Critical Analyses

A cleverly constructed jab at lacking armament regulation

Pictured above is a rather peculiar image that circulated the Internet over seven years ago. The image was created by the non-governmental organization known as Amnesty International. The NGO made waves when they took their movement to Times Square to spread the absurd though true word that bananas are more regulated than the global arms trade.  In constructing this image, the artist forged a considerable, though provoking visual argument by way of imagery, simplicity, and brevity.

The artist cleverly crafted an image of a frowning face with images of a banana and two hand grenades. The banana – a common fruit – is strikingly contrasted as the frown against two hand grenades – weapons of war –  in the place of eyes, which instantly catches the viewers eye. Moreover, the bananas and hand grenades are largely left at the center of attention with the important text below minimized. Resultantly, the viewer can direct the majority of their attention to the face, with the short text “Bananas are more strictly regulated than weapons worldwide” succinctly clarifying the intended message with little distraction. This aforementioned simplicity by design gives way to a prominent straightforwardness, exchanging clutter and infographics for an approach akin to a political cartoon or campaign poster.

Together, these elements make for an effective political image that swiftly delivers its message in a thought-provoking manner. The argument that weapons are far less regulated globally than bananas is made clear to the viewer within seconds, and inclusions of the organization name encourage the viewer to research for themselves (becoming better educated on the topic in turn). Although images such as these are not uncommon, they are far from the norm and stand out in a sea of generic, cluttered political images that flood the internet.

James Veitch is a British writer and comedic who attracted popularity following his TED Talk linked above. For the nine minutes Veitch was on stage, he held the audience captivated and entertained with his satirical interactions with online scammers. Veitch notes in his introduction how the tendency to delete suspicious emails from obvious conmen has become the norm. Knowing this, Veitch decided several years prior to the TED Talk to break the mold and reply to the scammers. In 2015, Veitch shared his misadventures, presenting a series of emails to a TED audience as a way to promote the potential fun to be had in wasting a scammer’s time.

Veitch’s primary motive was to inspire others to do the same as he had done. Rather than discarding spam emails that land in our inboxes, Veitch  encourages us to create anonymous emails (as he clarifies in his concluding remarks) and go along with the spam emails as a source of entertainment. While meeting this end throughout the TED Talk, Veitch vastly expands the audience’s knowledge of spammers, as our gravitation towards the delete button email hinders us from understanding the psyche of a spammer. Moreover, the talk not only promotes the trolling of spammers, but simultaneously encourages the viewer to go against the grain from time to time, as the behavior can often be incredibly satisfying.

The presentation style of James Veitch provides the backbone for this compelling TED Talk. What is especially strong about Veitch’s method is his unique demeanor that signals the audience from the outset that they will not be sitting through a run of the mill TED. Veitch maintains a lighthearted presentation, with comedic injections throughout his storytelling. For example, when the spammer is sending intentionally serious emails, Veitch satiracally feigns sternness when clicking to his response on the screen behind him, typically eliciting a strong reaction from the audience. This unique approach speaks volumes of the difference between one who gives a presentation and one who gives a speech, as Veitch’s loose yet seamlessly-flowing dialogue with the audience starkly contrasts a scripted-speech.

Although the topic for my TED Talk is much darker than the playfulness of replying to spam, there is still a key takeaway from Veitch’s presentation – confidence. Veitch exudes a great deal of confidence throughout his TED Talk, demonstrating a mastery over his subject material. Because of this, Veitch’s conveyance of his message is noticeably amplified, reinforcing the importance of preparation and comfort when delivering a message to an audience.

Jon Stewart is not only renowned for his comedy, but for his considerable  affinity for public speaking and civil debate. In the clip above, the former-Daily Show Host gives a nine-minute testimony in a congressional hearing for the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. With rows of 9/11 first responders behind him, Stewart not only expresses disdain for an ineffectual congress, but successfully conveys the emotional gravity of the strenuous lengths gone to for the bill. For the sake of this post, an analysis will be conducted of a two minute segment (6:50 – 8:50) from the video that will cover Stewart’s organization, delivery and persuasive appeals.

