My advertisement was originally from Sports Illustrated, but I found it on the Internet. It is for Three Olives brand Vodka, and consists of a beautiful woman in high heels and a black dress seductively crouching in a martini glass next to the caption “What’s in your martini?” This is a very effective advertisement for its intended audience. The audience, men between the ages of 21 and 40, will notice this advertisement even casually flipping through the magazine. The dark backdrop makes the martini glass stand out and draws the viewers’ focus to it. After spending a few seconds looking at the woman, the viewer’s gaze will then move to the lettering. This phrase implies that by drinking this particular brand of vodka, you too can have a woman as gorgeous as the one in the glass. The reader’s eye will then continue down the same line to the actual bottle of vodka. This is where the advertiser shows its label and presents the numerous awards they have won.
If you’re a member of the desired audience, the advertisement is very effective. The claim is implied with the cause and effect that if you drink this brand of alcohol, you will be with beautiful women. There is not much evidence, but then again not much is needed. The ad is very straightforward and to the point for the viewer. The entire message comes back to the picture of what is in the martini glass. That one image warrants the claim and makes the ad work. The quote is just a piece of support that serves as a transition between the image of the glass and actual bottle. Readers of Sports Illustrated are most likely going to overlap with the ad’s intended audience, so the ad turns out to be extremely effective.
Wednesday, September 26, 2007
Tuesday, September 25, 2007
SWA 7
Charlie Hauck develops a revolutionary plan to help major television networks in his essay “My Plan to Save Network Television.” Simply put, he suggests that all those over the age of 49 be banned from watching television. Hauck sites that though the Nielson television ratings report is divided into demographics, the most important one is far and away the 18-49 year olds. They have significantly more spending power and have more disposable income to use on products. Major advertisers want to lock into these spending habits early in life so they can follow the trend for the years to come. This is seen as inviting to advertisers and make commercial spots during primetime network broadcasts more appealing. Hauck would know; he is a television writer and producer used to appealing to certain types of audiences. If only those in that particular age group were allowed to watch, the cost to advertise would increase and thereby save the four major broadcast networks.
While at first glace this seems like a ridiculous idea and something that would never be approved, Hauck has some surprisingly good support for it. On top of the aforementioned financial benefits, he also mentions that the age restrictions for retirement communities are never called into question or disputed by younger Americans. Older people should likewise accept age restrictions on television. Though this seems borderline uncivilized, the author presents his case in such a way that the reader can easily see benefits in following his guidelines.
While at first glace this seems like a ridiculous idea and something that would never be approved, Hauck has some surprisingly good support for it. On top of the aforementioned financial benefits, he also mentions that the age restrictions for retirement communities are never called into question or disputed by younger Americans. Older people should likewise accept age restrictions on television. Though this seems borderline uncivilized, the author presents his case in such a way that the reader can easily see benefits in following his guidelines.
SWA 6
In their article “Gen Y’s Ego Trip Takes a Bad Turn,” authors Larry Gordon and Louis Sahagun make the claim that today’s Millennial Generation, also known as Gen Y, are more self-absorbed and full of themselves then generations in the past. The article begins with a reference to YouTube’s rise in popularity. This site allows anyone to post videos of themselves doing an infinite range of things just to gain popularity and attention. The authors also reference a thirty percent rise in narcissism among college students since 1982, and include quotes from many high-ranking university professors. They also use common personal objects, such as cell phones and iPods, to show the peoples increased egos and their necessity to be in “their own little world.” The common theme among all the interviewed professors is that our society is moving more towards a me-first idea, which will inhibit the success that comes from cooperation.
While the authors are quick to mention the negative path our generation appears to be heading down, they neglect to mention how changes in society require this influx in self-absorption. One example that comes to mind is college applications. Guidance counselors encourage students to inflate their resumes, emphasize the littlest things about themselves, and talk themselves up to admissions reviewers. Essentially, society, like college admissions, has become so competitive that students need a slight ego and self-esteem boost just to be able to compete in it. While the author’s claims are justified, they do not do a good job in mentioning changes in our culture that influenced this change.
