My name is Melissa McCleery, and I'm an undergraduate studying political science and women's studies at Penn State University.
My e-portfolio represents my best work in relation to my study of rhetoric-- the art of effective discourse and communication. Besides showcasing my most successful academic pieces, this portfolio also reveals my passions of philanthropy and human rights. Both are areas which require a mastery of communication in order to achieve success, and both are areas that I intend to explore more in my coming years at Penn State.
Within this portfolio, you will find examples of an essay, a speech, and blog posts. Please use the navigation tools above to explore these pieces, and feel free to get in touch with me via my "contact me" page with any questions. Again, my e-portfolio can be found by clicking here.
Enjoy!
Monday, April 30, 2012
Thursday, April 19, 2012
Project Unbreakable
As some of you may know, this week has been Sexual Violence Awareness Week on campus. If you've been invited to the event on Facebook, you've probably seen various posts of support groups, interesting public service announcements about sexual violence, etc. One girl posted this website the other day, and I decided to take a look. I encourage you to look at it for a few minutes before reading the rest of this post. Put simply, it is a tumblr blog of pictures of rape victims holding up cards with quotes said by their attacker.
The main purpose of Project Unbreakable is to provide a form of closure for victims by allowing them to tell their stories in a safe, understanding place. However, its secondary function, for those reading it, is to raise awareness and concern for the heinous issue of sexual violence. Project Unbreakable executes this secondary function perfectly.
After looking through just a few posts, I was really disturbed. The words are disgusting, demeaning, and scary. The pictures of victims with their attackers' quotes create a bond between the reader and the content because the content is so shocking. This helps readers to empathize with the attacks the victims were put through, and creates discomfort with this status quo. Ideally, this discomfort will translate into readers taking action against sexual assault, in order to change the status quo. The fact that these victims remember the exact words used by their attackers also plays upon pathos, emphasizing how emotionally painful and scarring rape is, such that every detail is engraved into the victims mind.
Another interesting rhetorical aspect to Project Unbreakable is how the pictures are taken. Some are taken with the card taking up most of the frame, covering the victim's face, while others are held right next to the face, while still others have just half of their face showing to the side of the card. This also plays upon pathos, demonstrating shame and embarrassment felt by victims.
The main purpose of Project Unbreakable is to provide a form of closure for victims by allowing them to tell their stories in a safe, understanding place. However, its secondary function, for those reading it, is to raise awareness and concern for the heinous issue of sexual violence. Project Unbreakable executes this secondary function perfectly.
After looking through just a few posts, I was really disturbed. The words are disgusting, demeaning, and scary. The pictures of victims with their attackers' quotes create a bond between the reader and the content because the content is so shocking. This helps readers to empathize with the attacks the victims were put through, and creates discomfort with this status quo. Ideally, this discomfort will translate into readers taking action against sexual assault, in order to change the status quo. The fact that these victims remember the exact words used by their attackers also plays upon pathos, emphasizing how emotionally painful and scarring rape is, such that every detail is engraved into the victims mind.
Another interesting rhetorical aspect to Project Unbreakable is how the pictures are taken. Some are taken with the card taking up most of the frame, covering the victim's face, while others are held right next to the face, while still others have just half of their face showing to the side of the card. This also plays upon pathos, demonstrating shame and embarrassment felt by victims.
Thursday, April 12, 2012
Ann Romney's Economic Credentials
My homepage has been blown up with the Ann Romney story. If you haven't heard, Mitt Romney says he is in touch with women's economic concerns, and gets a lot of insight and information from his wife, Ann. Hilary Rosen, a Democratic strategist on CNN responded that Ann Romney had "never worked a day in her life," and she was thus an inaccurate measure of women's economic concerns. This was a big deal, and it is interesting from a few rhetorical standpoints.
First, Rosen should have been more careful in her word choice. Rather than saying something heated like she did, she should have said Ann never worked outside the home, or never dealt with economic struggles, or something to that effect. Transferring her argument from one of pathos to one of logos would have fit the rhetorical situation (professional, reliable news broadcast) much better, and her message could have been heard by more audiences with slightly less criticism.
