A guide to seeing what you didn't know was there.
Hope you enjoy our video on a public contoversy!
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
When preparing my speech, I created my outline based on my essay. After I tried making the slideshow for the speech, I quickly realized that it wasn’t going to work. Because of this, and Professor Campbell’s comments, I rewrote my speech to follow a better path that was more chronologic.
With a well thought out outline, I could now rehearse my speech. To prepare for the recording I practiced my speech 4 times and fixed little comments here and there.
When the time came to record in the One Button Studio I was very confident and believe that I proved myself as a speaker. I made some minor mistakes, but very noticeable mistakes at the least.
My favorite part of my speech is the information I proved. In my speech, I have many relatable and relevant examples throughout my slideshow to make my points about packaging and the old system of beverage distribution.
The second question is “If you could do it again, would you change anything”? The answer is yes because I did. Our volume didn’t work for our group’s videos, so we re-recorded it with changes made to better the speech. Therefore, I changed the way I introduced my sources in a way that is understandable to the audience who I was referencing and where they came from.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
Speech Outline
When people think about who or what causes climate change, many are quick to call out automobiles for their gas emissions, crowded cities for their light pollution, and more recently the focus has shifted almost solely onto society for using and throwing away such copious amounts of plastic. All of these evident causes of pollution come from the consumers’ habits and how they choose to live their lives, right? Well actually, they all stem from the producers of these materials. Most people when they hear about a movie set in the 1900s imagine a milkman with glass bottles of milk, but today do not think twice about where their plastic milk jugs come from. The change in the production and reproduction systems of most packaging companies fundamentally shifted the societal consensus on the causes of climate change and global warming due to inflation, capitalism, and corporate power.
The transition from an old life-cycle system of containers to a new linear disposal system acts as a paradigm shift because of its effect on society and its view on the causes of global warming. Previously, organizations were held responsible and accountable for the disposal of their products and waste because there practically was none. However, because companies were able to remove themselves from the equation through their monopoly, society made a connection between the consumers’ purchase of the item and their immediate disposal of said product. The causes of climate change used to be the creation of waste products The only question is how to fix the wrongs that have been done. David Laibman said it best, forget the “Keep America Beautiful” campaigns, “the blame must be placed on an industrial system that generates so much waste in the first place”.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
The TEDx Talk by Will Stephen exemplifies good use of slides and exceptional delivery, the main criteria to look for in the analysis of a TED speech. To explain, Stephen’s thesis is in the title, “How to sound smart in your TEDx Talk”. The speech itself contains multiple bits of humor, which add to the overall idea that this is a template and not a legitimate researched speech.
To begin the analysis, Stephen’s Organization is unmatched in the TEDx community. Will starts his speech with an attention grabber by asking the audience a rhetorical question – “Do you hear that? That’s nothing” – immediately followed by his introduction to his thesis saying “I have absolutely nothing to say whatsoever” but explains that he will make it appear as though he does through his manner of speaking. Stephen comments on the cliche of giving a personal anecdote and asking the audience a question. This leads to the body of his speech, the slides. Will uses slides to give more information on his ‘nothingness’, all the while repeating his main argument of not having anything to speak about. The conclusion wraps up his points, explains his delivery, and reminds the audience of the thesis telling the audience that “It was nothing, and still is nothing. Think about that”.
In addition to the masterful organization, Will Stephen utilizes powerpoint slides to build his argument. The powerpoint slides reveal one point at a time. In doing so, the speaker can direct the audience’s attention and hold it where he wants (the essential skill of comedy). Comedy comes from leading the audience straight ahead and at the last minute forcing them to make a sharp left turn to somewhere unexpected. For example, Stephan explains what he is doing by revealing one word at a time on his slides explaining they are simply “Me… Buying… Time”. This allows him to make the audience laugh but does so by utilizing his use of powerpoint slides. Stephen also clicks on to numbers individually and portrays every point as unrelated. As the last example of an exemplary slideshow, he enhances his argument of speaking about nothing by explaining vague pie chart templates and irrelevant data.