By the 6:50 mark, Stewart is beginning to close in on his closing remarks, maintaining a strict flow from point to point. The transitions between stark reminders of 9/11’s true nature and expressed knowledge of the Bill’s pastime disregard by those in power, leading back into a crushing closing statement are noteworthy. Stewart devises a fluid, seamless sequence that holds the room captivated and on edge. To complement this, Stewart delivers with passion, succinctness, and animation. Throughout the segment, Stewart couples brief, hard-hitting statements with well timed pauses, enhancing the impact of his already thought-provoking pieces of mind. Moreover, Stewart is almost constantly in eye-grabbing motion, whether it be tapping his pen, leaning into the mic, or gesturing towards the disheartened responders. These actions play into Stewart’s persuasive appeals as well, noticeably reshaping the room’s atmosphere through different emotional conveyances. Stewart also passes through emotions that indirectly meet this end, sharing feelings of genuine anger and sadness throughout the segment. These injections aid the message with subtle, effective personalization that counterweights the otherwise raw logical reasonings.  The animated behavior, combined with an enthusiastic delivery and coherent organization are what enabled Stewart to impressively dismantle the then-unresponsive Congress.

Stewart’s and the first responder’s efforts were not left in vain, as Stewart’s words with Congress gave quickly went viral in the following days. Just one month later, Congress finally passed the bill, ending a vicious cycle of political inaction faced for years by those who were the least deserving. The speech’s popularity and tide-turning nature lend credence to the strategies employed by Stewart. From this, it is reaffirmed that delivering effective orations takes more than the subpar, and one must go above and beyond for an audience to truly notice.

In August of 2017, Andy Kessler posted an article regarding popularized studies. Kessler reminds readers that not all studies are foolproof, definitive bodies of work that provide us with eye-opening answers. To support this, he cites the research of Andrew Ferguson, who found that many behavioral economic studies from which hard conclusions were drawn were largely unsound. Ferguson noted that most of these seemingly important studies were just observations by graduate students of their peers taking part in rather trivial tasks (which he dubbed “the study of kids in the psych lab”) Kessler continued with data exhibiting 270 researchers spending four years attempting to reproduce 100 leading psychology experiments, only to successfully replicate 39 (a red flag given a standard of psychological experiments is that they must be designed to be repeated by others). Ultimately, Kessler warns of how taking “pop-studies” seriously can lead to largely unfounded conclusions, which weighs into to the current research hunt for the paradigm shift essays.

Kessler warns that studies are not binary, though conclusions drawn from them typically are. This rings incredibly true with student research, as the prospect of students not fully analyzing their sources for effective usage is not uncommon. The notion that we need to vet our sources is largely tossed out the window, mainly due to a trust in the credibility of the sources. In other words, if I am conducting research about the post 9/11 security state of the U.S., I will be less suspicious of conclusive statements by PBS or CNN as opposed to Wikipedia. Kessler may suggest that the question of credibility should always be kept in mind, as he reminds us in his closing remarks to “stay skeptical.” His article warns us that even seemingly trustworthy sources can contribute to the spread of misinformation, as evidenced by Gladwell’s academically deflated yet widely accepted “inborn bias” theory.

To evade this academic landmine, keeping Kessler and Ferguson’s words in mind when citing sources is an appropriate move. Rather than merely copying and pasting, going so far as to evaluate and cross reference data-driven conclusions with similar work will help ensure a factually sound paper. The credibility of sources, however, should not be completely disregarded, as it’s not entirely fair to assume that the likes of well-funded media would completely forgo fact-checking themselves.

Paradigm shifts can be defined as significant changes in cultural practices, attitudes, and/or values. These are typically initiated by one or more agents of change, and can occur in a variety of contexts. For the upcoming assignments centered around paradigm shifts, I will be focusing my research on the immense impact the 9/11 tragedy had on the United States. This research will span from September 2001 to the present, and will collect various forms of data (empirical, anecdotal from prominent figures and witnesses alike, etc). With this, I hope to provide a fleshed out, logically sound argument that 9/11 fundamentally changed various faucets of the American life, and has left lasting impacts on not only domestic life in the United States, but on foreign interactions within the broader international system.

