests the radio is of oral tribal societies in Africa for example? Do you think that such cultures/societies will change over time with the evolution or introduction of new media? Will the oral tribal societies McLuhan speaks of become consumers of more low definition states of media? The American society seems to certainly evolve in conjunction with the media. Culture and media are now interconnected. What does this mean for the future of the society? What role do you think the Internet will play in the progression of our generations? Is it a medium of high or low definition?

2) Are you offended by the proposition “we [Americans] are a people on the verge of amusing ourselves to death” Neil Postman makes, or suddenly grasping the (possible) reality of the statement? Apparently, the City of Las Vegas is a metaphor for the national character and aspiration of the United States as it is a symbol for entertainment. Why is this the case? Is this image perpetrated on purpose? How has this affected the country’s image and is it relevant elsewhere? Postman makes it rather clear that he believes people are the creator of the media and the controllers of its destiny. “The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination.” So are all media. However, as he mentions in a later chapter, television has become a myth, we take it as something completely natural and quotidian and are no longer amazed by its novelty and capacity. Has the audience become more passive or will the Internet continue to revive the audience and inspire curiosity and ongoing participation? Postman further claims “we are getting sillier by the minute,” that “our public discourse has become dangerous nonsense.” This must be our own fault. Are we ok with being silly? With the continual growth and highly visible impact of social networking and need for the input of individual opinions online, are we becoming sillier or will we try to shift towards a more serious tone again?

3) In the chapter The Rhetoric of Visual Arguments, Anthony Blair presents the concept of visual argument and discusses its complexity and truth-value. We are very visual, and at the same time heavily reliant on verbal communication as well. It seems as though we can hardly dissociate the two as one always helps us to effectively assert what we are communicating through the other. We live in the era of YouTube and careful selection of Facebook/MySpace profile pictures. However, merely pictures never satisfy us and we must add related information or a caption. Blair speaks of the immediacy visuals provide, but how about the immediacy verbal interaction provides? Images require interpretation, but when you have a text attached, any question or inquiry we may have can be instantly attended to. Do you believe we can argue visually? Can you think of an instance when you were convinced of something through use of visuals only?

Questions; week of February 2nd readings.

1. The conflict in Gaza has been an ongoing one for several decades now. Israel and Palestine have long fought over the Gaza strip, and now Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement out of Palestine is in control of this piece of land. On December 27th of 2009, Israel attacked Gaza, supposedly in response to the rocket fires launched into the southern border of the state by Hamas. Israel wishes to disarm the Hamas military and prevent further smuggling of arms from Gaza’s border with Egypt. Over the years, there have been a number of ceasefires. Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert declared the last one 22 days after Israel’s attack on the Gaza strip. However, both parties continue to break the ceasefire. Does this ongoing conflict classify as an argument as laid out by Brockriede? Does it lie “within the midrange of the more-or-less continuum” or does it have too much of problematic character? Consider his sixth characteristic; do you think Israel and Palestine’ views are virtually irreconcilable? Is it pointless to even consider a potential solution anymore?

2. Creativity is within us all but is difficult to articulate at times for a range of reasons. In speech writing, it is generally limited by our knowledge, our audience and what we are not allowed to say. In Chapter 6 of Hauser’s textbook, as well as in the majority of rhetorical reasoning texts, we are advised to judge the appropriate setting and to always consider the audience. But, in doing so, how much information can you leave out or skew – what do you leave in the commonplaces? Will being politically correct limit the content or general message of your speech? What if you want to attract “passersby,” as talked about in class? Furthermore, Hauser also places much emphasis on the role of the audience and on their creativity. Subjectivity and personal interpretations are expected after viewing an abstract painting or reading a certain poem, but are they after hearing a speech? Hauser claims it is “what we do with what he [speaker – Chris Rock] invents – in our heads and hearts and actions – that is at the core of rhetorical argument.” How much creativity do you think is expected of the receiver and how much room for interpretation should there be?

3. Why do speakers often include quotes in their speeches? Why do students include them in their papers? “Just quote somebody” students often advise each other when asked how to make an essay more interesting or creative. How do you distinguish then, in Kenneth Burke’s terms, those who are realistic strategists and those are not? Does a quote or a proverb simply “fill a need”? Proverbs, phrases that describe recurrent situations, as well as slang, are certainly part of our vernacular and change from culture to culture, often voicing what we cannot put into words; it is a better way to phrase “giving a word for it.” Would you agree with Burke in classifying this as a strategy? Is he being too broad in his sociological categorization of strategies?

Pr. Obama: Master Speech Giver

Response to Question 3: Olivia’s Rhetoric Class Blog

It can be said that President Barack Obama has mastered the essentials of informative public speaking that Rudolph Verderber discusses. President Obama has what it takes, according to Verderber, to produce successful informative speeches; he has content expertise, he has something to say, and he has speaking expertise, he know how to say it. In his speech at his presidential inauguration January 21st of 2009, though not solely information (as mentioned in the question), Pr. Obama addressed citizens of all nations, and most specifically his fellow American citizens of whom the majority are filled with hope and anticipation at the prospect of a newly improved America under the leadership of a strong and realistically hopeful believer.
Much was expected of Pr. Obama’s speech, as is of his term as President of the USA. Following Bercovitch’s theory of the American Jeremiad, Obama was the prophet telling his audience how special they are, listing how they have failed as a nation and outlining how to rise back up (Class notes 01/22). Planning this speech has been a long process of which the steps follow Verderber’s speech plan in chapter six. Obama has been building on his credibility, his expertise and his trustworthiness since his days as a student and has captivated the interest of the American people since his days as a senator in Illinois. In this inauguration speech, Obama presents accurate information in talking about the economic crisis, the wars, the loss of jobs, the high cost of health care and the failure of the education system and shows that he knows this is happening and he plans on doing something about it and representing the American people to the best of his ability. He is very obviously not “winging it” as Verderber suggests not doing.
In delivering this information, Obama transmits a tone of hope with a taste of seriousness. He addresses his audience for a period of approximately nineteen minutes during which he maintains their interest with his captivating intensity, his loud voice, his emphasis on certain words or phrases and his choice of words. As many have commented, Obama was not as emotive in this speech as expected or as noted in previous speeches, but his devotion and belief in his words were still clear. This was noted when the audience applauded after a number of his statements like the one towards the beginning, “But know this America: they [challenges] will be met.”
Pr. Obama addresses issues pertinent to the American public and to the rest of the world. He does not discuss issues he has not talked about during his election campaign or during his transition into the White House. He engages them by referencing the admirable Americans who fought for the country and the freedom of its people and affirming that it is time to remake America on the basis of freedom and equality for all. Obama certainly touches us all with his speech and proves he is an excellent speech planner and deliverer, at least according to Verderber’s definition of a successful public speech.