E-Portfolio

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!

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.

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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.

Pathos in Marriage Ad

Before we go on, watch this entire video. It's really really important that you watch the whole thing!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wj09lWcz0yk

Some of you may have seen that before, but for those who haven't yet seen it, did the end surprise you? It surprised me the first time I watched it. I think this ad is really effective for quite a few reasons, all of which center around pathos.

When you start watching the video, it's confusing. Is it an ad? Is it a short film? I guess it could be called both. We watch a relationship progress: hanging out, meeting friends, going on vacation, getting in a fight, moving in, meeting the parents. Pathos begins its function first by making us look at the video from our personal perspective. We imagine ourselves going through the experiences the video takes us through, and it's easy to do since the video is done in a first person type of perspective. The video is easy to relate to.

At the end, the proposal comes! How exciting! When the camera pans around, we expect the ring to be going onto the hand of a female, but as the forearm of the newly engaged comes into the picture, we see it's a man. Surprising, probably, for most of us, but the ad makes us question, "should it be?" This is where pathos wraps up its function in the ad. 

We realize that what is shown in the video is quite different from what we expected, and acknowledge that this seems unusual, or perhaps surprising. When I watched the video, I felt almost a little guilty for making the quite large assumption that the couple was straight. 

By filming the video from the first person perspective, the ad makes the gay couple's love relatable because it first seemed like our love. Gay and straight couples alike enjoy vacations, go through the same milestones, and have similar fights and relationship struggles. Viewers realize the great similarity of both homosexual and heterosexual love through watching the video, and the text at the end uses logos to urge viewers to extend the universality of love to universality of opportunity to marry. 

Rihanna and Chris Brown Reunite Musically

As you may have heard, Chris Brown and Rihanna recently decided they'd reunite to do a song together. This decision has had a wide range of reactions. Personally, I think it's messed up. But a lot of people were excited to hear these two awesome artists combine forces once again. Not only his this news a topic with lots of opinions, but it's also rhetorically interesting.

http://cdn.abclocal.go.com/images/kgo/cms_exf_2007/
news/entertainment/6668619_600x338.jpg

The fact that Rihanna has agreed to work with someone who severely beat her damages her ethos. (Just to refresh your memory, the photo to the right is what Rihanna looked like after Brown beat her in his car. It's bad.) Before this, I considered Rihanna a strong, powerful, inspirational woman. She has her own prerogative, and doesn't care what people think. But most of all, after Brown beat her, she dropped him like a hot potato, and got a restraining order against him. She also did quite a few interviews, explaining what happened, and emphasizing the fact that abuse is not okay. (You can see one of the more famous interviews here.)

But after hearing that she's doing a song with Chris Brown, I've lost respect for her. She is such a huge role model for young girls, and her reuniting with Brown, after such a public abuse ordeal, sends a message that domestic abuse is a forgivable offense. It's not. I can't be the only one with these feelings.

The fact that Rihanna is sending this message that abuse is okay is all the more troubling because of how women still esteem Brown, although he seriously abused Rihanna. You may have seen the shocking twitter reactions to Chris Brown's performance on the Grammys. If not, check it out here. Basically, girls say they'd let Chris Brown beat them, because he's so good looking.

Celebrities need to remember that they're in the spotlight, and watch their actions, because what they do sends a huge message, and can seriously damage their ethos.

Apple Knows Their Audience

I was browsing CNN's website today, and I came upon a story titled "Apple 'Determined' to Improve Conditions at Plants in China." Feel free to check it out before reading any further, but I'll summarize it for you, in case you're pressed for time. Basically, the Fair Labor Association has been very closely monitoring the conditions at Apple's factory plants in China, and these plant condition audits are some of the most detailed in mass manufacturing history. Workers' rights abuses at these Chinese plants have gotten a lot of headline attention recently, and Apple's CEO made a public statement saying that the company is determined to improve the conditions for workers at all of their factories. Improving conditions includes limiting work hours to 60 hours per week and not hiring underage workers, according to the CNN article.

http://www.smh.com.au/digital-life/mobiles/iphone-halo-
launches-apple-into-stratosphere-20120215-1t546.html
Apple's CEO, Tim Cook

This article struck me as very interestingly rhetorically. Apple pretty much rules the technology world. They're known for exquisitely designed and manufactured electronics, with sleek appearances and even sleeker operating systems. Many people might think Apple could get away with employing inhumane labor practices, but a deeper look into this rhetorical situation proves this assumption isn't true.

