http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YPnGPIMUnus
1. Identify the Argument - I love you tender, I would never bring you any kind of sorrow.
2. Target Audience - Scandinavian youths in the 70s who were into the pop music scene, especially when they sang in English. This Finnish video may have wanted to target Americans, considering that it was sung in English, but I highly doubt it made it across the Atlantic very successfully.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Well considering that they have a boy singing to a girl and vice versa, they are established as lovers or a couple based on the fact that they are singing, "I love you" to an actual person. The problem lies more in the fact that they are in space and that are weird aerobic dancers all around them, that makes what they are saying seem kind of ridiculous. They use an intimate and informal tone, when singing to each other which is fitting for the argument that they are making, but the tone of the music and the environment undermines their credibility,
Pathos - The guy sings, "I love you I want to love you tender, you could be my only sweet surrender, I would never bring you any kind of sorrow." - This appeals to a fear of rejection or betrayal by confessing your love to a guy and then him deciding he doesn't feel the same way. Also he has some sort of sex appeal with his tight pants and low-cut shirt. The girl appeals to the emotion of insecurity when she sings, "How can I be sure you're not pretender, you want me today but what about tomorrow?" - and the guy continues to try and reconcile her insecurities by telling her that he wants to be her "loving vendor" and that he wants to take her where no one can deceive her.
Logos - There is no statistical data or real logic in this song, but one could possibly deduct that if he tells her that he loves her, he will never leave her because people who are in love don't abandon each other. But that's about all the logic I could glean from this galactic performance.
Sufficient Evidence - Not really, there are promises of love and devotion, but we only see him dance with her and then drive off with her into the stars. We don't know if he is driving her off into happily ever after, or a one-night stand.
4. Was it effective and Why? - Well considering the interesting use of the English language, the strange dancing, setting and stiff almost robotic lead singers, I am gonna have to say, no. I think its ineffective mostly because setting and the dancing and the outfits are completely incohesive. There is nothing that unites them other than the song so the whole music video you are laughing at the words, the dance moves or the crappy space simulation instead of listening to the message and argument of the song.
18.11.08
Tattoos: For Angels, Demons and Everything In Between
For every artistic medium there are corresponding masters that left such a mark on their particular area of expertise that they are forever associated with it. In painting you have Da Vinci, Rembrandt, Monet; in sculpture, Michelangelo and Rodin; but what about in skin?
Where once traditional art forms such as, painting, drawing, and sculpture had somewhat of a monopoly on artistry, the emergence of a new class of creative genius in the fields of music, fashion, film and even tattooing have spotlighted the existence of Picassos, Van Goghs, and Matisses in more unconventional creative fields.
Daniel Walker, 26, is one such innovator.
While working as a volunteer teacher in Guatemala, Walker supplemented his meager per dium of about 80 bucks a month, by selling street art to tourists.
Beto, a fellow street vendor, admired his sketches and asked Walker to give him a tattoo; three extension cords later, he completed his first body art on the roof of a hotel.
“I did all my first tattoos in Guatemala and Mexico as a scratcher (someone with no formal training),” Walker said. “I didn’t have any equipment, Beto had machines, and I did a few tattoos, not the right way, but you have to start somewhere.”
And unfortunately, scratching is the route most amateur tattooers have to take. To be considered a professional tattoo artist, you have to do an apprenticeship that can last anywhere from one to several years, but scratchers are mediocre artists one day and self-proclaimed “tattooers” the next.
“There are schools but they’re all horrible and none of them are qualified and that’s a new a thing because of the tattoo craze,” Walker said. “They charge 5 to 10,000 dollars and it’s a 3 week or 3 month crash course and then they think they are a tattoo artist. I don’t.”
In contrast to tattoo school, an apprenticeship is all about testing your mettle. “You don’t get paid anything, you’re here [at the shop] all the time, you do all the cleaning, the “bitch” work and that’s pretty much where an apprentice begins,” Walker said. “You have to prove that you’re into it, that you’re here to tattoo.”
Any real artist takes this training very seriously and puts their apprentice through the hoops before they even touch a machine. For 6 months to year they mop the floor, clean the bathroom, clean the tubes, watch and draw. Putting in 50 hours a week with no pay, an apprentice has to have a second job to even survive said Walker.
But at the end of that time, when the art’s there, they’ve learned how to make needles, sterilize, tune and build machines, the apprentice starts tattooing their friends for free and once their tattoos start looking decent, they’re an artist.
But just because someone works or owns a tattoo parlor does not mean that they’re qualified.
“It’s a piece of cake to open a shop - you just rent a building and start tattooing,” Walker said. “A scratcher is the enemy of the industry. We don’t care, they can have all the tattoos they can get but it’s unsafe and they haven’t been trained to understand that.”
With no “Bureau of Tattoo Art” to issue certificates to pros and to crackdown on scratchers, the only thing a real tattoo artist can do is to get licensed through the health department by undergoing training in blood-born pathogens and infection control.
Painted Temple, the shop where Walker has worked for a year and a half, “stole” him from the parlor where he did his apprenticeship. Something like that could have started a war only a few years ago, resulting in shops burning down.
There is an unwritten code that you don’t steal other shop’s artists, you don’t finish tattoos other shops have started, you don’t talk badly about other shops, and you don’t open a shop anywhere near one you’ve worked at, otherwise you’re asking for a war, Walker said.
But thankfully, even after swiping Walker, Painted Temple is still standing.
Opened in September 2005 by a tattoo artist named Oak, Painted Temple is an all-custom shop. As opposed to street shops, a custom parlor doesn’t do any flash, which are books of bulk designs sold to shops by artists throughout the country.
“If people bring [flash] in, we tell them every single time, do you mind if I redraw that?” Walker said. “For the most part we work off of photographs.”
But tattoos are trendy right now and when it comes down to it, there are two types of people who want them - people who are looking to be excluded from some part of society – like Walker - and people who are looking to be included in some part of society.
“The first tattoo I got was my last name,” Walker said. “Really I was testing the waters. I wanted to get something I wasn’t going to regret later, that I’d always be proud of and that I could afford.“
Although Walker was underage, 17, (legally you have to be 18), 15 tattoos and 9 years later, he has never regretted his first one because it gave him an outlet for his individuality.
“I’ve always felt separate from the mainstream culture,” Walker said. “Growing up in Utah was definitely a struggle, I didn’t feel like I could be myself ever.”
Inspired by his welder and diesel mechanic grandfathers, Walker saw in tattooing the ability to be a craftsman, someone who knows everything about what they do – “how it begins, how it ends and why.”
“They put their heart into what they did,” Walker said. “ The average mechanic today is a specialist, my grandpa could build anything from the ground up, if he didn’t have a part he could make it on a lathe - he was an artist.”
And so is Walker. While explaining how his machines work, he held his tools with a delicate but steady hand. With each tattoo requiring 3 to 5 different machines with varying needle sizes for thin lines, shading, black, grey or colored ink, Walker deftly switches between machines like a painter switches paintbrushes.
While some of his machines are decorated with snakeskin and hammered metal, the majority are embellished with various types of money – Mexican, Honduran, American.
Tattoo artists say that if you put money on your machine, it’ll make money for you. But if things get really hard, at least you’ll still have a couple dollars. But with tattoos only continuing to grow in popularity, the money serves more as ornamentation, than a safety net.
From 100 percent biodegradable, organic and vegan ink to better equipment and popular shows like Miami Ink on TLC and Inked on A&E, tattoos are losing their underground status, shifting from the shoulders and chests of army/navy men and convicts to the lower backs and ankles of suburban soccer moms.
“I’ve tattooed 70 year-olds to 18 year-olds, every race, men, women, the super religious to ex-convicts,” Walker said.
In the 1890s, American socialite Ward McAllister condemned tattoos as “the most vulgar and barbarous habit the eccentric mind of fashion ever invented.” While deeming them suitable for the likes of illiterate seaman, McAllister declared tattoos to be absolutely unacceptable for aristocrats and other members of polite society, according to vanishingtattoo.com.
But in 2008, tattoos are everywhere and on everyone, aristocratic or otherwise. Entering mainstream society on the backs, arms, necks and wrists of supermodels, sports figures, actors, and rock stars, tattoos have lost their lower-class status and their deviant stigma.
In 1997, the Chicago Tribune reported that the growing tattoo trend is due to “a greater number of ink colors, the fact that fine artists are entering the field and the proliferation of celebrity tattoos.”
Young people no longer see body art as a way to separate themselves from society, but as a form of decoration and self-expression. And tattoo parlors are no longer dirty, “assembly-line service” vehicles for urban outlaw culture. They have emerged as custom, “by-appointment”, fine art studios aimed at middle and upper middle-class professionals, according to tattooartist.com.
Despite this growing national trend, in Utah, the proliferation of tattoo culture has been somewhat limited by the predominance of the LDS church, which discourages it’s members from marking their bodies in any way. But because tattoos are not seen as grounds for excommunication or damnation, some LDS church members still choose to get them.
This unique LDS environment has helped to sustain the counter-culture image of tattoos in the eyes of LDS Utahns. While in other states, tattoos are seen as harmless forms of self-expression, in Utah, tattoos have still retained their rebellious edge.
Aaron Fernuik, a 25 year-old psychology major at BYU, has a Union Jack on his elbow and is in the process of getting the personification of Pistol, his St. Bernard puppy, on his upper arm.
“There is such a stigma in our church that because the prophet says don’t get tattoos you are somehow a bad person for getting one,” Fernuik said. “So I wanted mine to be really meaningful.”
Not wanting to sound like a sob story, Fernuik explained, “My father was abusive and after years of therapy and finally being able to take care of myself and be my own best friend, I needed a trophy to show a milestone.”
So Fernuik planned a trip to England. He went all by himself and got his first tattoo, the Union Jack, to commemorate a chapter in his life closing and another one opening.
But his London souvenir was met with mixed reviews. “My older sister is so opposed to it, anytime she sees it, she’ll quickly turn her head because she absolutely hates it,” Fernuik said.
Still, others are more complimentary. “Some people see it and they like it,” Fernuik said. “Even though they don’t run out and get a tattoo of their own, it gives them permission to be themselves in a way of their own that may be unacceptable in the way that getting a tattoo is unacceptable.”
But because his particular outlet for expression is not condoned by his Church or his University, when considering a second tattoo, Fernuik decided to ask the honor code office at BYU what the consequences of more body art might be.
“They said that if it was offensive material I’d always have to have it covered, but other than that they would call you into the office, so you could discuss it with someone to make sure you know that the body is not something to be trifled with,” Fernuik said. “No formal warning, kind of a you know better kind of a thing.”
But Fernuik feels like, with tattoos, he does know better. “I will never get a tattoo where I can’t see it because they’re for me,” Fernuik said. “I don’t think I really valued my body before as a temple, but ironically enough, with the tattoos, I do.”
Acting as a visual symbol of his love for his puppy and a reminder not to close off, Fernuik’s second tattoo is also a testament to his own strength and fortitude.
Because of the size and intricacy of his puppy tattoo, Fernuik has already endured five hours in the chair, but he still has four to go until his newest arm adornment is finished.
“I focus on the pain rather than away from the pain to deal with it,” Fernuik said. “It turns out to be an interesting sensation rather than something painful and horrible that you try to avoid.”
But more than that, Fernuik’s tattoos are concrete reminders of speed bumps hurdled and milestones reached. And in the future, he hopes to memorialize other landmark events on his skin, as long as they are as meaningful as their predecessors.
“You have to think, is this life changing enough that I want to give up a portion of my skin to represent this? And most often it’s no,” Fernuik said. “Because if one tattoo means nothing it devalues all of them and I always want to be proud of my tattoos.”
Where once traditional art forms such as, painting, drawing, and sculpture had somewhat of a monopoly on artistry, the emergence of a new class of creative genius in the fields of music, fashion, film and even tattooing have spotlighted the existence of Picassos, Van Goghs, and Matisses in more unconventional creative fields.
Daniel Walker, 26, is one such innovator.
While working as a volunteer teacher in Guatemala, Walker supplemented his meager per dium of about 80 bucks a month, by selling street art to tourists.
Beto, a fellow street vendor, admired his sketches and asked Walker to give him a tattoo; three extension cords later, he completed his first body art on the roof of a hotel.
“I did all my first tattoos in Guatemala and Mexico as a scratcher (someone with no formal training),” Walker said. “I didn’t have any equipment, Beto had machines, and I did a few tattoos, not the right way, but you have to start somewhere.”
