I recently began building an ePortfolio as a requirement for two of my classes and out of a personal desire to begin structuring some sort of resume, even at this early stage in my education. (For those unfamiliar with the term, an ePortfolio is an online collection of information and sample work that a student seeking an internship or job might share with a potential employer.) The ePortfolio publishing program that Penn State uses is called WordPress, and needless to say, it took me several hours to adequately familiarize myself with the program such that I could create the general “look” I wanted for my site. Looking through examples of other students’ ePortfolios and exploring the options available on WordPress introduced me to a world with which I was previously unfamiliar: the visual and rhetorical realm of Internet content marketing.

Before I actually began working on my ePortfolio, I didn’t think it would be all that difficult. After all, how was this much different from typing up a resume? What I found, however, was that this medium requires so much more than just a resume-type list. This realization was most striking to me when I had to decide on a general layout for my site. What menu items did I want skirting the head of the portfolio? Certainly I wanted a section for my academics and a section for my experiences, but did I want anything else? How could I perhaps spice up my portfolio so it was more personal and memorable? After all, in a competitive job scenario, I want my portfolio to stand out. Though I am still experimenting with different possibilities, I have realized that word choice, organization, and overall themes are extremely important for creating the right environment within this online domain.

Creating the right environment is what content marketing is all about. Just like with any rhetorical artifact, be it writing or visual arts, the goal of content marketing is to attract an audience and make an impact. The difference it seems, is the language that the medium demands. In the case of writing for instance, an author uses words alone to create meaning. In the visual arts, artists use color, line, and texture to create meaning. With Internet content marketing, the developer uses a combination of both words and design principles to create meaning, a task which requires skill and thought.

Like learning a new language, understanding and utilizing WordPress is both frustrating and illuminating. Throughout the years, I am confident that I will build an ePortfolio that I am proud to share with prospective employers and carry into my future career.

While I have personally never experienced an awkward dinner-table conversation that went awry, I have certainly been told on many occasions that there are two things one must never discuss: religion and politics. I never viewed this as stifling to American rights or American tradition, but rather, a rule of etiquette that should be followed to keep conversation polite, even if it means a rather boring exchange.

Reading Robert Jensen’s op ed “Go ahead, talk religion and politics at the table,” I can’t help but feel that his argument goes too far. Sure, it would be great if everyone could respectfully listen to others and calmly share their points of view. Experience tells us however, that this is simply not possible. In general, most people take their opinions personally, and I do not think it is possible for even the most well-mannered person to not feel some sort of negative emotion when their beliefs or opinions are being refuted. There is a reason for the societal expectation that sensitive issues such as religion and politics are not to be openly discussed, and that is an important consideration.

Because people tend to strongly identify themselves with their opinions, individuals have become fearful of refuting others’ opinions. I do not think that this is an issue of right or wrong, but instead, a matter of reality. Unless people become willing to detach their personhood from their opinions, society will continue to avoid discussion of religion and politics over the dinner table. In the meantime, the norm is simply in place to create a sense of ease within oftentimes already stressful social situations.

Discord does not just make for unpleasant social gatherings. Discord, even that that is the most ideological in nature, can result in war and social destruction. This is not to say that disagreements should never be had, but they should be handled cautiously if society is to work as a functioning whole.

I just finished watching Amy Cuddy’s “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are” TED talk, and my initial reaction was “wow.” While I haven’t seen too many TED talks, I wouldn’t be surprised if this is one of the more memorable TED talks.

There are several aspects of this talk that make it such a great rhetorical artifact. As a speaker, Amy is very likable. She is easy to relate to, and by sharing her story, she connects immediately with her audience. This kind of compassion between an audience and the speaker is essential. When an audience is sympathetic to a speaker, the speaker can feel more comfortable freely expressing him or herself. Likewise, an open audience is an easily impressionable audience. The response of the audience both during and after the talk showed that Amy succeeded in creating a strong connection with her listeners.

Amy’s talk was captivating and kept the audience’s attention. Part of the reason for this is most likely the applicability of her topic to the general audience. Everybody can relate to feeling powerless at times, and any sort of input on handling these feelings is valuable. In a way, it seemed that Amy was able to “sell” her advice by marketing it as easy to do and scientifically shown to be effective. What could be more appealing than that?

Amy’s TED talk was a success, primarily as a result of her ability to relate to her audience and effectively market her idea. “Your Body Language Shapes Who You Are” epitomizes the TED slogan “Ideas Worth Spreading.” This is definitely a talk a would share with my friends and family, not just as an example of a great speech, but also for the importance and relevance of the ideas presented.

