In a moment of unparalleled boredom a few days ago I succumbed to the societal pressures of distracting myself by perusing YouTube.  As I did so, the geek/dork inside of me jumped with delight when I saw Chris Pine’s lovely face at the center of the screen to represent the brand new Star Trek trailer.  CAN YOU SAY AWESOME!?!?!?  After watching the video four or five times I began thinking about movie trailers, particularly the ones on our RCL home page, and how they communicate to their audiences.  In particular, I began thinking about how often the success of a movie trailer depends not just on how well they communicate but also how much.

The first thing that comes to mind in this regard is the JJ Abrams movie Super 8.  I never got to see the film, but based on the trailers I surmised two things – 1. It looks awesome.  2.  I have no idea what happens in the end.  That is exactly how movie trailers should be – they wet your appetite but do not fill you up.  This brings me to my biggest pet peeve regarding movie trailers – DON’T GIVE AWAY THE WHOLE MOVIE!  I think that in the rush to communicate to the audience the essence of a film and lure them to the box office, the people who create the trailers try to throw in every amazing aspect of the movie they can find.  However, when that happens the trailer ends up over-communicating.  You tell me more than I need or want to know.  In the “You’ve Got Mail” trailer (the real one) I can surmise nearly everything that will happen in the film, though I have never seen it.  That ruins the joy of the movie, for I am both no longer surprised and excited by the story that unravels before me, and I am often disappointed because every funny line the movie had to offer I had already seen in its trailer.

The creation of a trailer is a delicate art, so just as one can over-communicate, one can under-communicate as well.  For instance the original teaser trailer for the new Superman movie left me utterly baffled – it had so little information inside that I could not tell what direction the movie was heading.  Their newest trailer, however, showcases a significant improvement.  Now I understand that the film will portray Clark Kent’s journey of self-discovery, but I don’t know how that journey will end or where it will take him.  Now that’s a movie trailer.

I suppose my point is that we have spent a significant amount of time in class discussion how to communicate something, but I have yet to take the time to consider how much communication is necessary.  In movie trailers, that is the key to everything.

With all due respect to Mr. Jensen, I will most certainly avoid the topics of religion, politics, and nearly anything controversial at my holiday tables for one very simple reason: I want to enjoy my holiday.

I do understand the necessity of conversation about difficult but important topics that have baffled humanity since the beginning of time.  For that reason I often talk about politics to my right-leaning mother and left-leaning sister, (I am somewhere in the middle), and I occasionally discuss religion with my Greek Orthodox best friend and my atheist sister (again I am somewhere in the middle).  However, these conversations – in order to be true conversations – are reliant upon the players involved.  The people I have mentioned can all, for the most part, have rational and moderately respectful conversations about their respective topics, making the discussions enlightening, interesting, and worthwhile.

Essentially my uncle

Essentially my mother (but less scary)

However, these are not the only people that arrive to my holiday tables.  Our other guests, while I love them dearly, are impossible to talk to about controversial matters because they are so steadfast in their ways that they have become better at yelling than listening.  For instance, on one occasion, when my uncle and my mother began discussing Joe Paterno, my uncle declared himself correct, refused to listen to what my mother had to say, and simply began screaming.  My uncle knows nothing about this university, and likely even less about the case, yet he felt so strongly about his position that he completely dismissed my mother.  She is not one to take such things lightly, so my mother sat up straighter, raised her eyebrows, glared, and shouted back even louder until her face turned red.  Now that certainly sounds like a lovely Thanksgiving doesn’t it?  No.

Me: “Why are you yelling?!” 🙁

The right I have to discuss my opinions and beliefs is one that I should cherish – and exercise more than I currently do – but Mr. Jensen neglected to take into account the wildly important element of passion.  People, particularly the ones in my family, can become so blinded by passion that any attempt at conversation about a topic like God is pointless.  At my Thanksgiving table it would surely lead to my grandmother and sister shouting at one another, my mother stepping in to defend my sister, then my grandmother saying something insulting to my mother, and then all Hell breaking lose.  I would much rather talk about “unimportant” things – the Green Bay Packers, school, work, random funny stories, etc. – than anything Mr. Jensen has suggested, for I have never found listening to out-of-control screaming matches an enjoyable way to spend a holiday.  Our “expansive legal guarantees for free expression,” should not make me afraid to speak my mind and ask difficult questions, but my family certainly does.