And unfortunately, scratching is the route most amateur tattooers have to take. To be considered a professional tattoo artist, you have to do an apprenticeship that can last anywhere from one to several years, but scratchers are mediocre artists one day and self-proclaimed “tattooers” the next.
“There are schools but they’re all horrible and none of them are qualified and that’s a new a thing because of the tattoo craze,” Walker said. “They charge 5 to 10,000 dollars and it’s a 3 week or 3 month crash course and then they think they are a tattoo artist. I don’t.”
In contrast to tattoo school, an apprenticeship is all about testing your mettle. “You don’t get paid anything, you’re here [at the shop] all the time, you do all the cleaning, the “bitch” work and that’s pretty much where an apprentice begins,” Walker said. “You have to prove that you’re into it, that you’re here to tattoo.”
Any real artist takes this training very seriously and puts their apprentice through the hoops before they even touch a machine. For 6 months to year they mop the floor, clean the bathroom, clean the tubes, watch and draw. Putting in 50 hours a week with no pay, an apprentice has to have a second job to even survive said Walker.
But at the end of that time, when the art’s there, they’ve learned how to make needles, sterilize, tune and build machines, the apprentice starts tattooing their friends for free and once their tattoos start looking decent, they’re an artist.
But just because someone works or owns a tattoo parlor does not mean that they’re qualified.
“It’s a piece of cake to open a shop - you just rent a building and start tattooing,” Walker said. “A scratcher is the enemy of the industry. We don’t care, they can have all the tattoos they can get but it’s unsafe and they haven’t been trained to understand that.”
With no “Bureau of Tattoo Art” to issue certificates to pros and to crackdown on scratchers, the only thing a real tattoo artist can do is to get licensed through the health department by undergoing training in blood-born pathogens and infection control.
Painted Temple, the shop where Walker has worked for a year and a half, “stole” him from the parlor where he did his apprenticeship. Something like that could have started a war only a few years ago, resulting in shops burning down.
There is an unwritten code that you don’t steal other shop’s artists, you don’t finish tattoos other shops have started, you don’t talk badly about other shops, and you don’t open a shop anywhere near one you’ve worked at, otherwise you’re asking for a war, Walker said.
But thankfully, even after swiping Walker, Painted Temple is still standing.
Opened in September 2005 by a tattoo artist named Oak, Painted Temple is an all-custom shop. As opposed to street shops, a custom parlor doesn’t do any flash, which are books of bulk designs sold to shops by artists throughout the country.
“If people bring [flash] in, we tell them every single time, do you mind if I redraw that?” Walker said. “For the most part we work off of photographs.”
But tattoos are trendy right now and when it comes down to it, there are two types of people who want them - people who are looking to be excluded from some part of society – like Walker - and people who are looking to be included in some part of society.
“The first tattoo I got was my last name,” Walker said. “Really I was testing the waters. I wanted to get something I wasn’t going to regret later, that I’d always be proud of and that I could afford.“
Although Walker was underage, 17, (legally you have to be 18), 15 tattoos and 9 years later, he has never regretted his first one because it gave him an outlet for his individuality.
“I’ve always felt separate from the mainstream culture,” Walker said. “Growing up in Utah was definitely a struggle, I didn’t feel like I could be myself ever.”
Inspired by his welder and diesel mechanic grandfathers, Walker saw in tattooing the ability to be a craftsman, someone who knows everything about what they do – “how it begins, how it ends and why.”
“They put their heart into what they did,” Walker said. “ The average mechanic today is a specialist, my grandpa could build anything from the ground up, if he didn’t have a part he could make it on a lathe - he was an artist.”
And so is Walker. While explaining how his machines work, he held his tools with a delicate but steady hand. With each tattoo requiring 3 to 5 different machines with varying needle sizes for thin lines, shading, black, grey or colored ink, Walker deftly switches between machines like a painter switches paintbrushes.
While some of his machines are decorated with snakeskin and hammered metal, the majority are embellished with various types of money – Mexican, Honduran, American.
Tattoo artists say that if you put money on your machine, it’ll make money for you. But if things get really hard, at least you’ll still have a couple dollars. But with tattoos only continuing to grow in popularity, the money serves more as ornamentation, than a safety net.
From 100 percent biodegradable, organic and vegan ink to better equipment and popular shows like Miami Ink on TLC and Inked on A&E, tattoos are losing their underground status, shifting from the shoulders and chests of army/navy men and convicts to the lower backs and ankles of suburban soccer moms.
“I’ve tattooed 70 year-olds to 18 year-olds, every race, men, women, the super religious to ex-convicts,” Walker said.
In the 1890s, American socialite Ward McAllister condemned tattoos as “the most vulgar and barbarous habit the eccentric mind of fashion ever invented.” While deeming them suitable for the likes of illiterate seaman, McAllister declared tattoos to be absolutely unacceptable for aristocrats and other members of polite society, according to vanishingtattoo.com.
But in 2008, tattoos are everywhere and on everyone, aristocratic or otherwise. Entering mainstream society on the backs, arms, necks and wrists of supermodels, sports figures, actors, and rock stars, tattoos have lost their lower-class status and their deviant stigma.
In 1997, the Chicago Tribune reported that the growing tattoo trend is due to “a greater number of ink colors, the fact that fine artists are entering the field and the proliferation of celebrity tattoos.”
Young people no longer see body art as a way to separate themselves from society, but as a form of decoration and self-expression. And tattoo parlors are no longer dirty, “assembly-line service” vehicles for urban outlaw culture. They have emerged as custom, “by-appointment”, fine art studios aimed at middle and upper middle-class professionals, according to tattooartist.com.
Despite this growing national trend, in Utah, the proliferation of tattoo culture has been somewhat limited by the predominance of the LDS church, which discourages it’s members from marking their bodies in any way. But because tattoos are not seen as grounds for excommunication or damnation, some LDS church members still choose to get them.
This unique LDS environment has helped to sustain the counter-culture image of tattoos in the eyes of LDS Utahns. While in other states, tattoos are seen as harmless forms of self-expression, in Utah, tattoos have still retained their rebellious edge.
Aaron Fernuik, a 25 year-old psychology major at BYU, has a Union Jack on his elbow and is in the process of getting the personification of Pistol, his St. Bernard puppy, on his upper arm.
“There is such a stigma in our church that because the prophet says don’t get tattoos you are somehow a bad person for getting one,” Fernuik said. “So I wanted mine to be really meaningful.”
Not wanting to sound like a sob story, Fernuik explained, “My father was abusive and after years of therapy and finally being able to take care of myself and be my own best friend, I needed a trophy to show a milestone.”
So Fernuik planned a trip to England. He went all by himself and got his first tattoo, the Union Jack, to commemorate a chapter in his life closing and another one opening.
But his London souvenir was met with mixed reviews. “My older sister is so opposed to it, anytime she sees it, she’ll quickly turn her head because she absolutely hates it,” Fernuik said.
Still, others are more complimentary. “Some people see it and they like it,” Fernuik said. “Even though they don’t run out and get a tattoo of their own, it gives them permission to be themselves in a way of their own that may be unacceptable in the way that getting a tattoo is unacceptable.”
But because his particular outlet for expression is not condoned by his Church or his University, when considering a second tattoo, Fernuik decided to ask the honor code office at BYU what the consequences of more body art might be.
“They said that if it was offensive material I’d always have to have it covered, but other than that they would call you into the office, so you could discuss it with someone to make sure you know that the body is not something to be trifled with,” Fernuik said. “No formal warning, kind of a you know better kind of a thing.”
But Fernuik feels like, with tattoos, he does know better. “I will never get a tattoo where I can’t see it because they’re for me,” Fernuik said. “I don’t think I really valued my body before as a temple, but ironically enough, with the tattoos, I do.”
Acting as a visual symbol of his love for his puppy and a reminder not to close off, Fernuik’s second tattoo is also a testament to his own strength and fortitude.
Because of the size and intricacy of his puppy tattoo, Fernuik has already endured five hours in the chair, but he still has four to go until his newest arm adornment is finished.
“I focus on the pain rather than away from the pain to deal with it,” Fernuik said. “It turns out to be an interesting sensation rather than something painful and horrible that you try to avoid.”
But more than that, Fernuik’s tattoos are concrete reminders of speed bumps hurdled and milestones reached. And in the future, he hopes to memorialize other landmark events on his skin, as long as they are as meaningful as their predecessors.
“You have to think, is this life changing enough that I want to give up a portion of my skin to represent this? And most often it’s no,” Fernuik said. “Because if one tattoo means nothing it devalues all of them and I always want to be proud of my tattoos.”
12.11.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Song
"Wannabe"
The Spice Girls
Yo, I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really
really really wanna zigazig ha.
If you want my future forget my past,
If you wanna get with me better make it fast,
Now don't go wasting my precious time,
Get your act together we could be just fine
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really
really really wanna zigazig ha.
If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends,
Make it last forever friendship never ends,
If you wanna be my lover, you have got to give,
Taking is too easy, but that's the way it is.
What do you think about that now you know how I feel,
Say you can handle my love are you for real,
I won't be hasty, I'll give you a try
If you really bug me then I'll say goodbye.
Yo I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want,
So tell me what you want, what you really really want,
I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna, I wanna really
really really wanna zigazig ha.
If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends,
Make it last forever friendship never ends,
If you wanna be my lover, you have got to give,
Taking is too easy, but that's the way it is.
So here's a story from A to Z, you wanna get with me
you gotta listen carefully,
We got Em in the place who likes it in your face,
we got G like MC who likes it on an
Easy V doesn't come for free, she's a real lady,
and as for me..ah you'll see,
Slam your body down and wind it all around
Slam your body down and wind it all around.
If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends,
Make it last forever friendship never ends,
If you wanna be my lover, you have got to give,
Taking is too easy, but that's the way it is.
If you wanna be my lover, you gotta, you gotta, you
gotta,
you gotta, you gotta, slam, slam, slam, slam
Slam your body down and wind it all around.
Slam your body down and wind it all around.
Slam your body down and wind it all around.
Slam your body down zigazig ah
If you wannabe my lover.
1. Identify the argument - If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends.
2. Target Audience - Any guy who has an interest in one of the Spice Girls or any girl that has adopted the Spice Girls' songs as part of their own personal mantra. These men could range from 18 to 45 and the girls probably range from 20 to 30. They obviously have to pay attention to pop culture so they have some idea of who the Spice Girls are and they probably either own an entire Spice Girl's album or at least a few of their songs.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Well the Spice Girls are the foremost authority on who they would choose to be they're lover so as far as being experts in any one field, that would be it. They address their audience in a catchy pop song which makes it kind of hard to take them seriously, but the Spice Girls are good looking ladies so I think men listened to what they said based solely on that fact. Their various "titles" - Sporty, Baby, Posh, Ginger, and Scary - would suggest that they each have a specific area of expertise within the group, although none of them are relevant to this song.
Pathos - The sex appeal of this song is quite strong. The entire thing is about what you have to do in order to become one of these girls' lovers. But they are not only speaking to boys, they are also trying to teach girls that no matter how attractive a guy is, he can never take the place of your friends. So the song is also making an appeal to friendship and feelings of belonging.
Logos - Logos has never been one of the Spice Girls' strong points, but in this song they tell you quite plainly that "if you wannabe my lover you goota get with my friends" and "you have got to give". So logically if you fulfill those to requirements, you'll hit the jackpot, Spice Girl-style. But then they kind of throw some other stuff in the mix, but the most important is probably the line that says, "I'll give you a try, if you really bug me then I'll say goodbye". Apparently you are not automatically in if you pass the test of the chorus, you also have to not be annoying, not be hasty, forget her past, and then depending on which Spice you desire there are some other things you should know like, "V" or Victoria "doesn't come for free, she's a real lady" or "Em" a.k.a. Emma who "likes it in her face", etc. And finally you are told to "Slam your body down and wind it all around" basically the song abandons any sort of logic by the end
Sufficient Evidence - I'm not sure that there is sufficient evidence because these girls seem really straight forward, but also kind of confident and bratty - "Think you can handle my love? Are you for real?" - I don't think this song gives you enough evidence to support the argument.
Relevant Evidence - Again, not a lot. "Slam your body down and zigahzig ah" isn't even English so I am not sure what they are trying to argue with that. But there is some relevant evidence, like when they try to tell explain why you have to get with they're friends in order to be they're lover - "Friendship never ends".
Citibank Commercials are Way Cooler
So it happened. I finally became a victim of identity theft. I'm not happy about this, nor am I glad that I finally "got it out of my system" but they always say don't think it can't happen to you, so I am just trying to be Zen and take what life throws at me.