While the authors are quick to mention the negative path our generation appears to be heading down, they neglect to mention how changes in society require this influx in self-absorption. One example that comes to mind is college applications. Guidance counselors encourage students to inflate their resumes, emphasize the littlest things about themselves, and talk themselves up to admissions reviewers. Essentially, society, like college admissions, has become so competitive that students need a slight ego and self-esteem boost just to be able to compete in it. While the author’s claims are justified, they do not do a good job in mentioning changes in our culture that influenced this change.
Thursday, September 20, 2007
Rhetorical Analysis
Essay "Dropping the F-Bomb"
Central Claim: "We may be entering an era in which this fabled vulgarity is on its way to becoming just another word. For the good of human communication we must come together, as a people, to protect this word, and ensure that, years from now, it remains obscene." (p. 394)
My Central Claim: "The f-word has its place in proper society, however we must teach its proper meaning and limit its exposure to children." (p. 2)
My Revised Central Claim: "The author, after establishing proper credibility, argues that the word can be responsibly used, but over the past 20 years it's meaning has become so manipulated and twisted that it is now shunned by most. We as Americans need to change the frequency and context with which we use it, particularly in front of our children."
My Conclusion: "I believe Achenbach has some very valid points in his article."
Central Claim: "We may be entering an era in which this fabled vulgarity is on its way to becoming just another word. For the good of human communication we must come together, as a people, to protect this word, and ensure that, years from now, it remains obscene." (p. 394)
My Central Claim: "The f-word has its place in proper society, however we must teach its proper meaning and limit its exposure to children." (p. 2)
My Revised Central Claim: "The author, after establishing proper credibility, argues that the word can be responsibly used, but over the past 20 years it's meaning has become so manipulated and twisted that it is now shunned by most. We as Americans need to change the frequency and context with which we use it, particularly in front of our children."
My Conclusion: "I believe Achenbach has some very valid points in his article."
Monday, September 17, 2007
Outline
I chose the article "Dropping the F-Bomb" by Joel Achenbach because I feel like I can closely relate to this article. Over the last few years I have become quite guilty of overusing that word in particular at times. I believe I would have alot to say about this article, and have a good background to use while writing it.
Introduction
-Author and Title
-Explain TRACE and ethos/pathos/logos
Text
-Newspaper article from The Washington Post
-Informal and straightforward
Reader
-Meant for the casual reader glancing through the paper
-Mostly aimed at upper society who notices the words use in public
Author
-Male who does not outright admit to using the word excessively
-Well informed and connected with politics
Constraints
-Most people guilty of using the word in multiple contexts
-Some have no problem with it or grew up using it casually
-Others still unsure of what is so wrong about it
Exigence
-The overuse of the word
-The many different meanings that have come out from overusing the word
-How it has gone from being a mature word to being used by youths without knowing its definition
Personal Response
-How I feel about the use of the word and what could be done to limit its use
Introduction
-Author and Title
-Explain TRACE and ethos/pathos/logos
Text
-Newspaper article from The Washington Post
-Informal and straightforward
Reader
-Meant for the casual reader glancing through the paper
-Mostly aimed at upper society who notices the words use in public
Author
-Male who does not outright admit to using the word excessively
-Well informed and connected with politics
Constraints
-Most people guilty of using the word in multiple contexts
-Some have no problem with it or grew up using it casually
-Others still unsure of what is so wrong about it
Exigence
-The overuse of the word
-The many different meanings that have come out from overusing the word
-How it has gone from being a mature word to being used by youths without knowing its definition
Personal Response
-How I feel about the use of the word and what could be done to limit its use
Potential Articles
"Dropping the F-Bomb" by Joel Achenbach
This article discusses the increased usage of the f-word in our society. It uses references from popular culture such as movies where the word now has multiple uses and meanings far different than its original one. The author stresses the conservation of the use of the word, and restraining from using it as often. I enjoyed this article and could see myself writing a rhetorical analysis of it.
"Which Came First: The Lyric or Libidos?" by Mark Morford
This article discusses the impact of music on teenagers. Depending on what genre or type of music one listens to will have an impact on their social life and choices. The author uses the example of his childhood and the sexually explicit lyrics he listened to versus the softer lyrics of a different genre of music. This article would also be interesting to write an analysis on because it shows both sides of the argument before the author states how he feels about it.
This article discusses the increased usage of the f-word in our society. It uses references from popular culture such as movies where the word now has multiple uses and meanings far different than its original one. The author stresses the conservation of the use of the word, and restraining from using it as often. I enjoyed this article and could see myself writing a rhetorical analysis of it.