Lastly, Will Stephen delivers his speech with dramatic theatrics. To illuminate, he combines physical and vocal aspects of delivery to drive home his thesis. In terms of vocal delivery, Will Stephen adds emphasis to specific ideas that have little to no meaning. By adding this emphasis, the audience feels as though what he is saying is important when it is actually not. Furthermore, towards the end of the speech, he starts to slow down his speech and adds space between each word spoken to change the tone. This drastic drop-in speed allows the audience to recognize the conclusion and become emotionally attached to what Stephen is speaking about. In terms of physical delivery, the author appears as intelligent and his speech seems well-rehearsed. The intelligence comes from his glasses that “are just frames”, which he wears to make himself look smarter. To add more emphasis and give off the impression of a rehearsed speech, Stephen employs a multitude of different hand motions and physical movement such as pacing or fixing his glasses.
As a TEDx Talk to be analyzed for Organization, use of PowerPoint, and delivery, Will Stephen’s “How to sound smart in your TEDx Talk” attacks all three categories from many different angles and with a plethora of examples.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
My first example of a paradigm shift is that of the mindset surrounding global warming and or climate change. I think that the blame was shifted from companies producing Plastic Products to us as the consumers who continue to buy them and throw them away. Essentially, consumers are flooded with information about how to reduce your carbon footprint. Although these tips will help the problem of climate change, the main issue is that companies do not want to spend enough money to recycle their glass products, thus shifting the blame on to us. The idea of the paradigm shift comes from how much power consumers had over the companies and how much power companies now have over the consumers.
This example alone indeed lends itself to a paradigmatic category, But this shift can also be paralleled to such ideas as capitalism and corporate personhood as well as the difference in humanity between the producers and consumers. Capitalism runs Our Lives and almost every aspect of Civic life. Capitalism runs political campaigns, judicial decisions, and almost any scenario that involves personal choice. Some tend to say that corporations Lose their Humanity when it comes to the bottom line of money. because of this, corporations can get away with doing horrid things, While most humans could not think of it. That is why most consumers do not push the blame towards the corporations, but rather to themselves.
My second example of a paradigm shift is the change and how Generations view their possible future. I believe that past Generations have settled their roots in one place and found no reason to move from it. That being said, current Generations, and hopefully future Generations as well, decided that they can move from home and explore different opportunities that they would not have taken otherwise. the idea behind this paradigm shift is in the regrets of past Generations, and doors not opened. Another topic to be explored is the level of relocation and philosophies/ history of previous generations.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
By 1992, two hundred thousand U.S. citizens were dead or dying from AIDS, and almost a million more were infected. Some people noticed how much we necessitated better HIV and AIDS treatment, including AIDS activists Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher. In 1992, both women delivered a speech at the Democratic and Republican National Conventions about the importance of joining the fight against HIV. Glaser and Fisher command attention from the crowd because of their masterful display of rhetoric. Glaser focused on creating a pathetic appeal with repetition and juxtaposition, while Fisher emphasized the tragedy of reality with the use of antithesis and personification. Although both speeches resonated with the audience due to their similar establishment of ethos with the utilization of Kairos and Commonplaces, they differ in their implementation of rhetorical devices.
To inaugurate, Elizabeth Glaser and Mary Fisher use their credibility, timing, and topic to make an impression on the audience. First of all, ethos appeals to credibility, which both authors express quite efficiently. For example, Glaser used pronouns such as ‘we’ or ‘America’ while Fisher repeats “I am one with […]”. The two similar approaches achieve the same effect; giving the audience a sense of relationship with the author. Furthermore, both speakers either introduced themselves or were introduced by someone else. In Glaser’s speech, she introduces herself, her history with childbirth, and how the AIDS virus complicated the procedure. Before Fisher’s speech, she played a video to introduce herself and her children, explaining how all three of them contracted HIV and must live with the consequences. Therefore, both speakers demonstrate their credibility on the topic as well as why they are speaking on it. As if the introduction did not suffice, they furthered their ethos with their kairos, otherwise known as a rhetorical opportunity. Glaser and Fisher gave their speech in the same year, 1992, less than twelve months after the death of Freddie Mercury (a public figure who passed due to AIDS-related pneumonia). The nation still mourned the death of one of the most common household names at the time. The speeches were also given in the same place, the National Convention for their respective parties. Thus, the audience of the speech already wanted change or action, which allowed the addresses to create a greater overall effect. Lastly, the speakers’ implored the ideology of commonplaces, shared beliefs amongst a community, to further their arguments. Both Glaser and Fisher related different subtopics to the overarching idea of gaining support for the treatment of HIV or AIDS. The subjects included relating children to their vulnerability to the disease, deaths of thousands and infection of millions, as well as more affordable healthcare. Children, death, and healthcare all connect with the audience and pique the interest of the viewers.