Thankfully so far the only thing this vagabond charged to my card was $8.76 worth of games purchased through my itunes account. Now I am very glad that they didn't clean me out or even overdraw my account, but who even buys games on itunes? I wanted my identity stolen by someone cool like in those Citibank commercials - people who go on cruises or buy a bunch of shoes or something else extravagant, but I got blessed with a boring identity thief who is content to skim minimal amounts of money off of other people's accounts so they can play bowling on their ipod. That is lame. I had to go through all of the trouble of cancelling my card and emailing Apple, who was kind enough to reimburse me the $8.76 although they did warn me that it would only be a one-time thing, for some silly video games.
I guess this is just another way the bad economy is manifesting itself in consumer behavior. I wonder if my I.T (Identity Thief) was just a normal guy or girl who liked to occasionally go on itunes and buy games for their ipod, but when the stockmarket crashed in September they had to start trimming their spending and they found that they could either spend a few dollars here and there for entertainment or pay the rent. And maybe my I.T. is up and coming in some hip and trendy ipod gamers association and to lose the ability to keep up on the latest games would mean losing his/her main source of "social interaction" and a chance to beat someone else's high score and gain full initiation into the club. If this was the case, I guess I could sympathize, but in the end this anonymouse person who posed as me on November 6th at 8:29 PM caused me a lot of trouble and they should be ashamed.
4.11.08
Feeling Uncomfortable for $20 or Less
If you think about it, restaurants are a sort of extension of our own kitchen/dining rooms. We go to restaurants to celebrate birthdays and other special events, to gather with friends and family, to get to know potential significant others, or to just take a break from cooking for ourselves. People talk about rather private things in restaurants although they are surrounded and served by complete strangers. They expect to be afforded a large amount of privacy, and only accept interruption in order to select an entree or have their drinks refilled, etc. Accordingly, there is a large amount of trust placed in the waiter/waitress to respect this delicate balance between the publicity of the setting and the privacy of the individual tables.
But this is not the case in Hibachi restaurants. These eateries have a style all their own that breaks almost all the unwritten rules in the social contract between patrons and the traditional American sit-down restaurant.
When you walk in to a Hibachi grill like Benihanas, Asuka, or Teppanyaki steakhouse, it appears to be a somewhat normal Asian fusion restaurant. But you may be surprised when you are seated around a grill, in a sort of u-shaped formation, with complete strangers. While your seating arrangement is awkward and increases the difficulty of having an intimate conversation unless you are seated right next to the other members of your party, this is probably not the most “offensive” thing to happen to you in the course of your meal.
Thankfully there is a traditional waiter who takes your drink, appetizer, and meal order, but after the waiter brings you your beverage and any appetizers you may have requested, you never see him again until he brings you the check. And before you can fully appreciate just how dear an unassuming waiter can be, your chef replaces him. The chef comes traipsing up to your table in a costume that is something of a cross between a traditional Japanese drummer outfit and the Swedish Chef’s getup on “The Muppet Show”. Wheeling a cart loaded with assorted raw meats, seafood, vegetables, and sauces, in addition to some very loud, very sharp machete-style cooking utensils, he breaks the isolation and peace of your table with little to no warning.
But just when you think your restaurant experience has fallen completely into anarchy, your chef proceeds to talk to you for your whole meal, make fun of the people in your group, tell incredibly lame-to-the-point-of-being-awkward jokes, throw food at you, give you other people’s food and basically break every other unwritten rule concerning dining out in the United States.
Although you may leave with a satisfied stomach, you also take with you a somewhat shell-shocked feeling. A sort of parting gift from the restaurant, this complimentary combination of violation and discomfort is the Hibachi version of a breath mint with your check.
I don't understand why people enjoy going to these places. I’m sorry but your chef is not supposed to make your food in front of you, and he is certainly not supposed to talk to you throughout your meal. Would you be comfortable with a complete stranger barging into your dining room while you’re enjoying a private family conversation over a meal? What if he started throwing food at you? Would you call the police? I think so.
But this is not the case in Hibachi restaurants. These eateries have a style all their own that breaks almost all the unwritten rules in the social contract between patrons and the traditional American sit-down restaurant.
When you walk in to a Hibachi grill like Benihanas, Asuka, or Teppanyaki steakhouse, it appears to be a somewhat normal Asian fusion restaurant. But you may be surprised when you are seated around a grill, in a sort of u-shaped formation, with complete strangers. While your seating arrangement is awkward and increases the difficulty of having an intimate conversation unless you are seated right next to the other members of your party, this is probably not the most “offensive” thing to happen to you in the course of your meal.
Thankfully there is a traditional waiter who takes your drink, appetizer, and meal order, but after the waiter brings you your beverage and any appetizers you may have requested, you never see him again until he brings you the check. And before you can fully appreciate just how dear an unassuming waiter can be, your chef replaces him. The chef comes traipsing up to your table in a costume that is something of a cross between a traditional Japanese drummer outfit and the Swedish Chef’s getup on “The Muppet Show”. Wheeling a cart loaded with assorted raw meats, seafood, vegetables, and sauces, in addition to some very loud, very sharp machete-style cooking utensils, he breaks the isolation and peace of your table with little to no warning.
But just when you think your restaurant experience has fallen completely into anarchy, your chef proceeds to talk to you for your whole meal, make fun of the people in your group, tell incredibly lame-to-the-point-of-being-awkward jokes, throw food at you, give you other people’s food and basically break every other unwritten rule concerning dining out in the United States.
Although you may leave with a satisfied stomach, you also take with you a somewhat shell-shocked feeling. A sort of parting gift from the restaurant, this complimentary combination of violation and discomfort is the Hibachi version of a breath mint with your check.
I don't understand why people enjoy going to these places. I’m sorry but your chef is not supposed to make your food in front of you, and he is certainly not supposed to talk to you throughout your meal. Would you be comfortable with a complete stranger barging into your dining room while you’re enjoying a private family conversation over a meal? What if he started throwing food at you? Would you call the police? I think so.
Lions and Tigers and Pregnancy, OH MY!
I had a nightmare last night.
It started out as an ambiguous, but innocuous dream, I was at my old house in Kansas City, busily running around doing work and feeling kind of stressed and then I got a phone call.
I answered the phone and a female voice said, "I have your test results."
"This is the last thing I need right now," I sighed.
"You're pregnant," she said.
"Oh crap . . . What is it?", I said with a feeling of dread although I wasn't shocked for some reason.
"It's a boy," she said and hung up.
Well I was not pleased with the news, I went in the other room and my sister was there with her husband, I told them what had happened, and they were happy for me despite my obvious distaste for the idea. Then I told my Mom and she took me to the doctor's office.
The next thing I knew my stomach was huge and I was all alone in a hospital room and although I wasn't feeling any pain I knew the baby was coming. I called for my Mom and the Doctor over and over but nobody came. I was terrified and I started crying, I knew that I was going to be in some serious pain soon, so serious that having a needle shoved into my spine would be a welcome relief. I started crying even harder picturing the needle so I called louder for anybody to come help me because I was having a baby and I was all alone, and then I woke up.
I was still crying and filled with terror and complete despair over the fact that I was going to have a baby and it was going to really hurt and I was going to get stretch marks, and no one would be there to help me.
I guess I should mention that I'm married, but I am NOT pregnant and don't plan to be for awhile, but I was so distressed and tired that I was convinced that I was so I turned to my sleeping husband and hit him in the arm because it was obviously his fault; I was pregnant and in the hospital and he wasn't there - in my book it's two strikes you're out in this situation.
Thinking about this harder, I realized that it is kind of odd that I have bad dreams that wake me up in tears about pregnancy. Does this mean that getting pregnant is my greatest fear? I think at this point in my life, it is.
I want to say that I am looking forward to having children, but obviously I am not quite mature enough yet because it scares me so much that it makes me cry and hit people.
It started out as an ambiguous, but innocuous dream, I was at my old house in Kansas City, busily running around doing work and feeling kind of stressed and then I got a phone call.
I answered the phone and a female voice said, "I have your test results."
"This is the last thing I need right now," I sighed.
"You're pregnant," she said.
"Oh crap . . . What is it?", I said with a feeling of dread although I wasn't shocked for some reason.
"It's a boy," she said and hung up.
Well I was not pleased with the news, I went in the other room and my sister was there with her husband, I told them what had happened, and they were happy for me despite my obvious distaste for the idea. Then I told my Mom and she took me to the doctor's office.
The next thing I knew my stomach was huge and I was all alone in a hospital room and although I wasn't feeling any pain I knew the baby was coming. I called for my Mom and the Doctor over and over but nobody came. I was terrified and I started crying, I knew that I was going to be in some serious pain soon, so serious that having a needle shoved into my spine would be a welcome relief. I started crying even harder picturing the needle so I called louder for anybody to come help me because I was having a baby and I was all alone, and then I woke up.
I was still crying and filled with terror and complete despair over the fact that I was going to have a baby and it was going to really hurt and I was going to get stretch marks, and no one would be there to help me.
I guess I should mention that I'm married, but I am NOT pregnant and don't plan to be for awhile, but I was so distressed and tired that I was convinced that I was so I turned to my sleeping husband and hit him in the arm because it was obviously his fault; I was pregnant and in the hospital and he wasn't there - in my book it's two strikes you're out in this situation.
Thinking about this harder, I realized that it is kind of odd that I have bad dreams that wake me up in tears about pregnancy. Does this mean that getting pregnant is my greatest fear? I think at this point in my life, it is.
I want to say that I am looking forward to having children, but obviously I am not quite mature enough yet because it scares me so much that it makes me cry and hit people.
Rhetorical Analysis: My Paper A
1. Identify the Argument - People should not try to conform to the "BYU Barbie" ideal in order to get asked out/find a husband.
2. Target Audience - Single, female BYU students who do not fit this cultural "ideal", and are desperately trying to in order to date more and hopefully find their husband. They are not necessarily plain, or devoid of social skills, but they feel like they have exhausted their own resources in trying to be "dateable" and so they are conforming in frustration.
3. How the Argument is Made -
Ethos - I chose to take a more informal tone to address my fellow students because they are more likely to listen to someone that they feel is just like them. I am credible because I have been at BYU for 5 years and have experienced the ups and downs of the dating scene. I also am credible because I survived and managed to meet my husband.
Pathos - Most girls at BYU are sensitive about their dating situation, either because it's fragile or non-existant. It's an emotional subject because dating involves the euphoria of meeting someone who likes you and the terrible pain of heartbreak. But I am arguing that to avoid unnecessary heartbreak for them or the boys they dupe, they should just be themselves so that they can meet their "dream man" and be happy in the end. I think everyone wants to find their own version of happily ever after and they emotional investment involved makes it a very tender issue.
Logos - I appealed to their logic mostly by telling them about my personal experience , the example of my roommate, a study form a BYU professor about BYU dating, and then some excerpts form a talk from Dalin H. Oaks, an apostle.I tried to help them see that being yourself is more important in the long run and that it's more important to actually end up with someone you want to be with rather than go on lots of dates with people you won't be happy with for long.
Sufficient Evidence - I actually think I need a lot more evidence, not necessarily in the form of journal articles or studies, but I think I need to get some quotes from BYU students, male and female in order to address counterarguments and support some of the points that I made.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think my argument was somewhat effective, but not quite complete. I waxed eloquent a lot and then didn't provide a lot of support for some of the assumptions/points that I made.I also didn't really address or even bring up counterarguments at all. But I think my tone was good and the direction that I started going was good, I just need to be more concise and have more backing up what I say to make my argument more effective.
2. Target Audience - Single, female BYU students who do not fit this cultural "ideal", and are desperately trying to in order to date more and hopefully find their husband. They are not necessarily plain, or devoid of social skills, but they feel like they have exhausted their own resources in trying to be "dateable" and so they are conforming in frustration.
3. How the Argument is Made -
Ethos - I chose to take a more informal tone to address my fellow students because they are more likely to listen to someone that they feel is just like them. I am credible because I have been at BYU for 5 years and have experienced the ups and downs of the dating scene. I also am credible because I survived and managed to meet my husband.
Pathos - Most girls at BYU are sensitive about their dating situation, either because it's fragile or non-existant. It's an emotional subject because dating involves the euphoria of meeting someone who likes you and the terrible pain of heartbreak. But I am arguing that to avoid unnecessary heartbreak for them or the boys they dupe, they should just be themselves so that they can meet their "dream man" and be happy in the end. I think everyone wants to find their own version of happily ever after and they emotional investment involved makes it a very tender issue.