Second, Mitt Romney should have thought about credentials and ethos before he made a public statement that he listens to his wife about women's economic concerns. Her ethos is just not established well enough, at least not publicly, to be regarded as a reputable source for that kind of information. Yes, she is a mother, and manages many houseworkers in multiple households, and that requires a high level of organization and patience. However, if she's never had to deal with economic hardship, it's less likely that she can properly convey the concerns of women who are struggling to feed their children. Of course, it's possible that Ann is very in touch with women's economic concerns, and has credentials to speak to this (although I have not seen any in my research). But being a woman does not automatically make her qualified to represent all women from all walks of life, and thus Romney should have explained why he thinks she is a good person to listen to on women's economic concerns. Since Ann is not well known, and neither are her credentials, her ethos should have been established explicitly.
First, Rosen should have been more careful in her word choice. Rather than saying something heated like she did, she should have said Ann never worked outside the home, or never dealt with economic struggles, or something to that effect. Transferring her argument from one of pathos to one of logos would have fit the rhetorical situation (professional, reliable news broadcast) much better, and her message could have been heard by more audiences with slightly less criticism.
Second, Mitt Romney should have thought about credentials and ethos before he made a public statement that he listens to his wife about women's economic concerns. Her ethos is just not established well enough, at least not publicly, to be regarded as a reputable source for that kind of information. Yes, she is a mother, and manages many houseworkers in multiple households, and that requires a high level of organization and patience. However, if she's never had to deal with economic hardship, it's less likely that she can properly convey the concerns of women who are struggling to feed their children. Of course, it's possible that Ann is very in touch with women's economic concerns, and has credentials to speak to this (although I have not seen any in my research). But being a woman does not automatically make her qualified to represent all women from all walks of life, and thus Romney should have explained why he thinks she is a good person to listen to on women's economic concerns. Since Ann is not well known, and neither are her credentials, her ethos should have been established explicitly.
Friday, April 6, 2012
Ethos
Ben's post today (in combination with the chapter we just read in the book) really got me thinking about ethos. Ben's post was about a video on how wasteful meat is, and Ben wrote that the guy in the video is a New York Times' food critic, and that makes him very likely to believe whatever this guy has to say. I have to agree, credentials are a big deal. It does matters where someone works, where they went to school, etc.
However, it also got me thinking about how this reliance on credentials can be potentially dangerous. Sure, if someone writes for the New York Times, they probably have their stuff together, and their posts are going to be well researched. And if someone is a Harvard professor, they probably know what they're talking about, too. But it's also possible for people to make mistakes, and this just reminded me of how important it is to be a skeptical consumer of media and information. However, after one big mistake, that New York Times writer or Harvard professor is probably going to get a lot of flak, and be much much more careful in the future with what they report, teach, or publish.
Sometimes we forget how delicate ethos is. It's very easy to screw it up with just one misstep. Thinking about this reminded me of Onward State's April Fool's Day joke posts. I'll be honest... I believed the one about Carly Rae Jepsen opening for Day Glow.... Whatever. But some of the posts were tasteless and not funny, like the one reporting a student's death. These April Fool's Day joke posts (along with other garbage articles) ruined Onward State's credibility for me, and I'm sure for many others.
It goes to show how careful you have to be if you want to be a reputable source for information.
However, it also got me thinking about how this reliance on credentials can be potentially dangerous. Sure, if someone writes for the New York Times, they probably have their stuff together, and their posts are going to be well researched. And if someone is a Harvard professor, they probably know what they're talking about, too. But it's also possible for people to make mistakes, and this just reminded me of how important it is to be a skeptical consumer of media and information. However, after one big mistake, that New York Times writer or Harvard professor is probably going to get a lot of flak, and be much much more careful in the future with what they report, teach, or publish.
Sometimes we forget how delicate ethos is. It's very easy to screw it up with just one misstep. Thinking about this reminded me of Onward State's April Fool's Day joke posts. I'll be honest... I believed the one about Carly Rae Jepsen opening for Day Glow.... Whatever. But some of the posts were tasteless and not funny, like the one reporting a student's death. These April Fool's Day joke posts (along with other garbage articles) ruined Onward State's credibility for me, and I'm sure for many others.
It goes to show how careful you have to be if you want to be a reputable source for information.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Domestic Abuse Ad
Someone posted this video on the Facebook wall for my Women's Studies class, and reflecting back on it more, I realize what a great example of rhetoric it is. Just a warning, the video is pretty graphic. Take a look.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=s5lULB1qOeE
After watching this, I felt sick to my stomach. Literally. The image is disturbing.
