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.