Logos - I appealed to their logic mostly by telling them about my personal experience , the example of my roommate, a study form a BYU professor about BYU dating, and then some excerpts form a talk from Dalin H. Oaks, an apostle.I tried to help them see that being yourself is more important in the long run and that it's more important to actually end up with someone you want to be with rather than go on lots of dates with people you won't be happy with for long.
Sufficient Evidence - I actually think I need a lot more evidence, not necessarily in the form of journal articles or studies, but I think I need to get some quotes from BYU students, male and female in order to address counterarguments and support some of the points that I made.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think my argument was somewhat effective, but not quite complete. I waxed eloquent a lot and then didn't provide a lot of support for some of the assumptions/points that I made.I also didn't really address or even bring up counterarguments at all. But I think my tone was good and the direction that I started going was good, I just need to be more concise and have more backing up what I say to make my argument more effective.
30.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Source for Paper B
"Breastfeeding Reduces Cancer Risk"
By Lorna Vanderhaeghe
https://www.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/remoteauth.pl?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awh&AN=14280520&site=ehost-live&scope=site
1. Identify the Argument
Breastfeeding is better than formula and breastfeeding reduces the rick of breast cancer in women as well.
2. Target Audience
Women who are either breastfeeding or pregnant and considering whether or not to breastfeed. They could be married or single but are probably between the ages of 18 and 35. They are probably somewhat educated considering that they are looking for research in peer-reviewed journals to find out about the benefits of breastfeeding.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Because the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, you know that it's not completely made up. The author has written books about nutrition and has a degree in biochemistry. She is a medical journalist as well. She has a formal but comfortable tone with her anudience, citing studies, but also not talking too scientifically. All her sources are scientific studies done by credible sources.
Pathos - She appeals to her readers's emotions by telling them what good things will happen to their babies if they breastfeed, and what bad things can happen if they don't - it's an appeal to maternal instincts. And talking about how encouragement, love and support are needed to help new moms to be successful in breastfeeding as along as possible lets her readers's feel that the author cares about them and cares a lot about what she is writing about.
Logos - The author uses experimental data from mutliple scientific sources - The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and The Lancet Medical Journal. She also makes the findings of the reasearch done by these organizations more accessible to readers by simplifying the language so that they can understand what they say, which makes it easier for their findings to appeal to the logic of the masses. She also draws on her medical knowledge to talk about blood pressure and she includes statistics about how many monthers breastfeed, etc. to help prover her points.
Sufficient Evidence - I think she uses sufficient evidence to prove that breastmilk is better than formula, but she mentions in the first and last paragraphs of the article that breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer in mothers, but never says anything about it anywere else in the article. There is no evidence to support it, she just throws it out there and leaves it hanging.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think her argument for breastfeeding over formula was effective because of the scientific evidence used and the nature of her appeal. How a woman feels about her baby is a very emotional thing and appealing to her concerns about making sure that her child is healthy contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. But in terms of her argument about breast cancer risk being reduced during nursing, her argument isn't effective at all because it isn't even really an argument. She makes a statement and then she doesn't back it up with anything.
By Lorna Vanderhaeghe
https://www.lib.byu.edu/cgi-bin/remoteauth.pl?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=awh&AN=14280520&site=ehost-live&scope=site
1. Identify the Argument
Breastfeeding is better than formula and breastfeeding reduces the rick of breast cancer in women as well.
2. Target Audience
Women who are either breastfeeding or pregnant and considering whether or not to breastfeed. They could be married or single but are probably between the ages of 18 and 35. They are probably somewhat educated considering that they are looking for research in peer-reviewed journals to find out about the benefits of breastfeeding.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Because the article appeared in a peer-reviewed journal, you know that it's not completely made up. The author has written books about nutrition and has a degree in biochemistry. She is a medical journalist as well. She has a formal but comfortable tone with her anudience, citing studies, but also not talking too scientifically. All her sources are scientific studies done by credible sources.
Pathos - She appeals to her readers's emotions by telling them what good things will happen to their babies if they breastfeed, and what bad things can happen if they don't - it's an appeal to maternal instincts. And talking about how encouragement, love and support are needed to help new moms to be successful in breastfeeding as along as possible lets her readers's feel that the author cares about them and cares a lot about what she is writing about.
Logos - The author uses experimental data from mutliple scientific sources - The Avon Longitudinal Study of Parents and Children and The Lancet Medical Journal. She also makes the findings of the reasearch done by these organizations more accessible to readers by simplifying the language so that they can understand what they say, which makes it easier for their findings to appeal to the logic of the masses. She also draws on her medical knowledge to talk about blood pressure and she includes statistics about how many monthers breastfeed, etc. to help prover her points.
Sufficient Evidence - I think she uses sufficient evidence to prove that breastmilk is better than formula, but she mentions in the first and last paragraphs of the article that breastfeeding reduces the risk of breast cancer in mothers, but never says anything about it anywere else in the article. There is no evidence to support it, she just throws it out there and leaves it hanging.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think her argument for breastfeeding over formula was effective because of the scientific evidence used and the nature of her appeal. How a woman feels about her baby is a very emotional thing and appealing to her concerns about making sure that her child is healthy contributes to the effectiveness of her argument. But in terms of her argument about breast cancer risk being reduced during nursing, her argument isn't effective at all because it isn't even really an argument. She makes a statement and then she doesn't back it up with anything.
28.10.08
Attack of the Killer Tomatoes Should Have Been About Ketchup
When I was in Kindergarten I lived in Virginia, and my best friend's name was Amy Nicole Betor. Amy had an older brother named Todd, who loved ketchup. He loved ketchup so much he went through about a bottle a week. One time when I was at Amy's house her mom was teasing Todd about how much he liked ketchup, and in order to defend himself, he boldly stated that he would eat anything with ketchup on it. I still remember the twinkle in Mrs. Betor's eye when she said, "Anything?"
Todd's reply was short but, firm, "Yes, anything."
So Todd's mom decided to put him to the test and she went out in the yard, dug up some worms from her garden and generously covered them in ketchup. Then she handed Todd a fork and said, "Prove it."
Well I am still amazed to this day that Todd ate those worms and he didn't even think twice about it - that is disgusting!
But there are too many people in this world like Todd; people who aren't necessarily so extreme that they will eat worms if they are doused in Heinz tomato sauce, but there is a considerably large faction of people who ruin otherwise scrumptious foods by drowning them in that oh so familiar red sauce.
For example, In Brazil for some reason they skip on the tomato sauce on pizza - it is basically cheese baked onto bread - but instead of using marinara sauce to remedy this mistake, they opt to put ketchup on top of their pizza, above the cheese! I'm sorry, but that's just not right.
Next, my husband likes bacon. So from time to time I make him a BLT with mayonnaise. But without fail, after I serve him his sandwich, he heads to the fridge and proceeds to destroy a perfectly scrumptious meal by pouring ketchup on it.
And then there's my sister who loves to eat exorbitant amounts of ketchup on hamburgers and other meals, but doesn't like tomatoes by themselves or in salad, etc. This could stem from an inexplicable fear of tomatoes resulting from watching "Attack of the Killer Tomatoes", but one can never be 100% sure.
This is unacceptable, ketchup is fine in some circumstances, but when it leads you to ruin otherwise delicious meals or eat worms, I think it's just gone too far. It's amazing how only a mixture of tomato concentrate, distilled vinegar, high fructose corn syrup, corn syrup, salt, spice, onion powder, and natural flavoring* can have such a powerful influence on people's life, or at least on their eating habits.
*List of ingredients from the back of a Heinz ketchup bottle.
23.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Movie Trailer
http://www.apple.com/trailers/independent/twilight/
Disclaimer: I just wanted to say that I think the Twilight books are awful, but sometimes we are drawn to the things we dislike - hence me reviewing this trailer.
1. Identify the Argument
Come see the Twilight movie on Nov. 21.
2. Target Audience
Women and girls of all ages, who are interested in romance novels masking as fantasy books for young adults. Especially those who still hang on to adolescent fantasies about the "Ideal Man"/ their very own Prince Charming.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - The studio that is releasing the movie is not the most credible of sources when it comes to whether "Nothing will be the Same" after Nov. 21, but they don't make a lot of claims about the film's magnificence, they just show you enough from the plot to get you interested enough to want to see the movie or find out what happens to these teenagers apparently "in love" in high school.
Pathos - They show a lot of the lines that appeal to women's swooning emotions, like "You are my life now" and other cheesy lines, they also show the teenagers kissing so there is a passionate appeal there. They also bring in the "male as protector" theme that some women find very attractive when they show scenes of the boy fighting for the girl. And then the trailer also makes an appeal to your curiosity and wonder by nature of the fact that this guy is definately not normal, probably a vampire and in love with a mortal, how will that work?
Logos - None whatsoever.
Sufficient Evidence - I think for the target audience there was enough cheesy, melodramatic stuff to get them hooked. And enough shots of the "devastatingly handsome" vampire that he is enough just to get them to go see the movie.
Typical Evidence - Movie trailers seldom claim anything other than this is our movie, here is a brief snippet of the plot to get you interested, here is when it comes out, you should come. It was pretty much the same kind of trailer I've seen a thousand times.
Accurate Evidence - The main guy is handsome so their appeal to get you to come so a hot guy, is pretty accurate, and considering that they just showed a bunch of clips from the movie, it doesn't get any more accurate than the real McCoy.
Relevant Evidence - I actually think they did a good job of outlining the plot without giving too much away so that those who haven't read the books still understand what the movie is going to be about.
4. Was it effective and Why?
I think for the target audience it will be very effective. Considering the widespread popularity of the books, it won't be hard to get fans to come see the movie, especially because they chose a handsome guy to be the main vampire. Also the movie is rated PG-13 so women will still be able to take their younger daughters to see the film so that they will have a legitimate excuse to go, other than just wanting to see the real life Prince Charming from the book in action. I think that the trailer showed enough of the characters and the setting of the movie so that people who have read the book will be able to agree or disagree with their choice of actors or location which is something that can draw them to or away from the film. They also showed enough plot and dialogue that people could determine how closely the filmmakers followed the book which could also be a draw to or away from the film. All in all, I think the movie will do well and although the trailer isn't anything really special, I think those who are excited abotu the movie, will be drawn in by it for sure.
Shock and Horror!
I have always held The New York Times in high esteem considering that it is kind of "the" American newspaper, and I am a journalism student so we are kind of instructed to idolize it, but recently, I have been less than impressed.
I know that all newspapers are somewhat slanted, and the Times has a definite liberal bias, but recently it has been getting a little ridiculous. Amid headlines about the economy, China, and the two presidential candidate's differing approaches to foreign policy, stands this headline: "$150,000 Wardrobe for Palin May Alter Tailor-Made Image". Really? Is there honestly nothing else to talk about? I'm pretty sure that people expect their candidates to look good and if the Republican party, who shopped and paid for the clothes, is willing to buy them, then why shouldn't she wear them? Plus I am sure that Obama's suits cost just as much, if not more, than any of her outfits. I think there are much more important issues to be discussing, than how much someone's outfit costs, but apparently the Times is so set on smearing Republicans that they are willing to let things like Palin's wardrobe pass as front-page news, and ignore things like Obama's addiction to cigarettes and past drug use slide by. Now I'm not saying I am a McCain/Palin supporter, but I'd rather know if Palin, McCain, Obama, or Biden are ready to lead the country, not if they are ready to strut down a runway.
17.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis – Encounter at Gold’s Gym
1. Identify the Argument – Join our gym.
2. Target Audience – Me, a 22-year-old, married, female, BYU student, that exercises at least 5 times a week.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos – The guy who tried to sell me a membership was close to my age and also a student at BYU and he is also really into fitness and has worked at Gold’s for a few years actually so he knows a lot about the gym and he is in a similar life stage as I am – I could relate to him, which made him more credible than some overweight guy who started working there yesterday.
Pathos – He understood that I like to work out alone and I also like to do classes so he talked to me about how could the classes are so I’ll feel like I’m getting a great workout and he also appealed to the fact that I hate having to wait for machines by explaining that they guarantee open machines.
Logos – He appealed to my logic when he explained that it only costs $16 a month at Gold’s right now, and as a member of 24 Hour-Fitness I pay $35 a month so obviously I would save a lot of money by joining. He also showed me the newer equipment and machines that they have at Gold’s, which were nicer than the one’s at 24.
Sufficient Evidence – I don’t feel like he gave me sufficient evidence because he didn’t talk to me about the fact that you have to join for two years at a time and you have to pay a large fee to cancel your membership before that 2 years us up. He also didn’t explain to me how they can guarantee a machine no matter what, I mean, what would they do for me if the machine I wanted was not open the exact second that I wanted it.