Today was the last day of the Environmental Science (BiSci 003H) course that I took this semester, and it forced me to reminisce about all that I had learned in these past few weeks.  It was an extremely unconventional class – we talked often about our feelings and how we felt about the state of the world – but importantly it carried much controversial information regarding American culture and the state of the environment.  Looking back on the messages I received, I thought I could frame a few of them in the context of this class to see if these often difficult to accept perspectives could have been presented in another light.

Effective rhetoric always carefully considers the audience and how that audience will best receive the intended information.  In my Environmental Science course the audience was my fifteen classmates and myself, and the initial material presented was so radically different from anything we had experienced that we became quite hesitant.  For instance, during our very first class we performed an exercise in which we paired off and stood approximately two feet apart whilst staring into one another’s eyes.  Once we felt comfortable, one person stated, “I am here to be seen,” and their partner would respond, “I see you.”  The purpose of this exercise was to encourage us to open up our hearts and minds to the notion of “seeing with new eyes,” which would become a theme for the course.  This theme in and of itself is somewhat controversial in that the initial reaction of many would be to dismiss it as something “hippie” and therefore refuse to take it to heart.  But to present it in the manner described above – to an audience blatantly unprepared to dive into the topic headfirst – was likely not the most effective method of communication.  It thus took me several more weeks to reconsider and appreciate the idea of seeing the world through a new perspective, because the initial presentation of the material was so jarring and unexpected it became off-putting.  Had we done the exercise a few weeks into the course rather than on the first day, I likely would have been better prepared for it and thereby more open to receiving the message.

The point of this story is to illustrate the importance of the audience in regard to rhetoric and communication.  The best argument or message in the world can become forgotten or dismissed if the audience is not adequately considered, particularly if the message is a difficult one to begin with.  Thus, effective rhetoric must be malleable and tailor itself to the specific needs of each audience so the message can be properly received.

The wonderful thing about this election is not that Barak Obama got re-elected President, but that I am now officially free of the political attack ad.  These obnoxious, highly fabricated, skewed video spots (coming from both sides) will finally end and thereby eliminate my fear of television commercial breaks.  However, after watching this Wednesday’s Daily Show, where Jon Stewart skewers Fox News for twenty minutes and states it was “an election so decisive, even Florida couldn’t F*** it up,” I found myself still disappointed by the direction of our current political conversation, because no one has gotten out of campaign mode and into facts mode.

After Tuesday night’s results, where Barak Obama won 303 electoral votes to Mitt Romney’s 206, it seems that the election results have been presented as an inevitable and obvious victory for Obama.  However, that is not the election that I watched, nor is it what the results themselves communicate to me.  Throughout Tuesday night, numerous states went neck and neck.  Every time I looked up the balance of power had shifted, and CNN’s ridiculous touch screen display had the state twitching between red and blue.  There were many moments, particularly early on, when I thought Mitt Romney was going to win.  Also, given that Obama only won the popular vote 50% (60,913,498) to 48% (57,974,100), the election was hardly the landslide the media has made it seem – it was extremely close and showcases how divided our nation is politically.

Perhaps this misperception is due to the breakdown of Electoral College votes, but it seems like the duty of the media to report the results factually and without bias – maybe that is asking too much of Jon Stewart, but certainly not other news organizations.  Given the fact that Mitt Romney is not nearly as engaging and exciting of a political candidate as Barack Obama, the close results of the election should not be ignored, but rather used to understand just how dissatisfied much of the country is.  But everyone is still in campaign mode, either cheering for Obama or crying over Romney, and thereby ignoring the reality of this election.

After watching Michael Berube, Amy Cuddy, Prometheus, and the satirical “Onion Talks,” I discovered two important lessons regarding how to give a successful TED Talk; be engaging and confident, but not cocky.