The ad makes an effective use of visual imagery to connect with the viewer's pathos. First off, the girl is common-looking. She looks like a woman any one of us would pass on the street during the day. This makes us feel an almost personal connection with her. It also makes us think that the beating she went through (apparent from her bruises) could also happen to anyone: you don't have to stand out to be abused. In the background of the video, the room the woman is standing in is also common: a bathroom. We see the towel hanging on the door, and bottles on a shelf. This puts the woman in a common place, and a usually comfortable place for most people (since it's somewhere in their home). The comfort generally associated with home, juxtaposed with the pain apparent from her cuts and bruises, creates a sharp contrast.
The other element of the video that I think is most important is the point of view. Rather than watching the woman from the side looking at herself in a mirror, trying to clean herself up, we are the mirror. She is looking directly at us. Her eye contact is piercing, further creating a connection between the viewer, and the victim. This plays upon our pathos, making us feel emotionally connected and almost responsible for the victim, since it feels as if she has come to us to tell her story and get help.
The end of the video, where she turns around quickly, implies that her attacker is coming, and that more injuries are coming as well. This makes viewers feel a sense of urgency to stop the violence.
The bond this video forms between viewers and the victim helps viewers feel empathy. This in addition to the shock at seeing her extensive injuries affects the viewers' pathos, causing feelings of sadness, disgust, and compassion. These emotions combine (ideally) to cause people to take action against domestic violence.
Wednesday, March 21, 2012
Teleflora's Adriana Lima Superbowl Ad
During the Super Bowl (conveniently before Valentine's Day), Teleflora's ad starring Victoria's Secret angel Adriana Lima aired. Check out the short commercial below:
This ad is geared towards men, obviously. It aired during the Super Bowl, which more men watch than women, so Teleflora had their timing and rhetorical situation right. Additionally, Valentine's Day was coming up quickly at the time the commercial aired, so another point to Teleflora for good timing. The ad uses a very beautiful woman, who is revered as a sex symbol, which further targets the male audience. And it makes sense that the ad features a bombshell and not a soccer mom, because this ad is all about sex. It's really not about the flowers at all.
The idea in this commercial is that men can get sex by giving women flowers. Between the legs and the breasts and the lips and the hair the men watching this commercial surely pay little attention to the flowers. Instead, what stands out is sex appeal. However, the overall color scheme of the ad is black and white, so the red flowers do stand out a little from the rest of the scene.
This ad tries to sell Teleflora's flowers through a seemingly simple chain of logos. Buy flowers. Get sex. Of course, life isn't really this simple, but many (if not most) ads portray a world that is ideal rather than real.
The biggest issue in this ad is its major ethical flaws. In a country where rape wasn't first outlawed until 1975 and where the 50th state didn't outlaw it until 1993, is it really ethically sound for a company to tell men that they can expect to get sex for just giving a girl flowers? (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/marital-rape-drive-for-tougher-laws-is-pressed.html, http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701).
I don't think so.
Teleflora's ad reinforces the all too common idea that men deserve sex, and it is women's job to provide that pleasure for men. It demeans women across America (through the use of a sexually eager Adriana Lima as the ideal woman) to some sort of sex slave who can be given something in order to get laid. Clearly, Teleflora did not consider the underlying meaning of this message, culturally, or they simply ignored it. Either way, this ad shows a serious ethical misstep on the part of Teleflora.
This ad is geared towards men, obviously. It aired during the Super Bowl, which more men watch than women, so Teleflora had their timing and rhetorical situation right. Additionally, Valentine's Day was coming up quickly at the time the commercial aired, so another point to Teleflora for good timing. The ad uses a very beautiful woman, who is revered as a sex symbol, which further targets the male audience. And it makes sense that the ad features a bombshell and not a soccer mom, because this ad is all about sex. It's really not about the flowers at all.
The idea in this commercial is that men can get sex by giving women flowers. Between the legs and the breasts and the lips and the hair the men watching this commercial surely pay little attention to the flowers. Instead, what stands out is sex appeal. However, the overall color scheme of the ad is black and white, so the red flowers do stand out a little from the rest of the scene.