The story to be told here is of the United States and its post 9/11 metamorphosis. There are a plethora of topics regarding the impact of 9/11 on the US as well as other countries, though the focus will primarily be on topics most closely related to life at home and U.S. interactions abroad. Given this, subtopics such as the effects of counterterrorism measures (i.e. USA Patriot Act, Department of Homeland Security, TSA,) and changes in foreign policy (the Global War on Terror and it’s various implications regarding the global economy and terrorism) will all be ripe for discussion. Such close investigation and presentation is merited by the simple fact that the countless alterations to our very ways of life will forever resonate with us for as long as we live in the United States.

The shift must be explored because, for better or for worse, much of the post 9/11 changes are incredibly pervasive. Understanding how and why we need to endure drawn out airport security, or extensive measures in getting a drivers license (i.e. New Jersey), begins with the changing of the guard that ensued following the attacks. Coming to grips with this concept will help us better understand how the United States transformed, as well as how the rather young sociopolitical security-state atmosphere we inhabit came to be just 18 years ago.

From Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation?

      Have Smartphones Destroyed a Generation is a thought-provoking article written by Jean M Twenge – a psychology professor at San Diego State University – that provides a substantial overview of growing technology’s impact on the latest generation. Twenge explains through various data sets and anecdotes that”iGen” is less social, less well-slept, and ultimately more psychologically distressed then prior generations. Given this, we notice that there is a likely paradigm shift occurring due to technology’s unprecedented influence over a generation. This generational metamorphosis is particularly apparent through the notable rise in depressive symptoms amongst teens, the unique spike in isolation driven by social media, and the decline in involvement in traditional teenage activities (i.e. less likely to date, and driving’s loss of appeal).

     Social media’s borderline domination over many teen and adolescent social lives has only made children more susceptible to depressive symptoms. Since 2012, boys’ depressive symptoms increased by 21%, while girls’ have increased by an alarming 50%.  These increased symptoms have been linked to entire changes in social dynamics. When teens do come together, the documentation through various social media outlets only powers the influence of Snapchat and Instagram over the iGen. Such a shocking rise transcends subtle generational shifts seen prior, thus giving rise to the idea that technology’s immense impact has initiated a paradigm shift within iGen.

As aforementioned, teens will often show off their time spent with one another, though data referenced by Twenge suggests that this time spent is not so often. Teens have evidently changed the nature of traditional teenage social life, leading today’s generation to be more likely found in their bedrooms on their phones than out and about. Consequentially, this has lead to teens feeling more isolated, and in many cases excluded, with a considerable 48% increase in girls and 27% increase in boys feeling “left out” of social gatherings in 2015 than in 2010. Such reported data can continue to evidence a paradigm shift occurring, as these feelings are derived from social media’s dominance over one’s feeling of social worth. Such a power held by a just of handful of factors in not only unheard of, but indicative of a textbook paradigm shift.

Close analysis of social media cause-and-affect leaves the subject of lost traditional activities in the air. The iGen has distinguished itself from the former generations by abandoning various commonplaces of teen life. iGen teens no longer value or seek independence as much as prior generations, and are also less likely to date. Even driving, a once incredible milestone, has more or less lost much of its former appeal, likely linked the unsually lessened care for independence.

As Twenge words it, “the twin rise of the smartphone and social media has caused an earthquake of a magnitude we’ve not seen in a while, if ever.” Despite overwhelming evidence of the technological rise being for worse, it is undeniable that the “iGen” paved the way for the increased interconnectedness of people by way of innovative technology. This, as well as the various aforementioned points, all points to the occurrence of a large-scale social and cultural shift that’s impact will be far from short-lived.

Scenarios such as these were plentiful during the Greensboro Sit-Ins of 1960.

