How Far Can You Take Your Opinion?

            The Indiana Deputy Attorney General, Jeff Cox, was recently fired for comments he made on his Twitter last week. He suggested that Wisconsin police should use deadly force when dealing with protestors. He also stated how a “black teenager was ‘deservedly’ beaten up by police”. When questioned about his comments, Cox said that his posts were meant to be political satire and that they shouldn’t have been taken literally. Obviously, his remarks were extreme and uncalled for and he knew that he would be getting many people upset by his remarks. Although I recognize the obscenity with respect to his comments, I do have to wonder if he should have been fired from his job. Twitter is a public website, and each “tweeting” person has their own personal account. Should someone not be able to share their own personal views on a website like this? Cox was engaging in free speech and political discourse (which he said was satirically based—but I find that hard to believe), and as a result, was fired from his job. If you’re in an elected position, should you limit and censor your opinion? Engaging in public discourse is key to the rhetorical process of civility. If everyone is limiting their opinions so that they can uphold approval from society, will our democracy go anywhere?

             Cox fired back toward those outraged by his remarks by asking if public employees maintain their First Amendment (free speech) rights once hired by the government. He brings up a good point. If an everyday citizen were to tweet such views, they may spark heavy debate amongst their followers, however, in no such way would their personal life, such as holding a job, be condemned. Just because Cox is an elected official, he is limited to engaging in public discourse. Obviously, sharing such views may threaten his overall reputation, however, was it fair that he was actually fired from his job because of this? Again, I know this is an extreme example and many people would not share such opinions by “tweeting” them, however, I do think this is an interesting debate that goes unnoticed most of the time.

What do you think?

See the article for yourself here: 

 http://www.aolnews.com/2011/02/24/indiana-deputy-attorney-general-jeff-cox-fired-over-threatening/?icid=maing%7Cmain5%7Cdl1%7Csec3_lnk2%7C46454

At Least I Know Three Words In Greek....

           We’ve been talking a lot about the appeals to ethos, logos, and pathos, so I figured it’d be appropriate to use this post as a further discussion of each. All three approaches can be used in writing, speeches, or anything else where rhetoric is involved. The commonality between them lies in their effectiveness. Ethos, logos, and pathos all lend themselves to making the writing or speech more credible, useful, and relevant. In general, they all help the reader or listener get a more substantive and enjoyable experience by allowing the writing or speech to successfully permit the implied or underlying message to become readily appreciated by the audience. If we rewind back to January of 2009, one of the most important days in history came alive. Yes—the first African American president was sworn into office as the 44^th President of the United States. Again, that was back in 2009. Since then, I’ve become more familiar with ethos, logos, and pathos, so I decided to look at Obama’s inaugural speech to see its various appeals to each, if any. Now, obviously, we recognize Obama as a brilliant rhetor so I expected to see each appeal conveyed effectively throughout his speech. I was right—in the first two minutes of the speech, all three appeals were already distinguished. Let’s take a look at the first two minutes:

            The first thing I enjoyed about this speech was his opening sentence with “my fellow citizens”; this automatically sets the distance between Obama and his audience in a way that suggests that we are “one”. As the speech continues, Obama emphasizes certain words that suggest honorific language as an appeal to pathos. He states he is “humbled by the task before us”, “grateful for the trust you’ve bestowed”, and other words such as “mindful”, “cooperation”, “prosperity”, and “peace”. These words allow the audience to embody and feel these values as an emotional output. In contrast, Obama uses pejorative words such as “crisis”, “violence”, and “hatred” when talking about the war. These words allow for strong emotional responses that effectively communicate toward the audience. Obama can use this emotional appeal to get the American audience to grasp, “hey, this is something bad and maybe it’s about time we end this war,” whether you are a Democrat or Republican listening to the speech.

            In addition to a strong sense of pathos, Obama also uses some logos to get the audience to understand and listen to what he has to say. Obama uses reason when he says that the “economy is badly weakened”, “lives have been lost”, “homes have been shattered”,  “health care is too costly”, and that “the way we use energy threatens our planet”. These facts allow the audience to fathom Obama’s underlying logic that, yes, something needs to be changed (and that the change will come with Obama!). He also states that these are all “indicators of prices subject to data and statistics”. The use of facts and statistics are a main component of logos, and Obama effectively conveys them.

            Any person analyzing an Obama speech would have a difficult time excluding his appeal to ethos. I think this is one of Obama’s strongest abilities and is, in my opinion, the reason he is considered to be such an intelligent rhetor. As discussed in class, ethos is composed of competence, likeability, integrity, and confidence. Obama’s likeability is hard to ignore; I especially get a sense of his amicable personality when he uses the second person, such as: “I say to you”, to allow the audience to get a sense of a closer and more personal relationship to him. Obama’s integrity and honesty is evident when he states that the “challenges we face are real” and that they are “serious” and “cannot be solved in a short amount of time.” However, while recognizing this, Obama comes back with competence and confidence during his final sentence from this clip when stating: “know this America—they will be met!”. Obama is capable of taking on these challenges, and is assured that he can overcome them. 

Well, That's New...

