We've all been there, just sitting on the couch watching some TV, wishing the commercials were over. Then suddenly you hear "in the arms, of an angel," with the cutest little dog.
I don't know about you, but I reach for the remote as fast as humanly possible and change the channel. I can't tell you the amount of times I've cried watching that commercial, it's like two minutes straight out of hell... but with cute, sad looking animals.
Don't get me wrong, I feel bad. I myself own the world's cutest dog (please, there is no use in arguing with me, I know it's true). But after doing our projects on ad analysis, I've started to view the commercial as a ploy. I don't think anyone can really argue that it doesn't draw on pathos... unless you hate animals I guess.
In a way, it's kind of awful that companies abuse these types of images and songs, which draw highly on emotion. Yes, it may be for the greater cause of getting donations, but in a way companies like SPCA are exploiting the animals they are showing.
This led me to think about if the commercial is actually effective. Yes, our hearts bleed for these animals, but how many people have actually picked up the phone or gone on the computer to donate money? Most of us haven't.
Is it okay for a commercial to use techniques like this solely to bring in money, even if it is for the animal's own good?
Another example of this is the KONY12 video. The video draws on pathos, just like the SPCA commercial. Millions of people posted about the KONY12 video, but no one actually did anything to solve the problem, a problem that has been going on for years.
We feel awful about these problems, but do nothing to stop it, so is really necessary for these commercials and videos to be made? It doesn't seem like it.
Thursday, March 29, 2012
Friday, March 23, 2012
Rhetoric in Music
So it's no secret to a lot of people, even people that I hardly know, that I'm obsessed with country music. I guess I understand why people don't like it, it has very hick tendencies.
But when you put that aside, it really does tell a story. Some are about breakups, some are about marriage, children, drinking beer. Name anything along those lines and there is probably a song about it.
Something that a lot of these songs do are make an argument. They do not necessarily occur in duet form either. Singers sing about trying to convince their ex boy or girlfriend to take them back, or list the reasons why they're wrong, or try to persuade other's to do what they want.
Yes, the songs that focus on these types of persuasive arguments tend to be sad, but they're amazing. Someone especially known for music people can relate to is none other than Taylor Swift. Although I don't consider her country, for some reason that's the branch of music she falls under.
Her songs list the reasons as to why relationships failed, why they worked, or why they should just try them again. They're powerful songs too. She evokes an emotional response without really doing much of anything other than writing down the words in her head. Yet she's amazing at getting those emotions--and those arguments down. She calls on pathos to help her audience, and the person she is specifically singing to, understand where she is coming from.
She's not the only one that does this though. Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood's duet "Remind Me" also appeals highly to emotions. The words, the voices, the music make the song drip with pathos. Not only does create emotions between those singing, but even to other people listening. The song makes you think of the past, and remember things that you sometimes try to forgot (plus they're both beautiful, why wouldn't you want to listen... like seriously take a look at Carrie Underwood).
If you don't fall for Taylor, Brad or Carrie, there has to be something wrong with you. Because, believe me, if someone was singing those same songs to me, I'd take them back in a heartbeat.
But when you put that aside, it really does tell a story. Some are about breakups, some are about marriage, children, drinking beer. Name anything along those lines and there is probably a song about it.
Something that a lot of these songs do are make an argument. They do not necessarily occur in duet form either. Singers sing about trying to convince their ex boy or girlfriend to take them back, or list the reasons why they're wrong, or try to persuade other's to do what they want.
Yes, the songs that focus on these types of persuasive arguments tend to be sad, but they're amazing. Someone especially known for music people can relate to is none other than Taylor Swift. Although I don't consider her country, for some reason that's the branch of music she falls under.
Her songs list the reasons as to why relationships failed, why they worked, or why they should just try them again. They're powerful songs too. She evokes an emotional response without really doing much of anything other than writing down the words in her head. Yet she's amazing at getting those emotions--and those arguments down. She calls on pathos to help her audience, and the person she is specifically singing to, understand where she is coming from.
She's not the only one that does this though. Brad Paisley and Carrie Underwood's duet "Remind Me" also appeals highly to emotions. The words, the voices, the music make the song drip with pathos. Not only does create emotions between those singing, but even to other people listening. The song makes you think of the past, and remember things that you sometimes try to forgot (plus they're both beautiful, why wouldn't you want to listen... like seriously take a look at Carrie Underwood).
If you don't fall for Taylor, Brad or Carrie, there has to be something wrong with you. Because, believe me, if someone was singing those same songs to me, I'd take them back in a heartbeat.
Thursday, March 15, 2012
A Little More on Controversy
As I struggled to come up with something to write about this week, I realized that all that I could think about when the topic of LA101H came up was controversy.
I definitely did not think it would be hard to think of a topic for our project. It was hard to think of something that everyone could really agree was a controversy. While debating topics with my group, it got me thinking: what exactly defines a controversy?
Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So something that the media really harps on; turn on the news and there are ton of these. The second definition was "contention, strife, or argument." This definition basically says it can be anything a person does not agree with.
To me it seems as if these two definitions clash. One says it must be a focus of public dispute, but the other just says it has to just be one simple argument. I also think that when it comes to public controversies, most people strongly stand on one side; there is less middle ground.
But isn't controversy partially in the eye of the beholder? Who says that just because one person is offended by something that others will agree? How do controversies really begin?
For some reason, I can't seem to think up any good reasons for these things. I guess that's part of controversies, they all seem to come out of no where, especially during a year like this: an election year.
I guess part of 2012 will be a constant conversation about controversies about what Democrats vs. Republicans have to say. Although it might not make sense, that just seems to be part of the word.
I definitely did not think it would be hard to think of a topic for our project. It was hard to think of something that everyone could really agree was a controversy. While debating topics with my group, it got me thinking: what exactly defines a controversy?
Dictionary.com defines it as "a prolonged public dispute, or contention; disputation concerning a matter of opinion." So something that the media really harps on; turn on the news and there are ton of these. The second definition was "contention, strife, or argument." This definition basically says it can be anything a person does not agree with.
To me it seems as if these two definitions clash. One says it must be a focus of public dispute, but the other just says it has to just be one simple argument. I also think that when it comes to public controversies, most people strongly stand on one side; there is less middle ground.
But isn't controversy partially in the eye of the beholder? Who says that just because one person is offended by something that others will agree? How do controversies really begin?
For some reason, I can't seem to think up any good reasons for these things. I guess that's part of controversies, they all seem to come out of no where, especially during a year like this: an election year.
I guess part of 2012 will be a constant conversation about controversies about what Democrats vs. Republicans have to say. Although it might not make sense, that just seems to be part of the word.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)