I watched the video Adam posted on the RCL homepage on out-of-state admissions at Penn State, and I found it to be well done and very informative. I want to summarize the main points of the video as well as include some of my thoughts on the matter.

Hard economic times mean that state educational institutions can no longer support themselves due to decreased federal funding. For fear of raising tuition, state schools instead raise out-of-state admissions, because out-of-state tuition rates are higher than in-state tuition rates. Because of the anger this is causing, legislation is being put in place to cap out-of-state admissions. The problem with this, however, is that putting a limit on out-of-state tuition is undoing the solution that state schools have created to get the necessary funding. Thus, schools are neither receiving adequate federal funding nor are they permitted to accept more out-of-state students to counter the effects of the tight economic times.

Penn State hasn’t responded specifically to this concern, however out-of-state admissions have been very slowly on the rise within the past several years. Overall tuition rates are also rising, though at a slower rate than in the past decades.

Who is to blame for this? Well, no one in particular it seems. Clearly the government is not acting in the best interest of public education by capping out-of-state admissions and decreasing funding, however the issue is a little more complicated than that. Nation-wide and even world-wide economic situations are affecting and limiting the course of action that the government can take. Rather than blame, what we can take away from this situation is a realization of how global occurrences can affect us down to the pocketbook.

Another interesting aspect of this change lies in determining how a significant increase in out-of-state admissions will affect the culture of a school. Penn State is already a very diverse school, with 40,000 students coming from 135 different countries. The question now is: Would a student body with a higher ratio of out-of-state students to in-state students have any real impact on the school? Will this impact be positive or negative? Certainly, academic record is most important in determining Penn State admissions, but with a rising number of qualified applicants and lower public funding, the University is having to make decisions that may or may not have positive effects on the culture of the school.

The video concludes with the promise that whatever happens at Penn State in terms of out-of-state admissions, tuition will still be on the rise, as the University searches for funding. Cliff hanger…

On Thursday, November 1 from 6:30 – 9 PM, the State College Area School District Community Education organization is hosting a public issues forum called The Screen Revolution. The purpose of the discussion is to engage citizens in conversation about the effects of the technology age on society. The forum will be structured to resemble the traditional town meetings of early America. The significance of this event in relationship to our class is two-fold. First, the conversation is a rhetorical means of civic participation. Second, the topic of the forum is about different interpretations and the effects of “the screen revolution,” a significant world paradigm shift. While I will not be able to attend the event on Thursday, I read the three op eds that each provide a short introduction to three different approaches to the topic that will be discussed at the forum. I want to focus in on one particular op ed that stood out to me as especially important to discuss.

Be proactive in protecting your privacy in digital age asks the question: “Is it possible in the digital age to maintain personal privacy?” The basis of this argument is that the immense information capacity of the Internet can have negative consequences on the privacy of individuals. Facebook is a good example of this. Photos or statuses that are put on Facebook are very difficult to permanently delete, and continually changing Facebook settings also make privacy uncertain. Unfortunately, such a lack of Internet privacy can result in negative repercussions when personal material on the Internet is not appropriate for employers, colleagues, or even friends to view. The ease with which individuals, particularly young people, can share their every thought further magnifies the dangers of the Internet.

The solution that this op ed advocates is education about Internet privacy to children by their parents. If young adults were better informed about the necessity of Internet discretion, society would not have to rely on corporations such as Facebook to manage their privacy. A proactive approach is key to ensuring personal security.

In 1980, Beloit College started the tradition of the Mindset List. The lists consist of distinguishing characteristics of each incoming class in relation to past decades, beginning with the Class of 2002. The purpose of these lists is to trace the history of generational social thought, as well as serve as a reminder of the gap between older and younger members of American society.

Reading over the lists from the earlier years, I can relate to some of the items on the list from my recollection of life during those times. For instance, I remember the transitions from CDs to iPods, and land lines to cell phones to smartphones during the turn of the 21st. Century. While reading these lists makes me realize how little life experience I have, I also can’t believe how much things have already changed within my lifetime.

For that matter, the Mindset Lists demonstrate just how quickly and how often paradigm shifts can occur. A new technological advancement, the rise of an influential politician, or a new artist on the scene is often all it takes to dramatically change society in a short amount of time. Thus, the differences among the Mindset Lists reveal the defining moments of each year, and more importantly, how these moments have affected the outlook of young people.

Given the incredible amount of change that has occurred since the first Mindset List of 1980, I can’t help but wonder if society has always undergone these kinds of transitions. Are the fast-paced shifts of the past twenty years unique to this century, or were societal changes occurring at an equally rapid pace throughout all of social history? Is technology affecting our acceptance of new ideas and new paradigms? These are important questions to ask when seeking an understanding of the nature of progress within society.

