The World May Not Be So Nice…

Last Thursday, July 14th 2016, a truck plowed through a crowd in Nice, France. This act was no accident, as so far 84 people have been reported as dead. The event took place on Bastille day, a day where the French remember the Storming of the Bastille, a key event in the French Revolution. Those in the area of the attack were watching fireworks, a usually celebratory gesture, when Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel plowed into the crowd of spectators for a span of 1.2 miles along the Promenade des Anglais. There have been many report on the details of this tragic event, marking it as the second large scale terrorist attack that has reached worldwide concern for France. This attention has been brought upon the situation by the media and social networks. While it is absolutely necessary to keep the public informed on issues, it is unprecedented for media outlets to provide incorrect or exaggerated information. The portrayal of this event, as with several previous terrorist attacks, has fallen short of global expectation due to the passing on of incorrect information and the constant trust between citizens.

While an event is happening, it is nearly impossible for newscaster to capture all correct information and details in real time, however this does not stop the broadcaster from making vague statements about nonexistent evolutions within the news story. Real time is the most inaccurate time to attempt to gain credible and detailed reports of events. Despite this, most people watch news in real time as events are happening and so, they are more likely to be misinformed about the topic. This becomes a problem when the misinformed use social media, further spreading the incorrect information. This creates a large chain reaction of other people misinforming their friends and so on. In this case, it is the media consumer’s responsibility to check the credibility of their sources, and think to use common sense.

Works Cited
On The Media. “The Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook.” WNYC. N.p., 20 Nov. 2015. Web. 18 July 2016.
OnThe Media. “The Breaking News Consumer’s Handbook.” WNYC. N.p., 20 Sept. 2013. Web. 17 July 2016.
Visser, Steve, and Alanne Orjoux. “Who Was Mohamed Lahouaiej Bouhlel?” CNN. Cable News Network, 17 July 2016. Web. 17 July 2016.
Wilkinson, Peter. “Attacker in Nice ‘radicalized Very Quickly,’ French Interior Minister Says.” CNN. Cable News Network, 17 June 2016. Web. 18 July 2016.

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Ashley Saunders

Rhetoric and Civic Life

07/01/2016

Rhetorical Analysis Essay

Many products consumed by Americans today have sprung from a dark past of malpractices and moral controversies. Take coffee for example, which has easily established a commonplace within more economically developed countries as the staple of the working world. This idea contrasts coffee’s commonplace in developing countries such as Brazil because in these regions coffee is seen as a main export and main source of work. In both areas, the same product have to absolutely separate connotations. This relates to one of the many campaigns made by the environmental conservation activists at GreenPeace International. This particular campaign was created to raise awareness of the deceptive nature of companies in the fashion industry. The investigation points fingers at GAP and other major clothing brands because of their malpractice within foreign countries. The campaign focuses on clothing factories in Indonesia that have incredibly polluted the waterways of this once beautiful country. The pollution occurring is due to the leakage of chemicals and dyes that are used to treat the fabric in the textile factories. The contaminated water is not suitable for environmental or human use; anyone using the water will suffer from chemical burns and the shores of the country have been dyed. This campaign has been effective in advocating for better fashion industry practices because of its shock factor, evidence, and presentation.

GreenPeace released a website page and several advertisements on the subject of factory based around the pollution in Indonesia beginning in 2011. At this moment in time the world was already made aware of global climate change and many took a stance on newly released environmental issues caused by humans. Since 2008 there has been a global mentality and commonplace that we must save the Earth and prevent its destruction, and as a result movements such as GreenPeace’s were easily able to be shared through the news and social media. This publicity for environmental activism was both a good and bad thing because it enhanced the spread of these movements, but it also flooded the Internet with so much information that users would not know which movement to give attention and time to. Either way, GreenPeace claims that their campaign was successful in informing anyone who would listen about the secret practices of the fashion industry, claiming that, “the campaign has been able to secure public commitments from eighteen international fashion companies: Nike, Adidas, Puma, H&M, M&S, C&A, Li-Ning, Zara, Mango, Esprit, Levi’s, Uniqlo, Benetton, Victoria’s Secret, G-Star Raw, Valentino, Canepa, Burberry, and Primark)” (GreenPeace).

This ad campaign was directed at the general public. Its success was due to the widespread response from young adults that took action against clothing brands on GreenPeace’s pollution watch list.  Many decided to advocate for the polluted areas around the world by boycotting the big brands in order to promote awareness of the subject and to promote personal health. As it turns out, not only do the toxic chemicals create hardships in developing countries, but they also remain in a majority of clothing articles that are marketed to the public. GreenPeace tested the children’s clothing from various big brands, including Disney, and found that all clothing items contained at least one trace of nonylphenol ethoxylates (NPEs), Pthalates, poly fluorinated carbons (PFCs) Organotins, and/or Antimony. Each of these chemicals are toxic to the human body, especially to children, because they can cause hormone disruption/imbalance and effect the development of the reproductive, immune, and nervous systems (GreenPeace, 3-6). This scientific argument makes GreenPeace more credible in their claims against big brand clothing because they put the effort into conducting a research study in order to greatly solidify their point. Doing so also appealed to the logos of the audience as no one would knowingly subject their children to chemicals that could possibly have a large negative impact on their life.