This ad tries to sell Teleflora's flowers through a seemingly simple chain of logos. Buy flowers. Get sex. Of course, life isn't really this simple, but many (if not most) ads portray a world that is ideal rather than real.
The biggest issue in this ad is its major ethical flaws. In a country where rape wasn't first outlawed until 1975 and where the 50th state didn't outlaw it until 1993, is it really ethically sound for a company to tell men that they can expect to get sex for just giving a girl flowers? (http://www.nytimes.com/1987/05/13/us/marital-rape-drive-for-tougher-laws-is-pressed.html, http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701).
I don't think so.
Teleflora's ad reinforces the all too common idea that men deserve sex, and it is women's job to provide that pleasure for men. It demeans women across America (through the use of a sexually eager Adriana Lima as the ideal woman) to some sort of sex slave who can be given something in order to get laid. Clearly, Teleflora did not consider the underlying meaning of this message, culturally, or they simply ignored it. Either way, this ad shows a serious ethical misstep on the part of Teleflora.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
Rush Limbaugh
Rush Limbaugh's recent comments about Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University law student, in relation to the current debate about insurance companies covering contraception created quite a stir over the past few weeks. Check out this video to be filled in on what happened.
Limbaugh is famous for being untamed, outspoken, and blunt on his conservative radio show, but many critics think his comments, calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" because she believes insurance should cover contraception, went too far this time. Not only does he demean Fluke, he goes on to say that if insurance is paying for her contraception, then he should be able to see videos of her having sex, so he gets to see what he's paying for. While this is despicable, this post will focus on how Limbaugh dealt with his entrance into the discussion surrounding a public controversy.
It is clear that Limbaugh did not uphold his "ethical obligation to treat with civility and respect those who accept the invitation to debate" (e.g. Sandra Fluke) (Rhetoric and Civic Life 339). He uses rude language, and calls those with opinions opposing him demeaning names. What Limbaugh does do, however, is discuss the value of the issue at hand: insurance coverage of contraception. Limbaugh's entire radio show, in fact, deals with the discussion of the value of a variety of political topics (including many public controversies).
Limbaugh discusses what he views as the inappropriateness of insurance coverage of birth control, denouncing it on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. He first states that it is not the responsibility of the state to provide birth control, and then goes on to emphasize the immorality of doing so. In discussing the value of contraception coverage, Limbaugh also overlaps into discussing policy. It is clear from his inflection and tone that he wishes both to inform people of his opinion and hopefully change their mind. He relays information from the opposition in a manner dripping with sarcasm, to discredit their ethos and establish his position as superior.
Overall, Limbaugh discusses two of the main facets of public controversies: value and policy. In doing so, however, he uses disrespectful language and in my opinion, this cost him quite a bit in the way of ethos and credibility.
Limbaugh is famous for being untamed, outspoken, and blunt on his conservative radio show, but many critics think his comments, calling Sandra Fluke a "slut" because she believes insurance should cover contraception, went too far this time. Not only does he demean Fluke, he goes on to say that if insurance is paying for her contraception, then he should be able to see videos of her having sex, so he gets to see what he's paying for. While this is despicable, this post will focus on how Limbaugh dealt with his entrance into the discussion surrounding a public controversy.
It is clear that Limbaugh did not uphold his "ethical obligation to treat with civility and respect those who accept the invitation to debate" (e.g. Sandra Fluke) (Rhetoric and Civic Life 339). He uses rude language, and calls those with opinions opposing him demeaning names. What Limbaugh does do, however, is discuss the value of the issue at hand: insurance coverage of contraception. Limbaugh's entire radio show, in fact, deals with the discussion of the value of a variety of political topics (including many public controversies).
Limbaugh discusses what he views as the inappropriateness of insurance coverage of birth control, denouncing it on legal, moral, and ethical grounds. He first states that it is not the responsibility of the state to provide birth control, and then goes on to emphasize the immorality of doing so. In discussing the value of contraception coverage, Limbaugh also overlaps into discussing policy. It is clear from his inflection and tone that he wishes both to inform people of his opinion and hopefully change their mind. He relays information from the opposition in a manner dripping with sarcasm, to discredit their ethos and establish his position as superior.
Overall, Limbaugh discusses two of the main facets of public controversies: value and policy. In doing so, however, he uses disrespectful language and in my opinion, this cost him quite a bit in the way of ethos and credibility.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)