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.