     Pictured above is a group of students who were taking apart in the now legendary Greensboro Sit-Ins. Initiated in early 1960 by the rapidly spreading SNCC (Student Non-Violence Coordinating Committee), the idea behind such actions was to draw attention towards prominent racial segregation running rampant in the private sector. The particular location was a Woolworth’s merchandise store, a store that had a policy of barring blacks from the “whites-only” lunch counter. The protests were divided into two days, with the first day leading to police being called, though unable to act as the original four protestors had done nothing to warrant arrest. The media quickly picked up, and by the second day images such as the one pictured above circulated local newspapers. When conducting a rhetorical analysis on this captured historical moment, we find that the message conveyed is to stand tall for what you believe is right, even if the odds appear entirely stacked against you.

I will sooner than later be giving a speech about the rhetorical and civic elements behind the iconic “Tank Man” image, and as a comparison for an accompanying essay, I have chosen the Greensboro Sit-Ins as an appropriate companion. The image above is especially ripe for in-depth, rhetorical analysis and comparisons given it’s similar, though not identical nature to that of the Tank Man image. The image instantly catches one’s eye, as it is a blunt reminder of a darker side of not only U.S. History, but of our very human nature. In one observation, we may find ourselves pondering the lasting impacts of the Civil Rights movement and how such bravery lead to a societal overhaul. Yet in another, we may come to ponder how this image represents the changing of norms over time, and how we can learn from these brave men and women to “be the change” we want to see on the domestic and global stage. It is all of the aforementioned and much else (i.e. the subtle yet incredible pathos elements that it and many other Civil Rights candid shots carry) that I will be looking forward to not only analyzing, but comparing and contrasting to the “Tank Man.”

There are various elements of both images – both shared and unique – that will be subject to in-depth discussion. The most notable between the two can be divided into various sub-topics is the similar call to action through portrayals of extraordinary courage in dangerous situations. While Tank Man stood in front of an armored tank, the college students of Greensboro risked physical assault and social condemnation by the amassed mobs of white residents angered by the protests. The two images have two literally different yet socially similar contexts that together make for an interesting comparison and contrast. The two draw not only the nature of protesting as a whole under the spotlight, but humanity’s ebbs & flows through periods of evil.

 

 

 

This poster developed by “Vibe Ink” is one of many in the style of shorthand references to social issues.

     Witty and critical lines such as the one pictured above frequent various bumper stickers, t-shirts, memes, and lawn signs. In the case of this message, “any functioning adult 2020” presents a bold statement to the viewer surrounding the upcoming 2020 election and Donald Trump. The sign couples comedic relief with sharp political commentary, though this is merely scratching the surface. Upon further analysis, one can observe a direct call towards our shared ideologies surrounding the election of a U.S. president, but lack of a properly logos-centered appeal in spite of calls towards commonplaces and concise word choice.

The message behind the sign is that Americans are wanting any “functioning human” to run for president in the 2020 election to beat out Donald Trump. The image insinuates that Trump’s actions as president have been outlandish to the point that anyone but him who is “functioning” would serve as a better replacement. Beyond the clear political bias, the message plays on society’s ideology that someone running for president should be well qualified, professional, and much else but radical. We can gather from this that the sign likely appeals mores to the politically left-leaning viewer than to the right, as how exactly we interpret this ideology has since become skewed following the 2016 election. To elaborate, Trump’s average approval rating is currently only 41.7% compared to the 53.7% who disapprove of Trump as of September. Although the majority appear to disapprove, there is still the other percentage who believes Trump is doing a good job (thus challenging our views of what exactly makes a good president).

The sign in question ultimately falls short of making a considerable logos appeal to the viewers. It somewhat succeeds in carrying logical elements through its implications toward society’s commonplaces surrounding the makings of a good U.S. President. More headway is made by way of the sign’s clever word choice that will enable most to understand what is being referenced. However, these points alone are not strong enough to hold up the message in high, logical standing. Beyond the language and referenced shared beliefs, all that is left are abstract, generalized calls grounded in political bias toward the potential future candidacy and political opponents of Donald Trump.

 

An unexpected example of Kairos.   

