Coca-Cola Border Patrol

As we were picking our ads to analyze for our speeches way back in February, I was torn between two: the Xoom which I chose, and a Coca-Cola commercial which aired during the Superbowl this year. I didn’t get a chance to truly analyze the Coca-Cola commercial, so I thought I’d choose this week’s post to analyze that ad!

Within the first few seconds of watching the commercial, you automatically get the feeling of “two distinct sides pitted against each other”. You have one man in red protecting his side of the border and another man in blue protecting his. The two men are grumpy, stiff, and definitely do not like each other. Then, we see a little piece of paper fly from one side of the border to the other, thus getting both men extremely worked-up over it. Finally, the red man opens up a Coca-Cola bottle and we see the blue man become intrigued by it, sending the message that he wants one too. The red man notices this gesture, sympathizes, and attempts to share a Coke with the man dressed in blue.. He primarily attempts to hand the Coke over the “border”, but then the two decide it would be better to keep it concealed and pass the Coke under the border, ultimately erasing the traces of this arrangement.

After watching the commercial, my mind went straight to how Coca-Cola is using its commercial as a reflection of our own society. Immediately, the red and blue color contrast seems to address the political polarization we see in our democracy. The two men are placed in a desert where there is ultimately no people, no buildings, or nearly anything around. Further, there is no dialogue or conversation, just a droning musical score. Yet, the two men are pitted against each other for what seems to be no apparent reason. A little paper crosses the border, and the two men become distraught by it. Coca-Cola may be suggesting how pointless this polarization is and how people are going against each other for no valid reason. Finally, the climax of the commercial appears as the red man shares a Coke with the blue man. The two men find a way to pass the Coke successfully under the border, without crossing it “illegally”. Lastly, we watch the two men enjoy their coke, each other, and then snap back into reality and assume their pitted positions once again. Coke’s message in the larger perspective seems to propose that its soda can bring people together no matter how different they are. Coke is the catalyst to friendship and enjoyment; it acts as a common ground. Because we see the men return to their designated positions even after enjoying their drink, Coca-Cola suggests that our society may never change completely, but buying Coke is the first step toward accomplishing civility. 

Tin Soldiers and Nixon Coming...

         After discussing the components of visual rhetoric in class and reading a chapter on the subject equivalent to the length of War and Peace, I feel as though I have gained an understanding of what makes a visual aesthetically pleasing, lasting, and rhetorically effective. Visual rhetoric is just like verbal discourse—it conveys an argument or message persuasively by using the elements of ethos, logos, and pathos, however, solely using and manipulating images or text. Visuals help people to internalize the issue since the analysis of visuals varies considerably upon the interpretation of the viewer. Understanding the underlying message of a visual is not as simple as it could be deduced from hearing a speech directly; you have to infer the message for yourself based upon what you interpret the meaning of the image to be. Why do some images automatically convey the same message to people? What constitutes an “iconic image”? In class, we looked at a few examples of famous images that mostly everyone was probably familiar with. In my opinion, images become iconic when each viewer can interpret the same meaning from the picture. For some reason, this image stands out and makes a lasting impact on the viewer. Iconic images do not rely solely on their explicit underlying message to impact the viewer, they use a strong sense of rhetorical elements, like pathos, to help the viewer connect directly with the image, and thus internalize the same emotion felt by the subject of the photograph. In this sense, the iconic image takes advantage of the kairos represented by the picture, and allows the viewer to feel as though they were there at the time the photograph was taken. In my experience, iconic images always seem to appeal to pathos, capturing an emotion that was felt at the time the picture was taken. Let’s take a look at some examples:

This image is extremely iconic not only because of its historical background, but because of the strong emotion felt by the woman behind a dead student on the ground. This Pulitzer Prize winning photograph was taken during the Kent State shootings in 1970. The appeal to pathos in this photograph is overt. The agony felt by Mary Ann Vecchio standing over Jeffrey Miller is extremely authentic. Thus, we as viewers can internalize this emotion and almost feel the agony for ourselves.

Let’s take a look at another iconic image that goes along the lines of Vietnam War protest, however is portrayed in a completely different light:

This image is from Woodstock in 1969. Amongst the other iconic images of Woodstock, this one really strikes me. In the background, we see people sleeping in blankets and trash scattered everywhere on the mud-laden ground. In the middle of the photograph is a couple embracing amongst the unfortunate conditions of the festival portrayed behind them. Their embrace, and the image depicting it, represents what Woodstock’s message was all about—peace, love, and happiness.

Finally, let’s take a look at another iconic image:

In this photograph, Elizabeth Eckford, one of the Little Rock Nine, is captured walking into Little Rock Central High School in 1957. This image is extremely striking to me. The image portrays the bravery of Elizabeth Eckford as she walks into the school despite the crowd of white protestors yelling at her from behind. I don’t know about you, but my view automatically centers on the white woman directly behind Elizabeth screaming in outrage. This is another palpable appeal to pathos—the expression of the white woman versus that of Elizabeth describes the kairos of the Civil Rights Movement and the struggles faced by African Americans toward events that seem so trivial to us now—such as simply walking to school. 