The Mindset Lists are a valuable artifact of cultural change, and the longer the lists continue, the more insight we will have on how change functions in American society.

And a fun cartoon:

Having read over some of my classmates’ RCL blogs for this week, I can’t help but feel a little left out. Most of the blogs are written on the recent presidential debate, which I was unable to watch. Based on what I’ve read/heard, the debate was a sort of awkward conglomeration of embarrassing or misconstrued comments by both Romney and Obama. Whether or not this is an accurate depiction of the debate I will have to judge once I have actually seen it, hopefully within the next few days.

As an outsider to this particular debate, I find it very interesting to view the behavior and reactions of my peers who have watched the debate and continue to discuss it. Immediately after the debate, everyone in my hall came pouring out of the TV lounge and their rooms full of chatter about the stupidity of the candidates comments or the attitude of the moderator. Facebook and Twitter are filled with quips about “binders full of women” and other subtleties of the conversation. The rhetorical environment surrounding the debate struck me as both unique and a little strange.

Having not seen the debate, I feel that I get a more objective sense of how social media affects the political dialogue of the country. With the popularization of politics through its place in social media, it seems like the quality of politics has seriously declined. Facebook and Twitter have made making fun of candidates a new pastime. There is a problem with this however. Without the Internet, would Americans really care for example, that Mitt Romney referred to his selection of qualified women’s resumes as “a binder full of women?” Sure, it’s a bit of an awkward phrase, but does it create any serious misunderstanding or reveal some sort of unsavory side to his character? With the ease of social media, judging candidates based trivial moments such as these has become a popular approach.

Without being too judgmental, I would encourage anyone watching the debates to do so with an open mind and not get too hung up on the minute details. While presentation and word choice are definitely important parts of the selection of a candidate, try not to overlook what the candidates are saying. This is particularly challenging to do in the realm of social media, but it is a challenge I pose to all Americans, including myself.

A recent example of pathos I have witnessed is the Sarah McLachlan SPCA commercial. While most of you have probably seen this commercial, you can find the video here.

The emotional appeal of the commercial is striking. The commercial is full of film clips of animals that appeal to most people, pet-owners or not. The animals also have the effect of  grabbing the viewers’ attention. The song adds an additional emotional layer. After all, who doesn’t want to hear Sarah McLachlan’s “Angel” spilling out of their speakers, pleading for animal salvation? The facts about animal abuse towards the end of the commercial offer a final, compelling argument for supporting the SPCA.

The commercial is so emotional that to some, it is almost laughable. In this way, the commercial creates the opposite effect than intended. This is an important consideration when analyzing rhetorical artifacts. Overuse of pathos, or any tool of persuasion for that matter, can cause readers or viewers to not take the author’s message seriously. The divide between the intent of the author and the effect on the audience is one of the vital components of sophisticated rhetorical analysis.

While there are plenty of examples of emotional persuasion within writing, advertisements, and other rhetorical artifacts, the SPCA commercial is an especially clear example of pathos. Analyzing pieces such as the SPCA commercial is a good way to understand the appropriate use of emotional appeal.

I was intrigued by the class’ response to the World Wildlife Fund ad we saw in class on Wednesday. The ad was clearly powerful, as evidenced by the number of comments people had upon seeing it. Examining the relationship between the intent and the effect of the ad is important for determining the effectiveness of the ad.

What makes this ad so powerful is the shock it produces due to the comparison of 9/11 to the tsunami. Additionally, the visual component of the ad is striking. Upon first glance, the ad immediately creates an emotional response in the viewer, such that the viewer feels a sense of fear before they even notice the text at the top. The combination of topic and the visual certainly leaves a lasting impression.

From this, we can pretty accurately deduce the intent of the ad. The purpose of the ad is to draw a comparison between the devastation of 9/11 and the death toll of the tsunami. The ad uses fear to create negative incentives to support the WWF and care for the Earth. Unfortunatetly, this ad seems to cross the boundary between gentle intimidation and taboo.

As we were discussing in class, there is rarely ever a complete transfer of ideas from the creator to the consumer. Rather, most communication has some unintended consequences. This ad is a particularly notable example of these consequences. While the ad has a strong impact on the viewer, it creates a negative impression. Because of the general attitude of the nation towards 9/11, many people are offended by the insensitivity of the ad. It also is important to note that the ad was not actually created by the WWF, but rather submitted to the WWF as a suggestion. While the point of the ad was to appeal to the viewers, it instead turned them away. The WWF declined the ad, and the ad agency publicly regrets the creation of the ad.

This ad pretty clearly demonstrates the disconnect between the intention and the effect of communication. This was a great example for class discussion.