I believe personally that Michael Berube’s talk about individuals with disabilities in popular culture best embodied these principles, as his talk was fascinating but not overly professorial.  The presentation’s use of visuals certainly helped in this regard, as it kept me engaged throughout the entire fifteen minutes, led me through all of his points, and made me laugh enough so that I did not feel as if I was being talked down to.   Amy Cuddy’s talk regarding how body language can affect not only how others perceive us but how we view ourselves was novel and captivating.  It perfectly captured the essence of “an idea worth spreading,” and although she stumbled a bit over her words initially, Cuddy delivered the talk beautifully, mixing humor with factual information, larger applications, and her own personal story.

The two fake Ted Talks that I watched – Prometheus and the Onion – differed from the previously described talks by instead relying on confidence to enthrall the crowd.  In the Prometheus talk, the fake CEO giving this presentation has an immeasurable amount of confidence, and that air of self-assurance made me cling eagerly to his words.  Although fictional, the talk reminded me how important confidence is in this type of presentation, when one has to stand completely exposed.  As a result, that noticeable confidence can make a talk –regardless of its content – feel fascinating, for if you seem excited and assured by your words then the audience will too.  Finally, the “Onion Talks” provided an important reminder about how these presentations, by their very design, lend themselves to the appearance of arrogance.  As the fake speaker states, “Behind every great achievement, is a visionary.  I’ll be your visionary, and you do the things I come up with.”  Thus the danger of the TED Talk emerges – sounding like a buffoon, stating implausible ideas in a self-important tone, assuming that the rest of the world will implement your ideas because of how awesome you are.

In order to survive TED Talks, one must appear engaging and confident.  However, in order to succeed at a TED Talk one must also be wary of the line between confidence and arrogance.

How this man has not won an Emmy I do not know.  Year after year The Daily Show wins the title of “Best Variety Series” at the Emmys, leaving the hilarious Colbert Report forever the bridesmaid and never the bride.  However, I steadfastly believe that Colbert is better than Stewart for a multitude of reasons.  I have learned that one important aspect of rhetoric is that how one delivers a message, particularly to a live audience, matters.  In this regard, while Colbert and Stewart may make similar comments on the state of America, Colbert’s outlandish character makes even the most serious of commentary easy and fun to listen to.  For instance, on tonight’s episode, Colbert led into a segment where he poked fun at CNN for a new study claiming hormones affect who a woman votes for by stating, “The election is twelve days away, and it is my job as a news man to bring you the most cutting edge baseless estimations I can.”  The joke makes an intelligent and timely criticism about the current state of American news, but the message is wrapped in so much sarcasm and humor that it becomes harmless.  Jon Stewart could never do that.

Furthermore, I believe that Colbert’s program is in ways better for the American people than Stewart’s.  The Daily Show is not necessarily pure comedy, as Stewart has the tendency to make very direct and serious criticisms about a wide range of topics.  Because he does not play an outlandish and obviously ridiculous character, people often take these comments too seriously.  As a result, many young people have used The Daily Show as a source of actual news.  However, as the primary purpose of The Daily Show is to make people laugh, what Stewart says does not have to be factually correct.  This lack of control over the purpose of the show and the messages it wishes to convey can lead to confusion.  Colbert on the other hand is harmless, because his show could never be misconstrued as factual.  He certainly makes pointed criticisms, but due to his ludicrous character, his comments are innocuous fun.

Colbert communicates to his audience easily, effectively, and humorously, showing great skill and creativity in the process.  Stewart, however, does not have the same ability.  His show does not maintain a consistent light-hearted tone and for this reason his message and intent can become unclear.  Therefore, Colbert is the better communicator, and the better show (at least in my opinion).

For the first presidential debate, I sat down determined to listen to it in its entirety.  I am an undecided voter, so I though it important to hear what the candidates had to say.  I got so aggravated by their random nonsensical arguments (which hardly ever related to the posed question) that I could barely sit through it all.  Then the vice-presidential debate occurred, and I had to turn off the television, because I only need to hear Joe Biden interrupt and scream at Paul Ryan so many times.  I could not bring myself to watch the most recent debate, but from what I hear it followed these same lines.