Images courtesy of: the-reaction.blogspot.com, articlesnydailynews.com, amcop.blogspot.com

Google's Crisis Response Page

            When national disasters occur that impact the lives of millions of people, it is instinctive to observe the reactions from our families, our peers, our news stations, our President, and our world as a whole in order to form an opinion or gain awareness about the disaster. As the crisis in Japan continues to escalate following a 9.0 magnitude earthquake, many people have offered their reactions and help to those suffering from this disaster. Like most people upon hearing a disaster of this nature, I turned to Google to type in “Earthquake in Japan” into the search bar to gain information about what was happening across the world. Before I even pressed “search”, something caught my eye that was more appealing than the countless articles offering the author’s two cents that would have appeared on the second page. Under the Google search bar was a sentence exclaiming that an earthquake had struck Japan and that more information would be available by following the link to the Google Crisis Response page. I assume that for most people, Google is habitually used as a catalyst for obtaining the latest information about a catastrophic current event. Never have I used Google itself as a source for obtaining such information. I followed the link to check out Google’s awareness efforts. What I found was an abundance of logos, ethos, and pathos splashed across their headlines.

            As an appeal to logos, Google used (and is still using) the most up-to-date statistics on the magnitude of the earthquake, the death toll, the number of missing people, and more. Like any source reporting a natural disaster, statistical use is necessary and crucial to raise awareness about the destruction the natural disaster has caused. Thus, I was not particularly surprised by their abundance of statistics. However, what really shocked me about Google’s Response page was their ethos. Google’s page efficiently allows people to do what they can to help. Google provides telephone numbers to consult about missing people, designates spaces for people to offer donations, and displays other resourceful information such as shelter residents, radiation and health information, transportation statuses, and Japanese translations of their Crisis Response page. You can also access their “person finder” to help with those suffering from missed family or friends in Japan. Google really outdid it this time. By allowing people to easily and effectively engage in relief efforts, the credibility I had already given Google has soared. Finally, Google uses pictures of the disaster and emotional responses as an appeal to pathos and to allow for people to grasp the extent of the disaster and thus subsequently offer their help through donations and the like. By using appeals to logos, ethos, and pathos, Google uses rhetoric to effectively relay the situational crisis facing Japan and to help people gain awareness in an effort to offer support to those suffering. To say the least, I applaud Google for their efforts!

Check out Google’s Crisis Response Page:

http://www.google.com/crisisresponse/japanquake2011.html

When Public Discourse "Crosses The Line"

           Today, the Supreme Court ruled in an 8:1 decision that anti-gay protests and picketing at military funerals is protected by the First Amendment as a form of public discourse. Those of the Westboro Baptist Church in Kansas have subjected the nation to major debate and controversy surrounding their radical protests at funerals for their extreme stances against homosexuality. We know protests are forms of free speech, protected by the First Amendment, but are the Westboro Baptist Church members crossing the line from free speech to illegal activity? Chief Justice John Roberts holds that Westboro’s protests relate to the public, and not private matters, which thus is a matter of public and political discourse. Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito Jr. has a different opinion. He was the only person in the Supreme Court to object against Westboro’s protests. Obscene language is not protected by the First Amendment and Alito suggests that the Westboro Baptist Church uses personally painful and publicly offensive language during their protests. The debate with this issue plays upon the matters of when to restrict political and public discourse, and when that speech is “crossing the line”. John Roberts contends that once you start banning offensive speech, you start banning other forms of speech until you lose the rights protected by the First Amendment—a fundamental right of being an American citizen.

            Being a student as a Crime, Law, and Justice major, you’d think that I would have agreed with the ruling toward the First Amendment’s protection on “political” protests. However, I honestly think this is completely absurd. An 8:1 ruling? One dissenter? I first watched a video about the Westboro Baptist Church about two years ago and I was blown away by it. HOW CAN YOU PROTEST AT SOMEONE’S FUNERAL? Are they kidding? Talk about a lack of morality and concern for fellow American citizenry. The Constitution is the foundation of American law and the larger American society in general. The Westboro protests are held at funerals of military soldiers who DIED FOR OUR COUNTRY, and yet, the Constitution is allowing the protestors to call this American hero a “homosexual” and that “he deserved to die”. It simply is too contradictory to be realistic. Personally, I do not think that protests are forms of public discourse. Public discourse is about sharing your opinions in a responsible and civil manner, allowing for the growth of our democracy in a healthy way. I think that the Westboro protests are offensive, insensitive, and do not add anything to the progression of our civilization. Yes, everyone should be entitled to free speech. However, if the free speech publicly subjects others to the degree of personal hurt that the family members attending the funeral must feel, I absolutely think that it crosses the line for protection by the Constitution.