Despite the similarities between the speakers’ ethos, the speeches differ in the employment of rhetorical devices. Elizabeth Glaser primarily makes use of repetition to expose the urgency of the subject matter. Glaser begins her paragraphs with her patriotic phrase “I believe in America” followed with a restriction of “but not one […]” (Glaser). The repetitive phrases change the pace of information dispelled and arguments made, both appealing to the audience’s recognition of time and timing. Serious matters usually connect themselves to urgency, convincing the audience that there is a sense of it present in the speech. In addition to repetition, Glaser deploys antithesis to build up her argument. Glaser mentions the current administration and the idiocy of their decisions because “while they play games with numbers, people are dying” (Glaser). She uses antithesis to unveil the stark contrast in President Bush’s actions and results. Mirroring the last example, Glaser describes the epidemic of HIV and AIDS as “not about being a Republican or an Independent or a Democrat. It’s about the future”(Glaser). The speaker contrasts the subjects of the argument with antithesis, thereby directing the audience to the, in the eyes of the speaker, true subject. Glaser employs repetition and contrasts with antithesis to cement the effect imposed on the audience.
Rather than Elizabeth Glaser’s repetition and antithesis, Mary Fisher pushes her focus onto parallelism and personification to enhance her argument. Parallelism allows the speaker to capture the audience’s attention and hold it while explaining her argument. To demonstrate, Fisher uses similar wording when saying that “we cannot love justice and ignore prejudice, love our children and fear to teach them” or when describing the infected as “not evil, deserving of our judgment; not victims, longing for our pity — people, ready for support and worthy of compassion.” (Fisher). By rearranging the phrases to follow a similar pattern, she reinforces her memorable effect on the viewers. Her arguments stand out and appear to lead or direct the audience towards her main point of supporting the fight against HIV. Manipulation of word choice changes the way the listeners hear her and is much different than changing the way they understand her. Fisher also incorporates personification to paint a visual for the audience. The author carefully models the urgency of her argument in saying “Tonight, HIV marches resolutely toward AIDS in more than a million American homes, littering its pathway with the bodies of the young” (Fisher). She visualizes the ever-present danger of HIV as an army marching toward something terrible, leaving a trail of the literal bodies of the young. Additionally, Mary Fisher characterizes the disease imploring parents “if you do not see this killer stalking your children, look again” (Fisher). The image exposed to the audience serves as a warning to illuminate the significance of Mary’s address. Fisher’s capitalization of the audience’s attention with parallel word structure and vivid personification combine to create a powerful rhetorical force.
Generally speaking, good use of language and timing helps to create an effect on the viewers or listeners. Elizabeth Glaser recognized this and focused on rhetorical strategies centered around word choice and appeals to time to strengthen her effect on the audience. In contrast with Glaser, Fisher utilized comparative language and devices to make her point and create an impact on the audience. Rhetoric connects multiple groups of people and can move mountains when used correctly.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
Work Cited
“A Timeline of HIV and AIDS.” HIV.gov, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, 16 Aug. 2019, https://www.hiv.gov/hivbasics/overview/history/hiv-and-aids-timeline.
Fisher, Mary. American Rhetoric: Mary Fisher — 1992 Republican National Convention Address (“A Whisper of Aids”), AmericanRhetoric.com, https://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/maryfisher1992rnc.html.
Glaser, Elizabeth. American Rhetoric: Elizabeth Glaser — 1992 Democratic National Convention Address, AmericanRhetoric.com, https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/elizabethglaser1992dnc.htm.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
The majority of people understand the basics of HIV and AIDS; however, few understand how much bigger the issue was only 25 years ago. Activist, Elizabeth Glaser, spoke about the issue of AIDS treatment at the Democratic National Convention in 1992.