These debates have, unfortunately, become a prime example of rhetorical failure, as they do not accomplish the one thing they are designed to do – help voters choose who to vote for.  Based on the general discussion I have heard form peers, rather than bringing in the American people and showcasing truly important, elegant, and intellectual discourse, these debates have only produced disillusionment.  I walked in on my roommate screaming at her laptop screen over the absurd statements being made.  Many in the class have posted blogs containing more criticism than praise.  And I myself have both muted and chuckled at the snippets of debate I actually saw – I laughed aloud at Joe Biden’s statement regarding recent sanctions on Iran: “These are the most crippling sanctions in the history of sanctions. Period.”  Statements like this remind me that these “debates” do not intend to aid the American people in deciding which ticket is more knowledgeable and therefore qualified to lead the country.  Rather it has become a game show, where one candidate tries to knock out or humiliate the other with one-liners and the media chooses a “winner.”  That is not true rhetoric, because rhetoric requires the effective communication of ideas, connecting to the audience, and appeals to ethos, pathos, and logos.  A real debate would have these elements, and subsequently highlight the candidate who is the most fit to lead, who is the most knowledgeable, whose ideology I agree with more etc., not who has the best punch line and gets the last word.  So far, however, that is all I have seen, and it has left me hopelessly confused, disheartened, and completely unsure whom to vote for.

As I perused the Internet looking for an example of a TED talk for our upcoming assignment, I stumbled upon a speech that I had seen many years ago.  This speech is by far one of the greatest I have ever heard.  It was the commencement speech for Stanford University in 2005, and Steve Jobs gave it.

Jobs structures his speech in the form of three stories, each containing an important lesson.  First, he discusses his early life and how he initially attended Reed College.  However, due to the financial burden on his working class parents, he dropped out after 6 months, and spent the next 18 attending random classes.  As a result, he sat in on a calligraphy class and learned all about typography.  He found it interesting but thought it had no practical application.  Then years later when he built the first MAC computer he used that knowledge to add in various typefaces.  This led to his first lesson: “You cannot connect the dots going forwards, only looking back.”

Jobs’ next lesson involves his time spent away from Apple when he got fired from his own company.  He speaks of how dejected he initially felt, but that his love for what he did inspired him to keep going.  So he founded a company called Next and Pixar.  He described it as one of the most creative periods of his life because he did not have the pressure of success looming over him.  Jobs claims getting fired from Apple was the best thing that could have happened to him, which leads to his second lesson: “Sometimes life is going to hit you in the head with a brick. Don’t lose faith.” And “Keep looking [for what you love] and don’t settle.”

His final lesson revolves around death.  He had been diagnosed with Pancreatic cancer in 2004 and been given six months to live.  However it was later discovered that he had an extremely rare form of Pancreatic cancer that can be cured through surgery.  When Jobs gave this speech he had had that surgery and was fine.  The lesson he derived from his near death experience was this: “Remembering that you are going to die is the best way I know to avoid the trap of thinking you have something to lose.  You are already naked.  There is no reason not to follow your heart [. . . ] Death is life’s change agent; it clears out the old to make way for the new. Not too long from now you will gradually become the old and be cleared away [. . .] You’re time is limited, so don’t waist it by living someone else’s life [. . .] Have the courage to follow your heart and intuition, they somehow already know what you truly want to become.  Everything else is secondary.”

Jobs’ farewell message to the Stanford class of 2005 was “stay hungry, stay foolish.”

Two things made this speech incredible; first Jobs spoke in a relatable tone, and second his experiences made his lessons credible.  When Steve Jobs spoke, he did so in a manner that allowed each member of the audience to feel a personal connection to his words.  He delivered his message with a sense of great wisdom but also informality.  As a result, he did not feel like the CEO of a major corporation, but rather a man with many important stories to tell, which made each member of the audience feel as if he was speaking to him/her directly.  That type of connection makes the content of a speech all the more powerful.  The second great aspect of the speech is the fact that each lesson is derived from Jobs’ own experience, because this gives him credibility.  The concept of following your heart and not attempting to live someone else’s life is not a new one, but since Jobs faced death himself, he has the authority to speak to the audience about the importance of not wasting the precious little time we have.  As a result his words have weight, for now they do not feel cheesy or overdone but instead genuine and true.  He lived his lessons, and it forces the audience to take them to heart.

Both the words and the delivery of this speech make it extremely powerful, and one that is not easy to forget.

While I was deciding what artifact to use as the basis for our upcoming essay, I perused the Internet to find a shocking advertisement to the caliber of the World Wildlife Fund’s ad featuring 9/11.  In that search I found this heartbreaking ad also for the World Wildlife Fund that very effectively utilizes pathos to communicate it’s message.