"Which Came First: The Lyric or Libidos?" by Mark Morford
This article discusses the impact of music on teenagers. Depending on what genre or type of music one listens to will have an impact on their social life and choices. The author uses the example of his childhood and the sexually explicit lyrics he listened to versus the softer lyrics of a different genre of music. This article would also be interesting to write an analysis on because it shows both sides of the argument before the author states how he feels about it.
SWA 5
The Virginia Tech shooting will forever be remembered as one of the most tragic moments in American history. Years from now it will still be analyzed in many different ways. What inspired the shooter? What could have been done to stop him? What changes do we implement across college campuses to prevent a future incident? No matter how many ways we scrutinize the event, the one conclusion we can always come to is that the shooter was more then just that; he was a killer. In his article Virginia Tech and Our Impoverished Language for Evil, author Gregg Easterbrook addresses our countries problem of not labeling things for what they really are, even if it means being bluntly honest about it.
Easterbrook wrote this article for audiences across the country. There is not one specific targeted group. Though he primarily calls out media outlets for not calling murderer Cho Seung-Hui what he really is, he subliminally lectures all Americans about not “calling a thing what it really is.” Easterbrook goes into great detail describing the mass horror of the act of murder, and how Americans should not beat around the bush when talking about it. To use the term “shooter” or “gunman” overlooks the true character of Cho. He was a murderer and a killer, and those should be the words used when reflecting on the event. From this article we learn about Easterbrook’s frustration over people mislabeling others in a kinder light. He cites examples such as “shooting spree” instead of “rampage,” and “troubled mental state” in the place of “madman.” He strongly believes that until we can address incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting for what they are, we cannot gain a better understanding of it or be able to prevent them in the future.
Readers will probably have a constrained viewpoint while reading this article. Many are still very bewildered by the whole incident, maybe still in disbelief that something like this could really happen. After reading the article, they could emotionally become fired up and side with Easterbrook in calling Cho a murderer, and his act of evil. I personally knew many people on the campus that day, so after reading Easterbrook’s justifications for revising what we call Cho, I full heartedly agreed and became flat out angry about how the media treated the tragedy.
The article, clearly sparked by the media’s tenderness in not speaking up about what Cho was, addresses that very problem. I find myself in agreement in much of what Easterbrook says in the article. I believe we share a good deal of common ground, and after he pointed out what so many of us were overlooking, I hope the next time a media outlet reports on a similar tragedy they will treat it for what it really is; an act of evil. Easterbrook made multiple valid points in defending his argument, and definitely persuaded at least one reader to see the same thing he sees.
Easterbrook wrote this article for audiences across the country. There is not one specific targeted group. Though he primarily calls out media outlets for not calling murderer Cho Seung-Hui what he really is, he subliminally lectures all Americans about not “calling a thing what it really is.” Easterbrook goes into great detail describing the mass horror of the act of murder, and how Americans should not beat around the bush when talking about it. To use the term “shooter” or “gunman” overlooks the true character of Cho. He was a murderer and a killer, and those should be the words used when reflecting on the event. From this article we learn about Easterbrook’s frustration over people mislabeling others in a kinder light. He cites examples such as “shooting spree” instead of “rampage,” and “troubled mental state” in the place of “madman.” He strongly believes that until we can address incidents like the Virginia Tech shooting for what they are, we cannot gain a better understanding of it or be able to prevent them in the future.
Readers will probably have a constrained viewpoint while reading this article. Many are still very bewildered by the whole incident, maybe still in disbelief that something like this could really happen. After reading the article, they could emotionally become fired up and side with Easterbrook in calling Cho a murderer, and his act of evil. I personally knew many people on the campus that day, so after reading Easterbrook’s justifications for revising what we call Cho, I full heartedly agreed and became flat out angry about how the media treated the tragedy.
The article, clearly sparked by the media’s tenderness in not speaking up about what Cho was, addresses that very problem. I find myself in agreement in much of what Easterbrook says in the article. I believe we share a good deal of common ground, and after he pointed out what so many of us were overlooking, I hope the next time a media outlet reports on a similar tragedy they will treat it for what it really is; an act of evil. Easterbrook made multiple valid points in defending his argument, and definitely persuaded at least one reader to see the same thing he sees.