The unveiling of this scientific study also made the public very aware of problems with the fashion industry because it made the industry transparent by unveiling the universal damage that it causes to the countries that produce its products and to the people that consume them. The betrayal of the industry evokes pathos in many because the tragic effects of the industry are not just in faraway developing countries, but could also be seen right next to you. While the public audience may not even understand what NPEs, Pthalates, PFCs, etc. are, GreenPeace makes it clear that these things are harmful to the human body in order to evoke change in their audiences clothing choices. GreenPeace’s concern for the population also establishes its credibility with its audience because it could have just as easily covered up the stories on how the clothing industry has caused destruction.

Like many campaigns before it, GreenPeace’s “Polluting Paradise” fails to establish why factories would practice such harmful acts to people and to their environment. In Indonesia the government was not very equipped in handling cases against the fashion industry. While citizens have access to information and justice, at many times there was no information documented to obtain. Similar to people on the internet, when given executive freedom and anonymity, clothing brands adhered to making decisions based on their own monetary profit goals by motivation of low cost and low governmental transparency. While this stance is deeply in the company’s self-interest, the GreenPeace campaign did not address a reason for the company’s malpractice. In addition, the campaign also failed to identify how much it would cost each clothing brand to stop the pollution that it is causing and how much it would take to reengineer their waste procedures. The rejection of any excuse for the fashion industry makes the campaign a one sided argument that was structured to only point fingers at the fashion industry. While it is true that the leakage of chemical waste into waterways is morally wrong due to its harmful effects on humans and the environment, it is also valid that these practices save the industry money because they do not have to pay the expenses of water treatment. GreenPeace advocates in the interest of all people (utilitarianism) using the logos that it is better for all if chemicals are not leaked/dumped out of factories, and better yet, it is best to simply use alternative ways to treat textiles that do not rquire toxic chemicals.

No matter the argument presented, it is clear that the destruction caused by the fashion industry should not be continued because it puts the life and wellbeing of others at stake. This campaign was very effective in giving a call to action to both clothing companies and to the general public. The campaign came hand in hand with a “Detox Solution” manifesto which is an agreement amongst clothing brands to reduce the use of chemicals in general. They also move on to the public audience by challenging to be more educated on the places and brands that they are buying form. When put into practice this process can become a part of everyday life, thus making it civic.

 

 

 

 

 

Works Cited

“About.” GreenPeace International. GreenPeace International, 2015. Web. 28 June 2016.

“A Little Story about the Monsters in Your Closet.” GreenPeace. Issuu, n.d. Web. 28 June 2016.

“Polluting Paradise.” Greenpeace.org. GreenPeace International, n.d. Web. 28 June 2016.

 

Civic Artifact Ideas

A civic artifact is any human made relic or phenomenon that unveils the ideas of civic engagement in its time. These artifacts can be historic or contemporary and vary in appearance, message, and even time. Some artifacts hold the potential to be viewed in multiple ways while others work to impose and idea or contribute to its awareness. In this post I am going to explore three different artifacts and discuss their civic implications.

Nike-JustDoIt-560

The meaning and association of artifacts may change over time. Take Nike’s logo and motto as an example. This artifact has generally remained the same since its slogan was coined in 1988. It was derived from the last words of Gary Gilmore, a notorious serial killer: “Let’s do it”. Despite its inspiration, the Nike logo and slogan has reached worldwide status. To many, the slogan is simply a push to encourage consumers to work towards their athletic goals. As of late, the sneaker business has been booming with new designs for shoes as nice shoes are reappearing as a commodity for the modern world, especially for athletic young men. It is most successful for its marketing of the Jordan line which is obviously modeled after Michael Jordan, most notably the air Jordan models. Some groups of people may see Nike’s logo and immediately think of Shia Labeouf’s motivational speech from 2015 in which he too emphasizes the phrase “Just do it”. These two different connotations of the brand are what has allowed it to impose strong footholds in the commonplace of comedy, success, and fashion. This artifact can also be described as civic because it exemplifies the community’s humor as well as the its definition of successful fashion.

76348_126012

The second artifact is a campaign against the fashion company GAP run by Green Peace. In an investigation done in 2013, Green Peace found that GAP is one of the major clothing brands responsible for the pollution of the rivers and watersheds of Indonesia. This pollution has caused great damage to the country as well as the people because clothing factories have been dumping harmful chemicals and dyes directly into their drinking water. Green Peace created this campaign in 2013 in order to increase awareness on the pollution taking place, as well as the difficulties that the citizens of Indonesia are facing in terms of governmental representation and voice. This artifact brings the criminal practices of big businesses into the light and also identifies the lack of transparency in Indonesia’s government.

41ojcoqu1ml__sx500_

The movie Blue Gold is also about water controversies and has the same implications as the previous artifact however it explores more cases of water scarcity around the world but it dives deeper into the political side of water scarcity and governments’ reaction to this problem.

 

Sources:

http://www.greenpeace.org/international/en/campaigns/detox/water/polluting-paradise/

Blue Gold: World Water Wars – A review of an important documentary film

NOTE: I have since decided to use coffee as my artifact. It is a staple of the modern hard working world and is seen as a common commodity. I would also like to explore this artifact and the impacts that it has had on the countries that produce it (mostly spanish-speaking countries). The mass marketing of such a product has greatly impacted these countries, yet this impact goes unnoticed by mass consumers like the United States. Just a thought. (06/20/2016)