Apple knows who its consumers are: affluent, upper-middle class people, who can afford to drop hundreds of dollars on a phone, and thousands of dollars on a computer. Wealthy  people are statistically more likely to keep up with news, and be interested in where the products they use come from. (I learned this in my political science class last year.)

This demonstrates the importance of being familiar with one's audience in rhetorical situations, and being mindful of what the audience may or may not already know about the subject. Underestimating your audience's knowledge can be detrimental. See, if Apple's audience didn't keep up so well on their news, and where their iPhones came from, the company could probably get away with using factories who don't meet fair labor standards. But Apple's consumers do pay attention, so Apple must also. If the company ignores the headlines about inhumane labor practices, they risk losing their shiny image in the media, and possibly even losing customers, who want products made with human rights in mind.

Sarah Palin's Rhetoric Issues

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nokTjEdaUGg

Let me start by giving background to the video: Palin was asked about her foreign policy experience, and she informed the reporter that she can see Russia from her house. The addition of this extra tidbit of information weakened Palin's ethos in the general political arena. Why? Whether it's true or not, the fact was just not important. Being neighbors with Russia does not add any credibility to Palin's foreign policy experience. In fact, by adding in this detail, Palin comes off as if she believes this adds to her credibility, which makes her come off as if she had nothing better to say. Palin should have considered her words more carefully, knowing she's in the public eye, and is always being carefully scrutinized.

What Palin does do in this interview, however, is use specialized language: "maritime border,""the state that I am the executive of," "trade missions," "national security issues with Russia," "the airspace of the United States." I'm not really sure what any of these phrases mean... But I'm pretty sure they're not used in the right context, or at least they're not explained enough. Palin was nervous, and knew she kind of screwed up by saying she can see Russia from her house, and decided it was time to reassert her credentials. So she used big political terms that the public is unfamiliar with.

Well, Palin kind of lucked out, because this program ran as a CBS Evening News Special. In other words, common people, generally unfamiliar with political jargon, saw this interview. Most people would just assume they don't know what the terms mean, and not realize that they don't exactly make sense in the context in which she uses them. Surely, had Palin been speaking to a group of politicians, her statements would have been discredited by her listeners.

Overall, this clip shows the importance of being careful with which details you include in your speaking, because including an extra detail, even if it's small, can discount your credibility if it's not relevant. Furthermore, this interview with Palin shows how vital it is for a speaker to know their audience, and the rhetorical situation they're stepping into. She (kind of) got away with using political terms out of place, or at least without justification, because her audience was not especially informed on her topic.

This I Believe

I believe in talking to strangers.

http://www.archive.org/details/ThisIBelieve_487

Words Matter

Everyone at Penn State is familiar with the current scandal involving accusations of sexual abuse against former defensive coordinator Jerry Sandusky. An article on CNN's homepage a few days ago offered a new perspective, a rhetorical perspective, on the situation. The article, titled "Words Matter in Penn State Perjury Case" emphasized the importance of word choice in how McQueary conveyed what he witnessed to his superiors, and how those officials conveyed the situation to their superiors. I recommend reading at least the first third of the article before you read the rest of this post.


McQueary's reports to his superiors qualify as rhetoric because the solution to the problem could only come about through discourse. McQueary felt something was wrong about the situation he saw, and knew something had to happen. The only way for the sexual abuse (the exigence) to be properly addressed/resolved was by reporting it (the rhetoric) to the proper authorities. 


