media analysis prompt

prompt:

Analyze 10 Things I Hate About Commandments (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1kqqMXWEFs) using the rhetorical terms we’ve discussed in relation with our course theme. Who created this piece? Who’s supposed to see it/hear it? What’s it meant to do? What rhetorical appeals are used? Do you find it effective? Why or why not? In what ways does medium/media influence your above answers? How does your analysis differ (or compare) to the exercises we’ve done thus far in class?

<><><><><><><>

This video fits in the genre of movie preview remixes. It remixes video from the movie the 10 Commandments to make it about a high school and the rivalries within. The video was created by a group called Smacky Productions and posted on YouTube by a user by the name of vayabobo. This is one in a large series of spoof remix movie previews on YouTube and I think it's supposed to be seen by what the creators envision the YouTube audience to be--probably fairly young people who have seen or at least heard of the movies in question and enjoy that kind of comedy.

The intent is not to persuade really, but simply to entertain and in that sense it relies heavily on pathos, on the emotional responses from audience members. Since I'm not an avid watcher of these types of videos, I'm not sure if this author is one who has done the most popular spoof trailers, but when I clicked on the author's handle, a long list was provided. I'm not sure if other people would check out a new video posted by vayabobo, but if that were the case it would be an issue of credibility--this author has done good remixes in the past and audience members might look forward to the next one.

If the intent is to entertain I think it's effective--the switches made from invented voice over to actual movie dialogue work well with the scenes chosen and cuts made within the movie footage. It's put together pretty seamlessly, which helps me focus on the content instead of the choppy reconstruction that I've seen in other remixes.

prompt 2: being persuaded

Process narrative
We’ve been talking a lot about audience, ethos, argument, and persuasion—but we don’t want to ignore real-life examples and personal experience. Write about a time when you changed your mind about something. What convinced you to “change sides”? What did you believe previously? How did you come to your new conclusion? (Did someone present evidence or personal testimony, or were you emotionally swayed?) Your responses here do not have to deal with our course theme, but if they do, please share!

|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|

I think any time I've changed my mind about something I've believed it's taken a long time. There is probably a tipping point at some time, but with any issue I can think back to all the new bits of information I received from different places and then maybe a moment when I decided to play a sort of believing game and just ponder if I actually held the opposing belief. From there I usually swing back hard, pendulum style, and it takes me a while to get back over to my newly forming belief. I eventually do though and once the pendulum has swung enough times the belief sticks.

So, an example, be it one that's a bit boring. When I first started teaching writing I didn't have any training, beyond having earned a B.A. in English, which was, at best, indirect. I did have some good mentors though who suggested things to read and it wasn't long before I was grasping at something and looked down to see I was holding onto the tip of a composition and rhetoric iceberg. I had gotten a close look at a tiny, tiny bit of the scholarship in my field and wanted more.

One of the first real debates I encountered in the research was about the incorporation of technology. Here I was, teaching writing to nontraditional students in an impoverished county in southeastern Oklahoma and though I loved computers and technology I just couldn't imagine taking away necessary time to spend on students creating websites and composing blogs or developing videos or audio essays or whatever technology-rich thing any given author was talking about at any given moment.

At this current moment I'm pretty heavily invested in teaching composition using a variety of technologies and many factors contributed to that change: I had the opportunity to see the work I do in first-year composition as rhetoric-based and how technology might support the development a rhetorical mindset instead of developing specific skills; I had the opportunity to see teachers use technology effectively, critically, carefully and teachers avoid technology when it would have been beneficial to the learning moment; I had the opportunity to be trained more specifically and thoroughly on how to use technology not once but twice; I had the opportunity to work with a different student population with different needs. After all these opportunities, and probably more, I began playing that believing game and before long realized that I had come over to the dark side permanently!

prompt 6: CP response

Commonplace response
Read any two articles from the Commonplace web site. Find something that interested you while reading these essays: maybe a strand/repetition, binary, or anomaly that struck you; maybe a rhetorical appeal (pathos, ethos, logos) that piqued your interest; or maybe even a compare-contrast across the two essays that deals with audience, purpose, or context. In what ways do these essays suit their audience, and in what ways don’t they?

|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|.|

The two essays I read for this week were Conspiracy, Casualties, and Coca-Cola and Think Pink? Or Think Profit?. Both essays address the ethics of corporate America in hopes of explaining to consumers what their stance should be. Dana Wagner's "Conspiracy, Casualties, and Coca-Cola" discusses the situation where Coke was accused of killing union leaders in Columbia to prevent workers from unionizing. She concludes that the company has been falsely accused and that we, as potential audience members for the radical group accusing Coke, need to think critically and do some research before standing up behind a cause.

Likewise, Devon Ody's "Think Pink? Or Think Profit" asks us as consumers of pink ribbons support breast cancer to make sure that the products we by are really contributing significant amounts to breast cancer research. She shows how some companies contribute very little and concludes that it would be wiser to give a donation to directly fund research and by an off-brand product instead.

Both essays ask that we spend more time doing research before we choose to buy, or picket, a product. This is obviously a logical action, and both essays emphasize an appeal to logos over ethos or pathos. The authors hope to clearly place the facts before us and allow us to choose, and, in fact, to avoid being sucked in by the pathetic appeals each is railing against. I like that they avoid doing what they're criticizing because it really makes them more credible as authors.