A very recent hot topic swirling around the internet for the past few weeks has been the seemingly endless wildfires of the Amazon Rain Forest. In response to the initial lack of mainstream media coverage of the event, the internet’s reaction was impactful.  An extensive catalogue of memes of varying formats geared towards the devastating event not only provided much needed comedic relief, but inspired thousands of online users to talk about the wildfires. These memes, particularly the one above, are actually carrying considerably strong appeals of Kairos. Kairos, which refers to the “timeliness of now”, is prominent in the image above by way of its culturally relevant visual elements and intentional usage of blunt language. The result of the two aforementioned elements creates a subtle call to action by viewers to realize what is happening in the Amazon and why it should be making headlines.

The image’s visual appeals are drawn from the recent film Avengers: Endgame, which was wildly successful. The film soon become the highest grossing of all time, and thus the subject of many memes throughout social media. The meme format used is that of a scene at the end of the film, featuring an older self of a protagonist passing on the mantle of his superhero title to a close friend. The scene was very emotional (and in effect popularized) for many of the young viewers who witnessed it around the globe, so for the thousands of these same people to encounter this meme format is enough in itself to attract immediate attention. Ultimately, such a strong visual element provides an excellent complement to the Kairotic undertones of the meme.

Coupled with clever, highly effective visual appeals is the equally effective blunt language used in the meme. The meme’s first section features what Reddit has to say, which is not twisted in any obviously comedic way. Rather, the statement is intentionally straightforward and somewhat aggressive as a way to both hook the viewer’s attention and provide a subtle comical undertone. Then, the bottom half represents the old character as the “Media” responding with the original line from the scene in Avengers: Endgame (“No, I don’t think I will….”). This clever play of the original dialogue from the film helps add to the already eye-catching format, further developing the meme’s push to get online users actively thinking about the Amazonian wildfires.

The meme’s call to action is formed out of the two aforementioned building blocks of the meme itself. It should be acknowledged that the meme does make a point of the media’s incessant coverage of violent video games being partly to blame for the vile acts of the shooters of El Paso and other shootings (a claim very commonly disputed today). However, this is a more obvious, less complex call to action for the media to shift focus towards the devastating wildfires. The truly Kairotic appeal is to the online users who see the meme. It is the collective effect of the image’s relevant, cultured format and impactful word choice that accomplishes more then causes a chuckle or two. The meme creates a sense of urgency – masked by aroused curiosity – to engage in discourse about the wildfires and provide such a situation the attention it deserves.

 

 

Nivea Removes “white is purity” advert branded “racist” – by BBC News

 

 

In 2017, Nivea set forth on an ad campaign that lead to overwhelming backlash in the form of brutal online humiliation. The advertisement was to promote a line of deodorant products, and the ad’s infamous tagline was  “White is Purity,” accompanied by a picture of a white woman wearing a white robe in the background. Although one could somewhat understand what Nivea was going for (cleanliness and whatnot), the advertisement was an utter failure due to it’s unintended, though incredibly racist subliminal message, it’s poor visual elements, and it’s inability to connect with the core audience.

Nivea vehemently denied any racist intentions once backlash forced them to take down the post, however their advertisement still left a negative impact on the company’s reputation. The message intended was likely purity as in cleanliness that only Nivea’s products can guarantee, however the message delivered was more along the lines of allusions to white power. In fact, White supremacist groups quickly jumped to the opportunity to call out  Nivea on this, and comment on how they “supported the new direction the company was taking.” Other consumers scorned the company for the supposed message, with many tweeting out questions as to how the advertisement could have possibly been ok’d at all.

The visual elements of “White is Purity” further complicated the already dangerous situation Nivea found themselves in. The use of a white woman wearing a completely white robe continued to drive home the already offensive “White is Purity” tagline. Thus, the combination of the two as one image undoubtedly worsened the situation for Nivea, making everything appear all the more racist to the consumers who first encountered the image online.

The combination of visual elements and tagline of the advertisement is what lead into the ad’s failure to connect with it’s core audience. Nivea stated following the backlash that “diversity and inclusiveness are crucial values” of their company. Thus, there advertisement was intended to connect with their like-minded, forward thinking audience, but due to it’s poor imagery and delivery, attracted totally unwanted attention from white supremacists. The ensuing trending of NIVEA by these hate groups further enraged their target audience, ensuring the ads complete and utter failure.