The advertisement produces two important emotions: fear and guilt.  The focal point of the ad is the little girl in the center dressed as a young tiger.  As darkness begins to converge around her, she appears completely innocent, unaware, and helpless.  As a result, the viewer feels protective over the little girl as the threat of the gun looms, and fear strikes us that she could actually be harmed. The thought of an unsuspecting little girl being hunted and killed is appalling.  WWF turns the horror of the image onto the viewer by asking us to imagine this as the fate of our own child through the tagline, “Imagine this is yours.”

Another component of the ad is the perspective of the gunman, as he is positioned in a manner so it appears as if the viewer is holding the gun, making us the cause of this tragedy.  The guilt over this realization, and the further understanding that real young tigers die in this manner very frequently, pushes the viewer to desire action in order to ensure the animal’s safety, as we now fear for it as we would our own child.  The ad is an extremely effective use of pathos not only because it chooses and controls many powerful emotions, but also because the emotions effectively help convey a message that is in line with the values and mission of the World Wildlife Fund.

Both of the advertisements showcased in class today shock and insult their respective audiences.  At times this level of repulsion can prove extremely effective because they force us to pay attention.  However, the anger this generates must be utilized correctly, otherwise it will not coincide with the purpose of the advertisement.  Instead, this anger can backfire and grow out of control.  Based on this principle, I have come to the conclusion that despite the appalling nature of the German Aids advertisement, it is effective at utilizing the anger it creates in order to spread news about the danger of Aids.  The WWF advertisement is not intended to create anger but rather awe.  However the image is too shocking and powerful for the message and thereby creates rage directed towards the company itself.

In the video advertisement about Aids, it grabs your attention immediately and maintains it by becoming more and more graphic until it reaches its climax by revealing that Hitler is the man sleeping with this girl.  Although many in class thought Europeans would despise this advertisement, as it shamelessly pokes at one of Europe’s darkest moments in history, I believe the ad is still a good one.  It intends to shock and insult the viewer to the point where someone will become so angry that he/she will not only remember it but talk about it.  The campaign wants to spread awareness about Aids and how many lives it has taken.  An extremely graphic and insensitive ad such as this one will quickly generate conversation, and in so doing will force people to talk about the subject of the advertisement – Aids.  An agency such as this – whose lone goal is to spread a message – can have an effective vial advertisement because even if it reflects negatively on the company, the anger and conversation generated from the ad will end up spreading the company’s message.  In this context, the idea that “there is no such thing as bad publicity” is actually true.

The campaign to spread awareness about aids shocks viewers in the intended way.  However, the intent of the World Wildlife Fund’s advertisement – to shock people into appreciating the power of nature – does not match the effect because the message is not properly communicated.  The overwhelming image of dozens of planes headed towards the Twin Towers creates a sense of anger rather quickly, but the ad does not give the audience a constructive outlet to channel the anger it creates.  The pain due to 9/11 and the rage over using that event in an advertisement cannot be translated into respect for nature as WWF intends – those two emotions simply do not mix.  As a result, they have created a sentiment they cannot control, and all of the fury generated by the image is instead directed towards the company itself.  Had WWF wanted to simply spread a message about awareness – as the German Aids campaign did – the company could afford anger directed towards it because that anger would at least foster the intended discussion.  However, since the WWF is not trying to raise public awareness via anger, the ad only smears the company’s name.

Another issue with the ad is the confusion about the message itself.  Rachel made an interesting point about the fact that when initially reading the text the advertisement seemed to support efforts to help earthquake victims in Japan instead of WWF.  Oddly enough, to me that would make a more effective ad.  If that was the goal, then the initial anger and disgust most Americans would feel at the image may turn to sympathy, because we would leave with this message:

“Think of how much we have suffered. 

Multiply it by 100, and that is how much they have suffered.”

Although this is not exactly analogous it does not need to be because it creates a powerful emotion.  It forces us to remember our own pain and then apply that pain to someone else.

Advertisements with a vile intent rely on pathos, which comes with an inherent risk.  In trial law, you never ask a question you do not already know the answer to.  In advertising, you never create an emotion that you cannot control.