Typical Evidence – He gave typical evidence – Look how awesome our facility is, look at our nice machines, we are open 24 hours, etc.
Relevant Evidence – The evidence he gave me was relevant because he asked me what I like to do at the gym so he showed me things that I specifically care about, etc.
4. Was the argument effective? – No, because I did not get a membership and I wasn’t tempted to. Not because e didn’t do a good job, but mostly because I really like the gym I am at now, it’s closer to my house, the classes are good, I have a friend that also belongs to that same gym as me so we go together often, etc. Also 24 is month to month, so you quit without having to pay a bunch of money.
2. Target Audience – Me, a 22-year-old, married, female, BYU student, that exercises at least 5 times a week.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos – The guy who tried to sell me a membership was close to my age and also a student at BYU and he is also really into fitness and has worked at Gold’s for a few years actually so he knows a lot about the gym and he is in a similar life stage as I am – I could relate to him, which made him more credible than some overweight guy who started working there yesterday.
Pathos – He understood that I like to work out alone and I also like to do classes so he talked to me about how could the classes are so I’ll feel like I’m getting a great workout and he also appealed to the fact that I hate having to wait for machines by explaining that they guarantee open machines.
Logos – He appealed to my logic when he explained that it only costs $16 a month at Gold’s right now, and as a member of 24 Hour-Fitness I pay $35 a month so obviously I would save a lot of money by joining. He also showed me the newer equipment and machines that they have at Gold’s, which were nicer than the one’s at 24.
Sufficient Evidence – I don’t feel like he gave me sufficient evidence because he didn’t talk to me about the fact that you have to join for two years at a time and you have to pay a large fee to cancel your membership before that 2 years us up. He also didn’t explain to me how they can guarantee a machine no matter what, I mean, what would they do for me if the machine I wanted was not open the exact second that I wanted it.
Typical Evidence – He gave typical evidence – Look how awesome our facility is, look at our nice machines, we are open 24 hours, etc.
Relevant Evidence – The evidence he gave me was relevant because he asked me what I like to do at the gym so he showed me things that I specifically care about, etc.
4. Was the argument effective? – No, because I did not get a membership and I wasn’t tempted to. Not because e didn’t do a good job, but mostly because I really like the gym I am at now, it’s closer to my house, the classes are good, I have a friend that also belongs to that same gym as me so we go together often, etc. Also 24 is month to month, so you quit without having to pay a bunch of money.
16.10.08
I'd Rather Eat a Dried Sea Cucumber
I'm convinced the old "early to bed, early to rise" adage is a load of crap. I HATE waking up early. There is something about getting out of bed before 8:45 that is physically painful to me. It ruins my whole day - I never really wake up, I can't stop yawning, I have really bad coordination, I start saying really dumb stuff, and so on and so forth - all in all it's not good for me to be out in public when I'm tired. In fact when I do make myself get up, whoever I see while I'm driving genuinely pisses me off. Because the fact that other people get up before 8 a.m. makes it so I have to as well.
But I didn't always used to be this way. When I was in high school I had two-a-day swim practices and I woke up at 4:40 a.m. every morning to get to practice by 5 a.m. - it was brutal but as soon as my alarm went off I hopped up out of bed and got my suit on. Now I was not fully alert and I had to mentally remind myself that I could take a nap later that day in order to calm my weary body, but I did it. In addition to swim practice, I also had three years of early morning seminary (I moved to Utah my senior year so I had release time seminary for a year), and I was really good about getting up, getting ready for school and getting to seminary on time. But now I just can't do it, unless I have to catch a flight or I have something really important to go to, I would rather eat a dried sea cucumber than get up early.
For example, today I was supposed to go to the Legislature in Salt Lake for one of my journalism classes. We were supposed to meet at the Marriot center at 7:30 a.m and we had to look nice so I set my alarm for 6 a.m. I had a lot of homework to do the night beofre so I didn't get to bed until after one, but I was sure I would be able to force myself to get to that van in the morning.
Well 6 a.m. came, my alarm went off, I made myself get up, I walked to my closet, put on my robe and slippers and then I thought to myself, "I can't do this. I am going to die if I make myself stay awake, and I'll ask really stupid questions when I interview people in the Legislature because I'll be too tired to talk or think coherently." So I took off my slippers, left my robe on, just for good measure, went back to bed and slept until 9 a.m. like I do every morning.
I really just couldn't get up, it's embarrassing, but it's true. But you know what? I am not ashamed that I am not a morning person, I don't want to be. Where's the fun in getting up before the sun comes up and feeling that rush of sluggishness sweep your body the minute you open your eyes? It is so repugnant to me that it makes me shudder just thinking about it - I never want to have a job or a lifestyle that requires me to be up at ungodly hours of the morning. I am NOT a morning person.
10.10.08
Ian "Browntown" Kershisnik
This summer was the last of many which I spent living with my family. Considering that we moved to Ohio last summer, ergo I had no friends out there, I had to become better friends with my brothers so that when I got home from work, I had something to do other than peruse facebook profiles of people doing internships or traveling to foreign countries during their summer vacations.
Enter Ian Paul Kershisnik.
Ian is my younger brother by a little over 3 years and when he was born I hated him and was not allowed to be left alone with him. I wasn't a particularly violent or mean-spirited child, but as an avid Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtle fan, I had learned that the best way to deal with a threat was to nunchuck it in the face. And I percieved Ian as a threat.
Somehow Ian survived his early years, overcoming the "subtle" haircut I inflicted on him and myself on a lazy afternoon when I was five and the many times we clashed over just about everything.
Yes we made it to near adulthood and managed to become friends somehow and here are some things just from the past year or so that I think are interesting to note about him:
Ian got the nickname "Browntown" in Ohio because he liked to wear Birkenstocks, brown khackis and a brown polo shirt to school.
He became obsessed with plyometrics last summer and could tell you how high anything was and if Michael Jordan could jump over it.
As a result he decided, at the age of seventeen, to get into basketball and he just started playing in pickup games at our Healthclub progressing to the point where he can now dunk quite easily.
He can make up hilarious songs at the drop of a hat and he has a particular knack for puns.
When we were in New York for a family vacation, he drank a 2 liter bottle of Fresca everyday because he decided a few years ago that he wasn't going to eat sugar and fake sugar tastes really good to him. Unfortunately Ian was not familiar with the fact that fake sugar in large doses has a laxative effect - some people have to learn things the hard way.
As a freshman at BYU this year, complete with a "disguise" care of Abercrombie and Fitch, to go to a BMW dealership to test-drive cars. And upon realizing his plan probably wouldn't work, he ordered a bunch of free pamphlets from BMW's web site and painstakingly covered everyinch of his dorm room walls and ceilings with pictures of cars.
This list is probably only one-one hundredth of the hilarious and odd things that Ian does, but I just was thinking about how I am glad I didn't suceed in pushing him out of our family when I was three, it would be pretty boring without him.
Rhetorical Analysis: Source Paper A
Liahona » 1992 » November
First Presidency Message
Salvation—A Family Affair
By President Ezra Taft Benson
In an eternal sense, salvation is a family affair. God holds parents responsible for their stewardship in rearing their family. It is a most sacred responsibility.
Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.
These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home—the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning.
Because some parents have departed from the principles the Lord gave for happiness and success, many families throughout the world are undergoing great stress and trauma. Many parents have been enticed to abandon their responsibilities in the home to seek after an elusive “self-fulfillment.” Some have abdicated parental responsibilities for pursuit of material things, unwilling to postpone personal gratification in the interest of their children’s welfare.
It is time to awaken to the fact that there are deliberate efforts to restructure the family along the lines of humanistic values. Images of the family and of love as depicted in television and film often portray a philosophy contrary to the commandments of God.
Innocent-sounding phrases are now used to give approval to sinful practices. Thus, the term “alternative life-style” is used to justify adultery and homosexuality, “freedom of choice” to justify abortion, “meaningful relationship” and “self-fulfillment” to justify sex outside of marriage.
If we continue with present trends, we can expect to have more emotionally disturbed young people, more divorce, more depression, and more suicide.
The family is the most effective place to instill lasting values in its members. Where family life is strong and based on principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ, these problems do not as readily appear.
Three Fundamentals
My message is to return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes. May I offer three fundamentals to happy, enduring family relationships.
First: A husband and wife must attain righteous unity and oneness in their goals, desires, and actions.
Marriage itself must be regarded as a sacred covenant before God. A married couple have an obligation not only to each other, but to God. He has promised blessings to those who honor that covenant.
Fidelity to one’s marriage vows is absolutely essential for love, trust, and peace. Adultery is unequivocally condemned by the Lord.
Husbands and wives who love each other will find that love and loyalty are reciprocated. This love will provide a nurturing atmosphere for the emotional growth of children. Family life should be a time of happiness and joy that children can look back on with fond memories and associations.
Restraint and self-control must be ruling principles in the marriage relationship. Couples must learn to bridle their tongues as well as their passions.
Prayer in the home and prayer with each other will strengthen your union. Gradually thoughts, aspirations, and ideas will merge into a oneness until you are seeking the same purposes and goals.
Rely on the Lord, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures for guidance and help, particularly when there may be disagreements and problems.
Spiritual growth comes by solving problems together—not by running from them. Today’s inordinate emphasis on individualism brings egotism and separation. Two individuals becoming “one flesh” is still the Lord’s standard. (See Gen. 2:24.)
The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth.
Second: Nurture your children with love and the admonitions of the Lord.
Rearing happy, peaceful children is no easy challenge in today’s world, but it can be done, and it is being done.
Responsible parenthood is the key.
Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best.
Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance. They need to know from whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose.
Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs. I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.
Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God. They must be taught that it is wrong to steal, lie, cheat, or covet what others have.
Children must be taught to work at home. They should learn there that honest labor develops dignity and self-respect. They should learn the pleasure of work, of doing a job well.
The leisure time of children must be constructively directed to wholesome, positive pursuits. Too much television viewing can be destructive.
Families must spend more time together in work and recreation. Family home evenings should be scheduled once a week as a time for discussions of gospel principles, recreation, work projects, skits, songs around the piano, games, special refreshments, and family prayers. Like iron links in a chain, this practice will bind a family together in love, pride, tradition, strength, and loyalty.
Family study of the scriptures should be the practice in our homes each Sabbath day.
Daily devotionals are also a commendable practice, where scripture reading, singing of hymns, and family prayer are a part of our daily routine.
Third: Parents must prepare their children for the ordinances of the gospel.
The most important teachings in the home are spiritual. Parents are commanded to prepare their sons and daughters for the ordinances of the gospel: baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordinations, and temple marriage. They are to teach them to respect and honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Most importantly, parents are to instill within their children a desire for eternal life and to earnestly seek that goal above all else.
Eternal life may be obtained only by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When parents themselves have complied with the ordinances of salvation, when they have set the example of a temple marriage, not only is their own marriage more likely to succeed, but their children are far more likely to follow their example.
Parents who provide such a home will have, as the Lord has said, “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, … a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119). Regardless of how modest or humble that home may be, it will have love, happiness, peace, and joy. Children will grow up in righteousness and truth and will desire to serve the Lord.
Thank God for the joys of family life. I have often said there can be no genuine happiness separate and apart from a good home. The sweetest influences and associations of life are there.
Rhetorical Analysis
1. Identify the Argument
Return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes.
2. Target Audience
LDS parents who are striving to help their families and do all they can to raise happy righteous children and have a strong, unified marriage and those who may be floundering in their home and family lives and need some direction to get them back on the right path.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos
Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet at the time this message came out so based on his calling as the mouthpiece of the Lord, his credibility is based on the extent to which members sustain him and have testimonies that he really could recieve revelation for the entire church. He addressed his audience is a gentle but instructional tone, outlining exactly what they must do to save their families and to be happy.
Pathos
President Benson started off his message by talking about what has torn families apart and then he offers a solution for creating lasting, enduring, happy family relationships. No one wants their family to fall apart or succomb to worldly pressures so he really hit their emotions hard almost saying ,"This is what could happen to you if you don't do what I say." He also appealed to the fact that LDS church members want to do what is right and follow their Heavenly Father's teachings so that they can return to live with Him someday. Benson told them that if they strive to follow the three fundamentals he outlined then basically they will be able to have eternal life and exaltation with their families.
Logos
President Benson doesn't really appeal to logic because, as the Prophet, what he says doesn't necessarily have to be backed up by scientific research, he has God on his side to give credit to his message. But he does talk a little bit about trends in society which can be proven just by living in the world and being aware of whats going on.