Monday, September 10, 2007
SWA 4
In today’s modern, computer based society, it has become easier and easier for everyday people to post essays of opinion on the internet. Anyone can create an account or an alter-ego at various blogging and social networking website, such as Blogspot and Facebook. On these sites people can post how they feel about certain rhetoric situations, which requires taking a position or viewpoint on a debated or argued topic. Two examples of online rhetoric situations are David Friedman's blog "Ideas,” and a classmate from my high school’s facebook page.
Both websites share some things in common, however are very different. The first clear cut difference is the type of text. Friedman’s article “Low Cost Cooling” is a short blog in which the author gives an obvious alternative to air conditioning units which society for the most part has ignored. My classmate’s facebook page has a section in her “Notes” in which she discusses her feelings about coming out, and how she does not care how other people view her as a result of it. These are two very different text sources to write about. One involves an environmental alternative, the other an alternative lifestyle. However both texts aim to stimulate discussion and encourage change. One wants a more fuel and cost efficient source of cooling, the other to encourage tolerance among her peers. Both have similar cores that inspired the author to write them.
These two articles also have very different targeted audiences, authors, and constraints. Friedman intended for his piece to be read by homeowners; both those having difficulties with cooling and those who use air conditioners and may want an alternative. My classmate intended for basically everyone she was “friends” with on facebook to see and read it. The author of the first piece is a professor with a background in economics, while my classmate is merely a confused teenager possibly trying to find herself. Finally, the Friedman article is constrained by the idea that the newest technology belongs in homes even if it may not by the best alternative, and those who may not have the luxury of this low cost cooling. This includes, for example, people who do not receive much of a cross breeze by their home. My classmate’s facebook post is constrained by the conservative, homophobic viewpoint that this alternate lifestyle makes you an outcast in society and results in a shunning by many of your peers. Though she wrote it without this opinion in mind, it is still a constriction that will influence reader’s opinions.
Though both authors had different exigencies for writing their internet articles, they still share some similarities. Friedman wrote his out of disgust for people committed to air conditioning units when there is a much more cost and environmentally efficient way to cool buildings found in nature. My classmate wrote hers as a coming out statement. She did it to inform others of her decision and that she did not care how they felt about it. These are two very different situations that signal a problem in the author’s life. However both were written to inform their readers of the opinions, and to let the internet world know something about the way they felt. These are just a few similarities and differences from two of the billions of rhetoric situations found on the World Wide Web today.
Both websites share some things in common, however are very different. The first clear cut difference is the type of text. Friedman’s article “Low Cost Cooling” is a short blog in which the author gives an obvious alternative to air conditioning units which society for the most part has ignored. My classmate’s facebook page has a section in her “Notes” in which she discusses her feelings about coming out, and how she does not care how other people view her as a result of it. These are two very different text sources to write about. One involves an environmental alternative, the other an alternative lifestyle. However both texts aim to stimulate discussion and encourage change. One wants a more fuel and cost efficient source of cooling, the other to encourage tolerance among her peers. Both have similar cores that inspired the author to write them.
These two articles also have very different targeted audiences, authors, and constraints. Friedman intended for his piece to be read by homeowners; both those having difficulties with cooling and those who use air conditioners and may want an alternative. My classmate intended for basically everyone she was “friends” with on facebook to see and read it. The author of the first piece is a professor with a background in economics, while my classmate is merely a confused teenager possibly trying to find herself. Finally, the Friedman article is constrained by the idea that the newest technology belongs in homes even if it may not by the best alternative, and those who may not have the luxury of this low cost cooling. This includes, for example, people who do not receive much of a cross breeze by their home. My classmate’s facebook post is constrained by the conservative, homophobic viewpoint that this alternate lifestyle makes you an outcast in society and results in a shunning by many of your peers. Though she wrote it without this opinion in mind, it is still a constriction that will influence reader’s opinions.
Though both authors had different exigencies for writing their internet articles, they still share some similarities. Friedman wrote his out of disgust for people committed to air conditioning units when there is a much more cost and environmentally efficient way to cool buildings found in nature. My classmate wrote hers as a coming out statement. She did it to inform others of her decision and that she did not care how they felt about it. These are two very different situations that signal a problem in the author’s life. However both were written to inform their readers of the opinions, and to let the internet world know something about the way they felt. These are just a few similarities and differences from two of the billions of rhetoric situations found on the World Wide Web today.
