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.