Sufficient Evidence
I don't think he necessarily provides much evidence, the evidence is more in the blessings you recieve if you do what he says - it is more applicational evidence, than scientific data.
Typical Evidence
President Benson's evidence is not typical because it is based on revelation and the knowledge and foresight he is privy to by nature of his calling.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think for his audience President Benson's message probably was quite effective because most LDS church members at least listen to what their Prophet has to say. Whether or not they applied hsi teachings to their lives is harder to say, but I think most people probably took to heart what President Benson had to say and tried to implement some of the things he suggested into their marriage and family relationships. And again, the effectiveness of the message is based almost solely on the fact that President Benson was the Prophet and those who read his essay in the Liahona or The Ensign probably believed that what he said was important for them to follow.
First Presidency Message
Salvation—A Family Affair
By President Ezra Taft Benson
In an eternal sense, salvation is a family affair. God holds parents responsible for their stewardship in rearing their family. It is a most sacred responsibility.
Today we are aware of great problems in our society. The most obvious are sexual promiscuity, homosexuality, drug abuse, alcoholism, vandalism, pornography, and violence.
These grave problems are symptoms of failure in the home—the disregarding of principles and practices established by God in the very beginning.
Because some parents have departed from the principles the Lord gave for happiness and success, many families throughout the world are undergoing great stress and trauma. Many parents have been enticed to abandon their responsibilities in the home to seek after an elusive “self-fulfillment.” Some have abdicated parental responsibilities for pursuit of material things, unwilling to postpone personal gratification in the interest of their children’s welfare.
It is time to awaken to the fact that there are deliberate efforts to restructure the family along the lines of humanistic values. Images of the family and of love as depicted in television and film often portray a philosophy contrary to the commandments of God.
Innocent-sounding phrases are now used to give approval to sinful practices. Thus, the term “alternative life-style” is used to justify adultery and homosexuality, “freedom of choice” to justify abortion, “meaningful relationship” and “self-fulfillment” to justify sex outside of marriage.
If we continue with present trends, we can expect to have more emotionally disturbed young people, more divorce, more depression, and more suicide.
The family is the most effective place to instill lasting values in its members. Where family life is strong and based on principles and practices of the gospel of Jesus Christ, these problems do not as readily appear.
Three Fundamentals
My message is to return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes. May I offer three fundamentals to happy, enduring family relationships.
First: A husband and wife must attain righteous unity and oneness in their goals, desires, and actions.
Marriage itself must be regarded as a sacred covenant before God. A married couple have an obligation not only to each other, but to God. He has promised blessings to those who honor that covenant.
Fidelity to one’s marriage vows is absolutely essential for love, trust, and peace. Adultery is unequivocally condemned by the Lord.
Husbands and wives who love each other will find that love and loyalty are reciprocated. This love will provide a nurturing atmosphere for the emotional growth of children. Family life should be a time of happiness and joy that children can look back on with fond memories and associations.
Restraint and self-control must be ruling principles in the marriage relationship. Couples must learn to bridle their tongues as well as their passions.
Prayer in the home and prayer with each other will strengthen your union. Gradually thoughts, aspirations, and ideas will merge into a oneness until you are seeking the same purposes and goals.
Rely on the Lord, the teachings of the prophets, and the scriptures for guidance and help, particularly when there may be disagreements and problems.
Spiritual growth comes by solving problems together—not by running from them. Today’s inordinate emphasis on individualism brings egotism and separation. Two individuals becoming “one flesh” is still the Lord’s standard. (See Gen. 2:24.)
The secret of a happy marriage is to serve God and each other. The goal of marriage is unity and oneness, as well as self-development. Paradoxically, the more we serve one another, the greater is our spiritual and emotional growth.
Second: Nurture your children with love and the admonitions of the Lord.
Rearing happy, peaceful children is no easy challenge in today’s world, but it can be done, and it is being done.
Responsible parenthood is the key.
Above all else, children need to know and feel they are loved, wanted, and appreciated. They need to be assured of that often. Obviously, this is a role parents should fill, and most often the mother can do it best.
Children need to know who they are in the eternal sense of their identity. They need to know that they have an eternal Heavenly Father on whom they can rely, to whom they can pray, and from whom they can receive guidance. They need to know from whence they came so that their lives will have meaning and purpose.
Children must be taught to pray, to rely on the Lord for guidance, and to express appreciation for the blessings that are theirs. I recall kneeling at the bedsides of our young children, helping them with their prayers.
Children must be taught right from wrong. They can and must learn the commandments of God. They must be taught that it is wrong to steal, lie, cheat, or covet what others have.
Children must be taught to work at home. They should learn there that honest labor develops dignity and self-respect. They should learn the pleasure of work, of doing a job well.
The leisure time of children must be constructively directed to wholesome, positive pursuits. Too much television viewing can be destructive.
Families must spend more time together in work and recreation. Family home evenings should be scheduled once a week as a time for discussions of gospel principles, recreation, work projects, skits, songs around the piano, games, special refreshments, and family prayers. Like iron links in a chain, this practice will bind a family together in love, pride, tradition, strength, and loyalty.
Family study of the scriptures should be the practice in our homes each Sabbath day.
Daily devotionals are also a commendable practice, where scripture reading, singing of hymns, and family prayer are a part of our daily routine.
Third: Parents must prepare their children for the ordinances of the gospel.
The most important teachings in the home are spiritual. Parents are commanded to prepare their sons and daughters for the ordinances of the gospel: baptism, confirmation, priesthood ordinations, and temple marriage. They are to teach them to respect and honor the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Most importantly, parents are to instill within their children a desire for eternal life and to earnestly seek that goal above all else.
Eternal life may be obtained only by obedience to the laws and ordinances of the gospel.
When parents themselves have complied with the ordinances of salvation, when they have set the example of a temple marriage, not only is their own marriage more likely to succeed, but their children are far more likely to follow their example.
Parents who provide such a home will have, as the Lord has said, “a house of prayer, a house of fasting, a house of faith, a house of learning, … a house of order, a house of God” (D&C 88:119). Regardless of how modest or humble that home may be, it will have love, happiness, peace, and joy. Children will grow up in righteousness and truth and will desire to serve the Lord.
Thank God for the joys of family life. I have often said there can be no genuine happiness separate and apart from a good home. The sweetest influences and associations of life are there.
Rhetorical Analysis
1. Identify the Argument
Return to the God-ordained fundamentals that will ensure love, stability, and happiness in our homes.
2. Target Audience
LDS parents who are striving to help their families and do all they can to raise happy righteous children and have a strong, unified marriage and those who may be floundering in their home and family lives and need some direction to get them back on the right path.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos
Ezra Taft Benson was the prophet at the time this message came out so based on his calling as the mouthpiece of the Lord, his credibility is based on the extent to which members sustain him and have testimonies that he really could recieve revelation for the entire church. He addressed his audience is a gentle but instructional tone, outlining exactly what they must do to save their families and to be happy.
Pathos
President Benson started off his message by talking about what has torn families apart and then he offers a solution for creating lasting, enduring, happy family relationships. No one wants their family to fall apart or succomb to worldly pressures so he really hit their emotions hard almost saying ,"This is what could happen to you if you don't do what I say." He also appealed to the fact that LDS church members want to do what is right and follow their Heavenly Father's teachings so that they can return to live with Him someday. Benson told them that if they strive to follow the three fundamentals he outlined then basically they will be able to have eternal life and exaltation with their families.
Logos
President Benson doesn't really appeal to logic because, as the Prophet, what he says doesn't necessarily have to be backed up by scientific research, he has God on his side to give credit to his message. But he does talk a little bit about trends in society which can be proven just by living in the world and being aware of whats going on.
Sufficient Evidence
I don't think he necessarily provides much evidence, the evidence is more in the blessings you recieve if you do what he says - it is more applicational evidence, than scientific data.
Typical Evidence
President Benson's evidence is not typical because it is based on revelation and the knowledge and foresight he is privy to by nature of his calling.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think for his audience President Benson's message probably was quite effective because most LDS church members at least listen to what their Prophet has to say. Whether or not they applied hsi teachings to their lives is harder to say, but I think most people probably took to heart what President Benson had to say and tried to implement some of the things he suggested into their marriage and family relationships. And again, the effectiveness of the message is based almost solely on the fact that President Benson was the Prophet and those who read his essay in the Liahona or The Ensign probably believed that what he said was important for them to follow.
4.10.08
My First Article of the Semester
Although you have, in the course of the semester, made known your somewhat dismal opinion of the news media, I am still willing to admit that I am a print journalism major. That being said, after a long summer of lifeguarding and wedding plans I came back to school worried that my overexposure to chlorine, sun and love-sickness may have weakened my journalistic abilites. I'm not saying this is the best article I've ever written, but I am pretty pleased with it and considering the premise of the article is that journalism is dying, you might actually be happy to read it :).
NOT PAPER OR PLASTIC, BUT PAPER OR WIRELESS?
BY MARIA KERSHISNIK WALTON
It’s been said that “the pen is mightier than the sword”, but apparently the printed word is no match for the World Wide Web.
In an age where knowledge can be accessed instantly allowing the answer to almost any question about politics, local news, weather, sports, the definition of words, or even what the rest of the lyrics are to that annoying song you’ve had stuck in your head for three days, to pop-up on screen within seconds of your query, traditional newspapers are struggling to compete.
Although journalism is known as a fast-paced, deadline-conscious industry, the number of people willing to wait 24-hours to get information are becoming as rare as size eight jeans at an after-Christmas sale.
Despite efforts to add color, fact boxes, and concise, blurb-like stories, it seems that journalism, as the veritable watchdog, has just about barked itself hoarse trying to get people to pay attention.
Although newspaper circulation has been somewhat weakened since the 1980s, the downward spiral it currently faces has been picking up steam since 2003. This journalistic nosedive culminated in the Audit Bureau of Circulations’ April 2008 report, which announced a 3.6 percent drop in U.S. newspaper circulation over a six-month period from October 2007 to March 2008.
But even with the decay of daily paper sales over the last few decades, Sunday circulation remained removed, to some extent, from the accelerating demise of its daily counterpart: not anymore. In the six-month reporting period ending on March 31, 2008, that same report found that Sunday circulation fell 4.2 percent, nearly a full point higher than daily circulation.
While some of the “physical” newspaper’s demise has been self-inflicted – some publishers cut costs by halting delivery to remote locations and bad press about the press (plagiarism, strong liberal bias) weakened credibility – much of this tailspin in circulation can be attributed to the readers’ mass exodus from traditional news sources to online versions. Not only has this decreased circulation, but in addition, ad revenues have plummeted.
“Ad revenues of newspapers are way down, especially in classifieds,” said Ed Carter, an assistant professor of communications at BYU. “The print side is taking a big hit because the ad side is not keeping pace.”
Dennis Romboy, an assistant city editor at The Deseret News and part-time instructor at BYU explained, “We laid off 34 people this year - mostly reporters, editors, and artists - because classified ad revenue was down, something like a 3 million dollar shortfall, because people prefer to use KSL.com or craigslist.org to advertise.”
As a result of the lack of ad revenue, The New York Sun was forced to close its doors on Tuesday and the Tribune Company in Chicago “is trying to sell assets like the Cubs baseball team, Wrigley Field and the Tribune building,” Ed Carter said.
The Sun Times in Chicago recently sold their real estate to Donald Trump and now they are leasing space in order to keep their paper going.
“Major newspapers in major cities are renting space.” Carter said. “It’s hard to trust in this industry’s staying power when even their location is temporary.”
Soon the image of everyday Americans shuffling out to get the morning paper in their bathrobes and slippers will be replaced by a few quick scans of the computer screen whenever the mood should strike them.
The mile-a-minute world of yesterday has been left in the dust by the continent-a-nanosecond technological abilities of today. While it can be said that these advances make the journalists’ task of keeping the public informed a million times more doable, it is becoming apparent that they have also shaken the entire foundation of an American industry that dates back to before the Declaration of Independence.
Inherent in our society is an indescribable trust between the public and the paper; trust that what they put out is true. In the past, papers sustained that trust and, consequently, their own credibility, by editing and fact checking their stories and by printing corrections for errors the following day. This recipe for integrity doesn’t translate well in the online news format.
“We don’t have time anymore to copy edit or edit for substance,” Carter said. “We just want reporters to write the story and get it posted immediately, so there are errors due to haste.”
When the World Wide Web enters into the journalism equation, speed, rather than accuracy becomes the number one priority for reporters. The race to be the first to post a breaking news story allows for the presence of errors in reporting due to unknown information or “facts” proved to be false upon further investigation.