If you’re interested, you can find the speech here.
To summarize Glaser’s speech, the past generations of leaders pushed back and procrastinated the problem of limited treatment for or protection from HIV. A large percentage struggled to afford healthcare, better yet insurance to help pay for the medicine needed to fight STDs. In fact, according to the speaker, her treatments cost $40,000 per year. In addition to protecting adults who contracted the disease, Glaser urges the world to recognize the dangers newborns face when exposed to HIV or AIDS during birth.
From a rhetorical analysis of the speech itself, Elizabeth Glaser earned the hearts of every person in the crowd. She tugged at their patriotic hearts by repeating the phrase “I believe in an America, but […]” close to five separate times. This repetition reminds the audience that America is everyone’s (but so are its problems). Glaser points out that too many people hear about the subject and think “it’s not my problem”, but she drives home the idea that it is because it is a problem affecting the entire country.
On a more specific note, Elizabeth Glaser took full advantage of Kairos in her speech. The greeks define Kairos as the right time, opportunity, occasion, or season (specifically for rhetors or rhetoricians), while others define Kairos as the right time to deliver a message to an audience with the hopes of persuading or compelling them to action.
To explain, a couple supporting arguments from Glaser’s speech appeal to the emotions of the audience. Although one can argue her direct timing (closely following her daughter’s death due to AIDS and her son’s worsening condition) contributes to her argument, her indirect timing could add a different level of connecting the audience with the use of a commonplace. The commonplace referred to being the death of Freddie Mercury, the lead singer from the infamous band Queen.
Freddie Mercury, a superstar in the 1970’s and ’80s, passed away in late November of 1991 due to HIV-related bronchopneumonia. Because so many people loved and admired Mercury, Glaser seized the moment, if you will. She found the kairos, or the perfect time, setting, and audience to give her address about treatment for HIV and AIDS.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
Sources:
“HIV and AIDS.” Womenshealth.gov, Office on Women’s Health, 25 Mar. 2019, www.womenshealth.gov/hiv-and-aids.
“Freddie Mercury Short Biography” Biography Online, Biography Online, www.biographyonline.net/music/freddie-mercury.html.
Unfortunately, too many people have experienced the loss of a loved one due to cancer. According to the Center for Disease Control, doctors diagnose one in two men and one in three women with some sort of cancer.
The only problem with the aforementioned statistic is that most cancer is not intentional. A famous actor from the 1970s, Yul Brynner, was featured in a commercial after his early death caused by smoking.
You can download and watch the commercial of Yul Brynner here.
The video was especially persuasive because it delivered the perfect trifecta: Great ethos, pathos, and logos. The delivered ethos comes from the commercial being sponsored by the American Cancer Society. On the other hand, the emphasis on pathos originates from Yul Brynner himself. Brynner was one of the most prominent actors of the time, thus the audience already felt connected to him and probably did not recover from his death (which occurred only one year prior.
Lastly, the commercial contains multiple sources for logos appeal. The last sentence Brynner offers the audience is striking because he recounts that “if [he] could take back that smoking, we wouldn’t be talking about any cancer”. The full effect comes into play when we acknowledge that this statement was delivered as the American Cancer Society logo was displayed (adding additional logos appeal).
Furthermore on the subject of persuasion, the commercial utilizes the philosophy of Commonplaces (referring to rhetoric) to persuade the audience. because Yul Brynner played so many parts in so many different television shows or motion pictures, the audience can relate to this commonplace, this sort of connecting agent.
To summarize, Yul Brynner was featured in a very moving anti-smoking commercial. Said commercial focused their efforts to create a collective effect on all members of the audience. In this way, the commercial is a historic and “civic” artifact. The civic aspect of the commercial is emphasized when Brynner speaks directly to the audience and continuously says “we”.
____________________________________________
– Michael Magnotti
Part-time writer, Michael Magnotti, thrives on leading passionate people to see the world in different ways. Although Michael writes about very different topics, he uses them all as an easy-to-read guide for seeing what you didn’t know was there!
____________________________________________
Sources:
Center for Disease Control – cdc.gov