            As we were ending class today, the Chrysler 200 Superbowl Ad came into discussion. However, we didn’t have time for the actual discussion part, just the showing of the commercial itself. Therefore, I figured I’d use this post to talk about probably one of the most effective ads the Superbowl had to offer this year. This commercial aired during the third quarter, which is the prime spot for a Superbowl ad to take place. Since everyone is done eating and catching up with friends at this point, the population is at its most attentive phase, not to mention that everyone is tuning in to who actually has the upper-hand on the game since the fourth quarter is rapidly approaching. Even if you were not watching the commercials, the opening sequence of this Chrysler ad was bound to get your attention. It opens with the narrator voicing: “I’ve got a question for you”. Already, the narrator sets the level of closeness between the commercial, himself, and the audience through the use of second-person narrative. Further in the sequence, the narrator uses the term “we” several times to infer that he and the population are one single entity, bound by something in common. What is the commonality they designate? America. It makes sense, really. With a population tuned into that which embodies an Americanized sport—football—the audience is bound to relate.  As the commercial continues, backdrops of industry machinery and city buildings are juxtaposed with patriotic emblems such as American flags and ordinary-looking American citizens. The color scheme is dark and dismal, and the feel of the commercial is grainy and unsteady, adding to the industrious scheme radiating off the advertisement.

            After establishing that the city is in fact Detroit, the narrator makes a direct comment toward the city saying that it’s been “to Hell and back”. This is the first reference to not only Detroit as a city, but also to its Detroit-based automotive company disasters such as General Motors and Chrysler itself. Cue the pathos. As the commercial continues, images of a fist, statues, and murals of working men are simultaneously shown with the narrator using words such as “heart of steel” and “hardworking”. With this, the representation of Detroit as a city of strength, capability, and creationism is overwhelmingly apparent. Cue the ethos. Not only is the narrator referencing Detroit, he is referencing America as a country and what potential it has to build and grow luxury. That’s when Eminem comes into the scene driving the new Chrysler 200. Eminem grew up in Detroit, so his ethos is incredibly obvious for this particular matter. Further, the narrator states how Detroit is nothing like New York City or Chicago—it is the “motor city”; automotive making is what the city does best. After Eminem’s “Lose Yourself” beat subsides, a chorus is shown singing in a theatre as Eminem walks in. Their voices are rising, and they are full of vitality. I took this to represent Detroit’s rising comeback, not to mention Chrysler as well with the production of this new model. One last time, the audience is connected directly with the commercial as Eminem points to the camera and says “This is the motor city. And this is what we do”.

            The ethos throughout the commercial continues to build until the end. Not only is the use of Eminem effective, the concept behind Detroit as “hard-working” and as the archetype “motor city” doing what it does best, successfully adds to Detroit’s credibility and character. Even though this was essentially an ad to promote the Chrysler 200, none of the features of the new model were shown besides its exterior. Thus, the ad was aimed more towards promoting the capability of Detroit’s auto industry in a heart-provoking and authentic way. The message of the commercial left me with an essence of pride in not only Detroit and what it has to offer, but what America has to offer as well. It’s time for us to regain our trust in the ability of American industry. Was the commercial effective? I’d say so. Cue the logos. Apparently Chrysler is leading the Sales Demand Index currently, going from 100 to 773 from January to February 7^th.

All this for a two minute commercial? Well done, Chrysler!

"I Want a Wife"

           This week for class we read Chapter 5: Understanding the Rhetorical Situation in our text. As I went through the reading, the whole “exigence” concept and how rhetorical discourse can improve or change political, social, or emotional problems seemed to take the main focus of the chapter. In one part of the discussion, the text implemented Judy Brady’s essay entitled, “I Want a Wife” (page 106 in the older-version of the text). Needless to say, this essay really struck me on both a political and emotional standpoint, as well as a rhetorical standpoint. Although many people might grasp the concept of the societal and domestic roles of females, Brady explicitly states all of the assumptions and expectations that being a wife entails. Therefore, this essay is effectively and rhetorically strong.

            After my first reading of the essay, my cognitions were that of both realization and agreement. Every statement that Brady makes about what a wife should and should not do seemed to agree with my stereotyped expectations of what the “perfect wife” is. The tone of this essay is that of reality and sarcasm. Brady conveys the reality of the situation by explicitly stating the expectations of wives. Her use of sarcasm precedes and indicates her opinions against these roles and her support for their changes. Further, on a more personal level from a daughter’s standpoint, the wife that Brady describes seems similar to that of my mom. I always knew she was a super-mom, but man, did she really fit these descriptions! Although this may be flattering to mothers (and wives) who really try to be the best, Brady emphasizes a rhetorical exigence that underlies the message of this essay. As stated in the text, a rhetorical exigence is a problem. This problem can be political, social, emotional, etc., as long as it can be discussed and resolved through discourse. Brady’s essay is her way of using discourse aimed at the exigence of female-stereotyped roles and expectations. Even by reading the essay and realizing that nearly every sentence is a husband’s view of a perfect wife, you can tell that something needs to be changed. Societal roles are often overlooked, and I think that Brady’s purpose towards the audience was to get them to explicitly realize the problem at hand, and to start making independent action towards improvement. At least I can say that her aim worked for me, allowing me to realize just how hard my mom works to keep our family together!

            Further discussion: This essay was written in the 1970s. Do you think any change has occurred in these expectations? Or are they basically the same as they were back then?

Image courtesy of http://carlislehistory.dickinson.edu/wp-content/uploads/hswf.gif

I Believe in Tradition Podcast

http://www.zshare.net/audio/86045989b204d343/