Although it is still possible to make corrections to online news stories, Carter believes that no amount of effort can remedy the harm done by erroneous Internet reporting.
“Even if it’s only been up for a few hours, it’s could still be out there somewhere on the Web,” Carter said. “Someone could have copy and pasted it onto their blog or uploaded it onto a Web site - you can’t undo that damage.”
Another blow to the journalists’ collective psyche is the immergence of bloggers as ‘reliable” sources of news.
“It seems like now everybody is a reporter,” said Dennis Romboy of The Deseret News. “People can put things on blogs or a web site and it’s not necessarily good writing, it’s just information.”
Michael Bragonje, an English major at BYU, went so far as to say that he trusts bloggers more than journalists. Believing that the current news media are so biased in their reporting, they are not unlike bloggers, Bragonje thinks that at least the latter of the two have the decency to admit when they are pushing their own agendas.
“I find that traditional news sources present current events with a slant – I can’t get news out of that,” Bragonje said. “I’d like them to say, ‘This is our opinion’ rather than present it as news.”
Anne Blake, a BYU graduate in English language, also spoke in favor of blogs.
“With a blog there’s dialogue,” Blake said, “A lot of people are very biased, but it’s a discussion, people can answer back and correct things.”
Looking to the future, Bragonje was nonchalant about proclaiming that print journalism is dying, “Things are changing, no one wants to buy it anymore” he said.
Blake added, “Of course [papers] will all be online soon, I mean we’re not still using candles.”
Citing the discomfort of reading off a computer screen as the only downside to online papers, Michael Bragonje was confident that soon, with the aid of technological advances, that would no longer be a problem.
And with new applications like the Amazon Kindle, a wireless reading device, technology is well on it’s way to fulfilling his prophesy.
According to Amazon.com, the Kindle utilizes a “revolutionary electronic-paper display” which provides a sharp high-resolution screen that looks and reads like paper.
Top U.S. papers including The New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and Washington Post can be auto-delivered wirelessly to your Kindle every morning for between 14 and 10 dollars a month.
As new developments in technology that cultivate the ideal of easy access with minimal effort emerge as the norm in society, the significance of Ed Carter’s idea that “the print side of journalism won’t be around in some places any longer,” could be more than that of a passing thought; It could be the ghostly peal of traditional journalism’s death knell echoing off of idle printing presses across the United States.
3.10.08
Rhetorical Analysis: Article/Editorial
BRING ON THE RUBBER CHICKEN
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 25, 2008 in "The New York Times"
How do you think the besieged financial community felt when the White House announced that George W. Bush was going to address the nation on television Wednesday night?
Hopeful? Terrified?
“We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis,” the president said, reading his lines flatly and stolidly, like an announcer delivering a long public-service message about new parking regulations for the holiday season. The whole event had a kind of unreality to it, since Bush has arrived at that unhappy point in American public life when a famous person begins to look like a celebrity impersonator.
There is, in a way, a kind of talent required to tell the nation that it’s teetering on the brink of disaster in a way that makes the viewers’ attention wander. Bush’s explanation about how the rescue bill would unclog the lines of credit made the whole thing sound less important than a Liquid-Plumr commercial.
But help is on the way! John McCain and Barack Obama are going to join Bush at the White House to work over the details of a rescue bill with Congressional leaders. As Obama put it: “The risk of doing nothing is economic catastrophe.”
Or, as Sarah Palin told Katie Couric on CBS News last night: “Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re gonna find ourselves in another Great Depression. But there has to be action taken, bipartisan effort — Congress not pointing fingers at this point at ... one another, but finding the solution to this, taking action and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.”
So say we all.
(Palin was unable to answer questions about McCain’s record and relief for homeowners with troubled mortgages. But she did reveal forthrightly that she considers her running mate a “maverick.”)
About that rescue bill. Passing it is going to be a test of true bipartisanship, which involves both sides deciding that they will share the blame for doing something messy and unpleasant. But first, Congress has to hold hearings until every single member of the House and Senate has had a chance to yell at Henry Paulson. This can be a surprisingly useful exercise. It is much easier to work up sympathy for the rescue plan once you’ve heard Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky call it “un-American.”
Meanwhile, McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, taking his ads off the air and going back to Washington to do something leaderlike and bipartisan. This was yet another new McCain, very different from last week’s versions, that blamed Obama for the financial meltdown while tossing out rescue plans like a desperate dart player 10 minutes before the bar closes.
“Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now,” he said.
In deference to the current emergency, we will refrain from pointing out that when our national leaders came together following Sept. 11, the results were, all and all, worse than if they had stayed home.
Last week, while McCain was desperately reinventing his position every day, Obama was withholding, declining to take a position until the administration plan had jelled. But in the end, it turned out that their ideas were both vaguely similar and similarly vague. On Wednesday, Obama called McCain to propose issuing a joint statement. Then McCain one-upped him by announcing that he wanted to postpone Friday’s debate until the economy was rescued. His minions raced off to the news shows to say that the American people were “tired of debates and talking.”
Since Obama, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the University of Mississippi, which is hosting the debate, all say it will go on, it isn’t clear what will happen if McCain fails to show up. An empty chair? A last-minute invitation to Ralph Nader and Bob Barr to drop on by? Once in New York, when Rudy Giuliani boycotted a mayoral debate, one of his opponents spent the night twirling around a rubber chicken and the citizenry enjoyed it quite a lot. This isn’t the kind of thing you could imagine Obama doing, but I’d keep my eye on Barr.
Obama, meanwhile, had not even promised to show up for the rescue bill vote until McCain made his grand gesture. When reporters asked him on Tuesday whether he was planning to go to Washington, he was noncommittal: “If we get consensus and everybody is popping Champagne, then I’ll probably go back to campaign with folks who are having a tough time in Ohio and Michigan.”
This seemed like an overly casual way to avert economic catastrophe. Since the people of Ohio and Michigan have been visited by a presidential candidate virtually every hour for the last six months, it would seem that they could get by on their own for a day or two.
This election is turning into a Goldilocks story. One candidate’s too hot, and one’s too cool.
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
1. Identify the Argument
The argument of Ms. Collins's editorial is that our presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama, are both extreme in opposite ways.
WATCO analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis on determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office.
A/B: Determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office can be achieved by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
B/C: Determing if they would behave similiarly in office will help you decide who to vote for.
IA: Deciding who you vote for is influenced by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
2. Target Audience
The target audience is the group of people who are sitting on the fence about who to vote for, but are still intending to vote in November, but are also willing to do the work to be informed about the candidates. These people read the newspaper, including the editorial section, and probably utilize other forms of news media to find out all they can about their options for president. These people are most likely middle-aged, highly educated (college degree at least) and have the money and leisure time to read the paper, watch the news, and surf the internet to glean what information they can about the candidates. They probably don't affiliate with any party or have felt that the party they used to belong to has left them some how and so they are not voting along party lines.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Gail Collins is a writer for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country and the world, "The New York Times". Although she is writing an editorial which is an oppinion piece, readers trust that, as a reporter, Collins holds to an ethocal code that charges her to only print the truth.
Pathos - Her overly sarcastic tone communicates the contempt she feels for the situation that America finds itself in - a lameduck President whom she describes as a shadow of his former self, who will be replaced by a fiery Republican who makes rash decisions, or a noncommital Democrat who waits until situations are over to voice any oppinion about them. I think she wants her audience to feel the gravity of the decision they will be making in November, but also the frustration that for four years they have been ruled by a "lame duck" and now they have two, equally annoying, options for his replacement.
Logos - Collins helps her audience to make these deductions by walking them through the candidates' statements and decisions leading up to the bailout plan with her colorful remarks and sarcastic comments leading the way to her conclusion and the basis of her argment: one candidate is too hot, the other is too cold, so which are you gonna vote for?
Sufficient Evidence - I'm not sure she provides sufficient evidence considering she did not actually interview the candidates and by nature of the fact that the people in question are politicians, who can know for sure what they really think anyway?
Accurate Evidence - Her evidence was accurate, she used their actual quotes and cited decisions they made which were made know to the public.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think the editorial was probably quite effective considering that it demonstrated the two extremes of both of the candidates. There was much more to say about McCain because he did so much more and made more statements, while Obama may seem to be underrepresented in the editorial, but the contrast between how much each candidate was mentioned only helped to prove how action-oriented McCain is, and how vague and obtuse Obama seems to be. Because she attacked both sides, although we can glean that she is not a fan of the Iraq war which may have alienated readers who are, the audience doesn't feel like only one candidates is being presecuted. And because both of the candidates end up looking kind of silly, it is up to the voters to decide what they are going to do in November which is what I think she meant to do with her article. Collins is not telling people who to vote for, she is just making people aware of information to help them get interested in the election and to inspire them to action.
By GAIL COLLINS
Published: September 25, 2008 in "The New York Times"
How do you think the besieged financial community felt when the White House announced that George W. Bush was going to address the nation on television Wednesday night?
Hopeful? Terrified?
“We are in the midst of a serious financial crisis,” the president said, reading his lines flatly and stolidly, like an announcer delivering a long public-service message about new parking regulations for the holiday season. The whole event had a kind of unreality to it, since Bush has arrived at that unhappy point in American public life when a famous person begins to look like a celebrity impersonator.
There is, in a way, a kind of talent required to tell the nation that it’s teetering on the brink of disaster in a way that makes the viewers’ attention wander. Bush’s explanation about how the rescue bill would unclog the lines of credit made the whole thing sound less important than a Liquid-Plumr commercial.
But help is on the way! John McCain and Barack Obama are going to join Bush at the White House to work over the details of a rescue bill with Congressional leaders. As Obama put it: “The risk of doing nothing is economic catastrophe.”
Or, as Sarah Palin told Katie Couric on CBS News last night: “Not necessarily this, as it’s been proposed, has to pass or we’re gonna find ourselves in another Great Depression. But there has to be action taken, bipartisan effort — Congress not pointing fingers at this point at ... one another, but finding the solution to this, taking action and being serious about the reforms on Wall Street that are needed.”
So say we all.
(Palin was unable to answer questions about McCain’s record and relief for homeowners with troubled mortgages. But she did reveal forthrightly that she considers her running mate a “maverick.”)
About that rescue bill. Passing it is going to be a test of true bipartisanship, which involves both sides deciding that they will share the blame for doing something messy and unpleasant. But first, Congress has to hold hearings until every single member of the House and Senate has had a chance to yell at Henry Paulson. This can be a surprisingly useful exercise. It is much easier to work up sympathy for the rescue plan once you’ve heard Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky call it “un-American.”
Meanwhile, McCain announced that he was suspending his campaign, taking his ads off the air and going back to Washington to do something leaderlike and bipartisan. This was yet another new McCain, very different from last week’s versions, that blamed Obama for the financial meltdown while tossing out rescue plans like a desperate dart player 10 minutes before the bar closes.
“Following Sept. 11, our national leaders came together at a time of crisis. We must show that kind of patriotism now,” he said.
In deference to the current emergency, we will refrain from pointing out that when our national leaders came together following Sept. 11, the results were, all and all, worse than if they had stayed home.
Last week, while McCain was desperately reinventing his position every day, Obama was withholding, declining to take a position until the administration plan had jelled. But in the end, it turned out that their ideas were both vaguely similar and similarly vague. On Wednesday, Obama called McCain to propose issuing a joint statement. Then McCain one-upped him by announcing that he wanted to postpone Friday’s debate until the economy was rescued. His minions raced off to the news shows to say that the American people were “tired of debates and talking.”
Since Obama, the Commission on Presidential Debates and the University of Mississippi, which is hosting the debate, all say it will go on, it isn’t clear what will happen if McCain fails to show up. An empty chair? A last-minute invitation to Ralph Nader and Bob Barr to drop on by? Once in New York, when Rudy Giuliani boycotted a mayoral debate, one of his opponents spent the night twirling around a rubber chicken and the citizenry enjoyed it quite a lot. This isn’t the kind of thing you could imagine Obama doing, but I’d keep my eye on Barr.
Obama, meanwhile, had not even promised to show up for the rescue bill vote until McCain made his grand gesture. When reporters asked him on Tuesday whether he was planning to go to Washington, he was noncommittal: “If we get consensus and everybody is popping Champagne, then I’ll probably go back to campaign with folks who are having a tough time in Ohio and Michigan.”
This seemed like an overly casual way to avert economic catastrophe. Since the people of Ohio and Michigan have been visited by a presidential candidate virtually every hour for the last six months, it would seem that they could get by on their own for a day or two.
This election is turning into a Goldilocks story. One candidate’s too hot, and one’s too cool.
