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.