Thursday, September 6, 2007
SWA 3
After reviewing my answers to the questions on the list, I have come to the conclusion that I prefer an adversarial style of argument. Though I had answers in both the adversarial and consensual categories, there was a clear majority to one side over the other.
When I argue, I argue to win. I will come out with my viewpoints and ideas, and support them and back them up until I believe I have convinced the audience or my opponent that I am correct. This is probably a side effect of my natural stubbornness, but that is still the way I approach an argument. I am also a very blunt and honest person. This means I will speak whatever is on my mind and what I feel about a certain topic. This has sometimes gotten me in trouble in the past; however it can be effective during an argument. I typically will not hold back, and am sure to completely address what I feel about the debated subject. Both of these traits fall under the adversarial style of argument. Also a side effect of my character, I like to fight and be aggressive. As bad as that sounds, it is very true. This does not necessarily hold true in the physical sense, however emotionally and verbally I can be very forceful. This too is a foundation for the adversarial style of argument.
There are certain items I checked off that relate to the consensual style of argument. I would rather see a group consensus over turning an individual’s opinion. I also prefer personal examples in arguments, and will try to make connections. It’s my personal opinion that these are both very essential elements for a successful argument. However, when push comes to shove, I am more of an adversarial arguer. I prefer the emotion, in-your-face type of argument where there is a clear cut winner to the cooperative, more negotiating type of argument where many views are solicited. I have always been this way and never really gave it much thought prior to this activity. After reviewing my style of argument, I believe that I can change somewhat and grow more accepting not just of others viewpoints, but of others styles of argument.
SWA 2
Kathleen Parker’s article “Seeking Balance in an Either-Or World” dives into the political picture in our country today. She discusses how in a political arena seemingly dominated by far-left Liberals and far-right Conservatives, a growing number of Americans are choosing to align themselves as Independents, associating with neither of the two parties. These Americans, now a majority at thirty-nine percent, choose the more central path without leaning too far to either side. Parker notes how nothing can really be accomplished with either party’s radicals in power because the spirit of compromise is completely eliminated from all debates. She believes that in the future, a more moderate approach will be necessary to continue to pass legislature in our government.
The primary example used by Parker to assert her claims is abortion. This is a sticky issue to choose, particularly because the media often portrays it as you’re either on one side or the other; there is no middle road on the subject. It is also an interesting issue to us as the article’s support, because a central, middle compromise has yet to truly develop on this topic. Parker summarizes her abortion point right where she started it; “adrift” between both sides. The author should have chosen a recent issue where a central viewpoint has developed and resulted in a successful compromise between both sides. It is easy to understand why Parker chose abortion, but leaves the audience waiting for a concluding viewpoint after she finishes discussing it.
I too have personally witnessed this extremist society when it comes to politics. Coming from a very liberal community just north of
SWA 1
Professor Michael Skube has many concerns regarding today’s college students. His biggest concern, simply put, is that students are not good readers and writers. Even coming from high school with solid grade point averages, students still lack basic reading and writing essentials. This includes a weak vocabulary. For example, Skube mentions in his article how he could not carry on a conversation with a student a semester away from graduating college because the student did not understand some of the vocabulary. Skube attributes this to student’s lack of outside, casual reading.
Based on my own experiences, I full heartedly agree with Skube that students do not like to read just for the sake of reading anymore. I will admit that at times I too am one of these students. Whether it is because of a lack of free time, or just a general disinterest in reading, students do not think twice about opening a book anymore. For me personally, it is a little of both. During the school year especially, I was very crunched for time with sports, normal homework assignments, and other extracurricular activities to squeeze in time for casual reading. School reading assignments over the years have also driven me to the point where I do not want to read for fun anymore. I still very much enjoy reading, especially during the summer, but certainly not critically or analytically like we are asked to do in school.
Todd Hagstette’s “aggressive reading” could very well be the solution to some of the students, myself included, problems mentioned in Skube’s essay. Hagstette calls for readers to buckle down, focus, and re-read the text in order to gain a better understanding of it. If students were to do this, not only would they be able to better understand and interpret what they read, but they will also pick up on more of the vocabulary terms that can be used in everyday conversation. Students would benefit in many different ways by just taking a little extra time and putting in a little extra effort while reading.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)