The CNN article states that "Euphemism and squeamishness over certain sexually explicit words and the emotions they conjure played a role in weakening the impact of McQueary's story." I think this brings up a vitally important aspect of rhetoric: the careful use of vocabulary. The article continues, "'Sodomy, rape and anal intercourse are not easy words for men, especially jocks, to verbalize, and they may become particularly reluctant when they are speaking to authority figures... Being uncomfortable with the subject matter could have led all men involved to minimize the Sandusky mess and avoid confronting it head on.'"  


Word choice in rhetoric can affect not only the clarity of one's message, but also an argument's appeal to the listener through pathos. If McQueary's message had not been watered down to "horsing around," and had been correctly conveyed as rape, perhaps his audience would have been more emotionally affected and more likely to go to the police, or insist that others do so. Who knows how the situation would have been different.

Rhetorical Exigence in Sex Trafficking Ad

In going through the textbook, searching for a topic for this week's blog post, I remembered the section on rhetorical exigence in images. I decided to look for an ad that struck me, and I remembered a friend telling me about a sex trafficking commercial she saw at the gym. I tried to look for it, but couldn't find it. However, I did find this print ad. I think it's an even better example.

http://adoholik.com/2009/06/08/luxembourg-government-human-trading/

The text says: "Every year, 2,450,000 people become victims of human trafficking, of whom 92% end up being used for sex. 98% of the victims used by the sex industry are women and children!" And then, "Method: Following on from a press and poster campaign, real meat trays were placed in the butchery sections of supermarkets, in amongst cuts of meat. At the point of purchase, consumers were directly faced with the fact that prostitutes are the victims of the trade in human flesh."

The text is powerful, but the image makes a much greater impact. The image screams: "humans are treated as meat" and "this woman is for sale." By displaying the woman nude in packaging only used to package meat for sale in a grocery store, she is dehumanized, reduced to only her "meat" or her "flesh." In other words, her worth (evident from the bar code on her package) is only derived from her body. This ad was made by the Luxembourg government to make people aware of human trafficking, and its massive scope. They use the text to urge citizens to stop financing injustice by paying prostitutes, but the use of the woman in the meat packaging is vital to grabbing a person's attention, and it makes a relatable and valid analogy between sex trafficking and the sale of meat. 

I think this is one of the most effective ads that I've ever seen. It caught my attention with the image, and conveyed an important world issue through a common image (meat packaging), that was also an easy to follow comparison.

Pathos in Dove Evolution Commercials

Video from YouTube: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qhib8XiDc9Y&feature=related

As soon as I found out we had a blog post due, this clip popped into my head. It screams "pathos!” I first saw this in a documentary, Miss Representation, a film I'm sure I'll come back to talking about later in the year. But for now, I want to specifically address the Dove Evolution clip. 

The video starts with an average looking woman, without makeup, walking into a studio. Quickly, the film speed increases, and we see makeup being applied, hair being styled, lights being adjusted, and pictures being snapped. Already, the woman looks like a different person. The audience starts to see what a huge difference the application of makeup can make in altering someone’s appearance. This is the first element of pathos: alarming people when they see how much of a difference professional makeup can make.

Then, we watch the picture being edited: the model’s neck is lengthened and thinned, her eyes are enlarged, and her face is slimmed out. And then suddenly, that picture is on a billboard. Here’s another element of pathos: shock. "Can this ideal-looking woman really be that average looking girl from the beginning of the clip? No way!" But it is the same girl.

This video plays on people’s emotions by showing the process of transforming an average looking woman into a model for a foundation ad, which is quite the production! The idea is to first off shock people, by informing them of all that goes into creating the seemingly perfect and effortless image we see in media advertisements. The video is meant to alarm people so much that whenever they look at a billboard or ad in a glamor magazine, they realize just how much work went into making that person look the way they do. And after that effect takes hold, as people think back on the clip, I think the idea is to make people a little angry that they’ve been tricked into feeling they should look like these models, which really are just a product of makeup and Photoshop.

Another thing that I think is interesting is how many beauty ads in general utilize pathos and are aimed at making people feel insecure about how they look, especially compared to the model in the ad, so they go out and buy such and such product. This Dove Evolution clip exposes this, hopefully making the pathos rhetoric seen in ads more visible to people in the future.