RHETORICAL ANALYSIS
1. Identify the Argument
The argument of Ms. Collins's editorial is that our presidential candidates, John McCain and Barrack Obama, are both extreme in opposite ways.
WATCO analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis on determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office.
A/B: Determining if they would behave similiarly once they have taken office can be achieved by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
B/C: Determing if they would behave similiarly in office will help you decide who to vote for.
IA: Deciding who you vote for is influenced by analyzing how McCain and Obama handled the economic crisis.
2. Target Audience
The target audience is the group of people who are sitting on the fence about who to vote for, but are still intending to vote in November, but are also willing to do the work to be informed about the candidates. These people read the newspaper, including the editorial section, and probably utilize other forms of news media to find out all they can about their options for president. These people are most likely middle-aged, highly educated (college degree at least) and have the money and leisure time to read the paper, watch the news, and surf the internet to glean what information they can about the candidates. They probably don't affiliate with any party or have felt that the party they used to belong to has left them some how and so they are not voting along party lines.
3. How the Argument is Made
Ethos - Gail Collins is a writer for one of the most prestigious newspapers in the country and the world, "The New York Times". Although she is writing an editorial which is an oppinion piece, readers trust that, as a reporter, Collins holds to an ethocal code that charges her to only print the truth.
Pathos - Her overly sarcastic tone communicates the contempt she feels for the situation that America finds itself in - a lameduck President whom she describes as a shadow of his former self, who will be replaced by a fiery Republican who makes rash decisions, or a noncommital Democrat who waits until situations are over to voice any oppinion about them. I think she wants her audience to feel the gravity of the decision they will be making in November, but also the frustration that for four years they have been ruled by a "lame duck" and now they have two, equally annoying, options for his replacement.
Logos - Collins helps her audience to make these deductions by walking them through the candidates' statements and decisions leading up to the bailout plan with her colorful remarks and sarcastic comments leading the way to her conclusion and the basis of her argment: one candidate is too hot, the other is too cold, so which are you gonna vote for?
Sufficient Evidence - I'm not sure she provides sufficient evidence considering she did not actually interview the candidates and by nature of the fact that the people in question are politicians, who can know for sure what they really think anyway?
Accurate Evidence - Her evidence was accurate, she used their actual quotes and cited decisions they made which were made know to the public.
4. Was it Effective and Why?
I think the editorial was probably quite effective considering that it demonstrated the two extremes of both of the candidates. There was much more to say about McCain because he did so much more and made more statements, while Obama may seem to be underrepresented in the editorial, but the contrast between how much each candidate was mentioned only helped to prove how action-oriented McCain is, and how vague and obtuse Obama seems to be. Because she attacked both sides, although we can glean that she is not a fan of the Iraq war which may have alienated readers who are, the audience doesn't feel like only one candidates is being presecuted. And because both of the candidates end up looking kind of silly, it is up to the voters to decide what they are going to do in November which is what I think she meant to do with her article. Collins is not telling people who to vote for, she is just making people aware of information to help them get interested in the election and to inspire them to action.
28.9.08
Babies Make the World Go 'Round
My sister had a baby girl on June 19th. Her name is Maren Virginia Kershisnik Blake and in addition to having a name like a law firm, she is the cutest baby in the entire world. Just so you know, I have only been married for about a month and a week now and I have absolutely no desire to have children of my own yet. In fact, while my sister was pregnant, I had horrible nightmares about myself being pregnant and having to get an epidural, etc. Oddly enough there was never a Dad, it was always just me facing the needle alone, but anyway that is off topic.
Through little Maren I have come to appreciate how amazing it is to watch a little person grow. She is only three months old but it is incredible how much more control she has over her body and facial expressions and even her voicebox. Babies are so interesting to watch. They look all everywhere all the time and they are so overwhelmed by the world around them that the sensory overload that results from constantly surveying the world around them sends them into a coma every hour or so, enabling them to process all the information they just took in.
I always thought it would be so cool if we could remember what is was like to be a baby and be able to relive learning who are parents are, how to talk, how to walk and all those other developmental milestones that help us enter the "real world". Because I think I might want to go back a few steps so that I could enjoy the sleep, eat, burp lifestyle again.
This wish for degeneration does not stem from inherent laziness or my life-long obsession with footy pajamas, instead it is the reuslt of admiration. Babies are so amazed by everything and so interested in what's going on around them. Also, everything they do is cute and praiseworthy; I can't think of the last time an adult was lauded for going number 2. In addition, anything that distresses a baby becomes priority one and even if an infant keeps their parents up all night crying, the baby is not kicked out of the house or given a citation for being loud and unruly at ungodly hours of the morning.
I know that the point of this life is progression and that wishing to be more like a baby is futile, but I think childrens's curiosity and fascination with the world is worthy of emulation as is their ability to be totally satisfied with life as long as they are held and fed.
Rhetorical Analysis: Work of Art
"The Rescue"
By Brian Kershisnik
1. Identify the Argument
The argument of this painting is that the small boy and his shovel are powerless to save the man from the beast.
2. Identify the Target Audience
I think the target audience is anyone that has felt powerless to stop anything in their own life whether it be a disease, a specific trial they are going through, or anything else causing them distress. I think that it can be applied also to anyone who is watching someone they love fight in vain against the things I mentioned as well.
3. How is the Argument Made
Ethos - I think the credibility of the artist to make this argument is inherent in the fact that he chose to make a painting concerning this subject at all. Art is an emotive medium for some and so one can assume that the artist has gone through what the small boy with the shovel is experiencing in the painting because he felt he had enough experience with what the boy is feeling to portray it visually.
Pathos - The appeal to emotion is obvious in the boy's pathetic, albeit heroic, attempt to save his father or friend or whoever from the beast that is devouring him. He would not risk his life with such a silly weapon if he did not care about the man being eaten very much. And so the audience can see themselves in the little boy and think of someone that they love enough that they would be willing to take on a monster with shovel to save them. They also can see in the dying man someone they have lost or are losing.
Logos - The logic in this painting is seen through the boys illogical use of a small shovel against a huge monster. The audience can deduce that such a tiny weapon will do very little damage against the beast. They also can conclude that because they boy is behaving so irrationally, he must care very much for the man being eaten.
4. Was is Effective? Why?
I think this is a somewhat effective argument mostly because a lot of people don't think a lot about art. I can see people looking at this painting and thinking it's kind of weird and gruesome, but those who really stop and think about what is happening in the painting have a better chance of seeing its real meaning. I think for those who take the time to think about the painting would clearly see and understand the argument that the artist is making and so it would be very effective because of the violent nature of the painting, the bright colors that almost alert the viewers to danger and the smallness of the boy and his shovel in comparison to the beast that is attacking his loved one. The action and immediacy of the danger that the half-eaten man is experiencing makes the argument all the more effective because we come in while the horrible scene is taking place and all the emotions are at their peak.
19.9.08
I Made My Family Disappear
Sometimes when a professor gives me an assignment and says, "Do whatever you want," I feel like Kevin McCallister in "Home Alone" when he wakes up to find he is devoid of relatives and his declaration of "I made my family disappear," is saturated with panic and disbelief, but then an immature smile of fiendish understanding crosses his 9-year-old face and this time he says, "I made my family disappear," in a way that let's the viewers know that he is going to live it up, just because he can.
I'm not saying that my "free form" blogs are going to be intentionally useless wastes of time, but rather that, I, like Kevin, have come to understand and appreciate what it means to have the ultimate power of being able to do, or write about, whatever I want.
So I think my first blog will be about my birthday last week.
Although my birthday, and the pitiful excuse of not yet having Internet at my apartment are partly to blame for my forgetting to do blog posts last week, trying to weasel my way out of that assignment by shamelessly playing the birthday/poor, persecuted student with no Internet card will not be the subject of my post.
Now I have only been 22 for 6 days and I know that is still quite young, but whenever I get on campus I feel like a senior citizen. This year more than any other I look at my fellow BYU co-eds and think, "Oh my gosh! That kid looks like a baby." I can see them in their state of wide-eyed inexperience and know all the things that they will have to go through in order to become "ancient and wise" like myself. But then I realize, I am not ancient, and I am most definitely not wise, so why am I still cruising around BYU mingling with infants? Well it all comes down to one word, well one acronym actually; ADHD. Yep, whether you believe it's real or not, those 4 letter have been a blessing and curse to me all 22 years of my short, yet often painstaking life . . . and scene.
- More to follow next week.
I'm not saying that my "free form" blogs are going to be intentionally useless wastes of time, but rather that, I, like Kevin, have come to understand and appreciate what it means to have the ultimate power of being able to do, or write about, whatever I want.
So I think my first blog will be about my birthday last week.
Although my birthday, and the pitiful excuse of not yet having Internet at my apartment are partly to blame for my forgetting to do blog posts last week, trying to weasel my way out of that assignment by shamelessly playing the birthday/poor, persecuted student with no Internet card will not be the subject of my post.
Now I have only been 22 for 6 days and I know that is still quite young, but whenever I get on campus I feel like a senior citizen. This year more than any other I look at my fellow BYU co-eds and think, "Oh my gosh! That kid looks like a baby." I can see them in their state of wide-eyed inexperience and know all the things that they will have to go through in order to become "ancient and wise" like myself. But then I realize, I am not ancient, and I am most definitely not wise, so why am I still cruising around BYU mingling with infants? Well it all comes down to one word, well one acronym actually; ADHD. Yep, whether you believe it's real or not, those 4 letter have been a blessing and curse to me all 22 years of my short, yet often painstaking life . . . and scene.
- More to follow next week.
Honda Pilot Nudist Commercial
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tcqWk4je3U
First of all I just want to say that my favorite Honda Pilot commercial is the one with the Bison, but that one wasn't available online anymore so I had to settle for the Nudist commercial, which is funny, but not as funny as the Bison one.
The argument of this ad is buy a Honda Pilot.
I think the audience for this commercial is young to middle -aged parents. Although the ad has a goofy humor which is often indicative of ads aimed at younger target markets, the driver of the car is a parent, assuming the person in the passenger seat is his son. Also the ad highlights a specific feature of the Honda Pilot that adults would be interested in- a rear view camera - something that would prevent them from running over their child's bike, the neighbor's cat, or even save them from having to turn around and try to concentrate on the road with a bunch of nudists in the back seat (see the commercial).
This argument is made mostly through the use of pathos. There is some ethos involved, considering that the ad is put out by Honda, which is in and of itself a trusted and therefore credible source. But the humor of the ad - using the rear camera instead of turning around to back up because of all the nudists in the backseats - is an appeal to pathos. The emotion of the ad is not only inherent in the humor, but the feeling that such a feature would make driving safer - something that everyone wants. Although I think the appeal to logic plays a minimal role in the commercial, the viewer does have to logical conclude that having a rear view camera would keep them safer because they have a wider scope of vision/fewer blind spots, etc.
I think this ad is effective because although it targets adults, younger people can appreciate the humor as well and in a market where tweens and teens are playing an increasingly important role in decided what families purchase, the fact that it appeals to them with humor, and to their parents by providing information about the car is a winning combination.
First of all I just want to say that my favorite Honda Pilot commercial is the one with the Bison, but that one wasn't available online anymore so I had to settle for the Nudist commercial, which is funny, but not as funny as the Bison one.
The argument of this ad is buy a Honda Pilot.
I think the audience for this commercial is young to middle -aged parents. Although the ad has a goofy humor which is often indicative of ads aimed at younger target markets, the driver of the car is a parent, assuming the person in the passenger seat is his son. Also the ad highlights a specific feature of the Honda Pilot that adults would be interested in- a rear view camera - something that would prevent them from running over their child's bike, the neighbor's cat, or even save them from having to turn around and try to concentrate on the road with a bunch of nudists in the back seat (see the commercial).
This argument is made mostly through the use of pathos. There is some ethos involved, considering that the ad is put out by Honda, which is in and of itself a trusted and therefore credible source. But the humor of the ad - using the rear camera instead of turning around to back up because of all the nudists in the backseats - is an appeal to pathos. The emotion of the ad is not only inherent in the humor, but the feeling that such a feature would make driving safer - something that everyone wants. Although I think the appeal to logic plays a minimal role in the commercial, the viewer does have to logical conclude that having a rear view camera would keep them safer because they have a wider scope of vision/fewer blind spots, etc.
I think this ad is effective because although it targets adults, younger people can appreciate the humor as well and in a market where tweens and teens are playing an increasingly important role in decided what families purchase, the fact that it appeals to them with humor, and to their parents by providing information about the car is a winning combination.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)