The Rhetoric of The Daily Show with Jon Stewart

Earlier this week, in my Media and Democracy class (Comm 110) we analyzed the roles of comics like Jon Stewart and Stephan Colbert in the media.  The role of comedians like Jon Stewart in the media is to lead people to think again about the type and quality of information they are being given, by whom, and for what purposes.  These comics in turn provide outlets to deliver news information by exposing the absurdities in the media and government.

Jon Stewart incorporates rhetorical devices constantly to appeal to the American public in a comical manner.  Yesterday were the Michigan and Arizona Primaries.  In this episode from February 29, 2012, Stewart analyzes clips from the 24 hour major news networks: Fox News, CNN and MSNBC.  Jon Stewart’s intentions are to poke fun into the candidates’ speeches and the behind the scenes work of the major news networks.  One of the particular clips he makes fun of is Rick Santorum’s speech.  Santorum continually uses the phrase “from the bottom up” to help his claims in subtle manner.  Stewart makes fun of how ridiculous Santorum sounds to the American public.  Stewart effectively communicates to his audience through his satirical roasts of government and its major media outlets.  The true question is this a form of comedy or can this be a considered a substitute for the news in a satirical fashion?  This question cannot be answered by a simple yes or no response.  All news will have a political bias.  These comedic shows just essentially help viewers to see and make sense of politics and the media.  So the next time you watch a comedic talk show like The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, I implore you to look at the exigence.  Why are they speaking and what are the motives behind their arguments?

Volkswagen Tiguan Commercial

I really enjoyed last week's assignment for rhetorical analyzing an advertisement.  I recently saw this advertisement commercial for the new Volkswagen Tiguan and I immediately felt compelled to blog about it for this week.  Volkswagen has recently been releasing advertisements with reoccurring themes with regards to safety in their vehicles.  This advertisement does the same. 

The Ad shows a sophisticated upper middle class women going to the grocery store in a tuner sports car that is probably not street legal.  My first reactions to this commercial were “What the hell is going on here?”  (I’m sorry but I do not think you will ever see a woman presented as such ever driving that type of car.)  Well it turns out this woman, is a mother who gets home around the same time as her does with her boyfriend.

 

This particular advertisement appeals mostly to logos and pathos.  At the end of the clip, the boyfriend asks the daughter, “Why do always have to take your mom’s car?” and then they present the new Tiguan, which a top IIHS Saftey pick.  It appeals to logos because it suggests the sensibility of the viewer to see when compared with the illegal street car this must be safe.  The car that is presented is black.  This is done intentionally to appeal to pathos.  Black represents authority, strength and stability.  It adds to the claim that when people see this advertisement they will see this as a safe vehicle that can be driven.  Through the color of the car and the morals of the mother, the advertisement is effective in emphasizing the safety of the vehicle. Maybe the song by Chamillionaire, “Ridin” also has an effective role throughout the clip because it is played while the mother is in possession of her daughter’s boyfriend’s car.

Valentine's Day: Commercialism, Love, or Both?

I remember the days when life was more carefree. Remember the days when you used to go around to all your classmates giving everyone candy in the shape of a heart with a card around it? It was in those days when you were innocent to the idea of what Valentine’s Day really was about. What is Valentine’s Day? Can it not really be questioned as a holiday without sounding or giving the impression that you are currently not in a relationship? Probably this is the reason why I am writing this.

In my opinion, Valentine’s Day is a day to show appreciation for the significant other or someone special in your life that you love. However, the meaning of Valentine’s Day differs upon place to place. Corporations use it as a strategy to get you to buy that “special someone” that special something. Others see it as the only other day next to Halloween where it is acceptable to eat ridiculous amounts of chocolate. There are even some that deem the alternative of it to be, “Singles Awareness Day” because those that are not in relationships see how many are currently in relationships and vice versa.

But what is Valentine’s Day? Most of us know it has something to do with St. Valentine, but is it now something different than what it was originally intended to be. I learned in catholic school that Valentine’s Day was originally a day to celebrate the saint, Valentinus, but are kids in school even being taught that now a days? I would not be surprised if this were true.

I feel Valentine’s Day is really overplayed as a holiday now. In the old days, (I feel old just for saying that) cards for Valentine’s Day used to be made by hand by the person giving the valentine. Now greeting card companies like Hallmark see it as a way to make even more money than what they normally make off of overpriced cards for major holidays and birthdays. People used to go and pick up flowers for their significant others and give the flowers to them. Now florists just deliver it to them at their work or place of residence. I guess times have changed.

The Rhetoric of the Military

Is the American Military really protecting our borders throughout the world or are we considered a super power to many because the military itself acts as a business that requires profits?  This week in my Media and Democracy class (Comm 110) we discussed the difficult relationship between the U.S. Military and the U.S. Media across history and across many points my professor allowed me to see differently regarding the Military and why we have so many military bases throughout the world.  One of the points raised was that lobbyists rally in Congress to have war or to be situated overseas to acquire defense contracts or for CEO's to obtain large bonus for their companies, but what is the percentage of the those in Congress and CEO's of large companies that have family members fighting overseas?  It is only somewhere between 1-2%. 

Many would also say that it benefits not just companies and their employees, but also Americans because it produces jobs on both ends in the private sector and in the military.  However, do the costs outweigh the benefits?  First I would like to note that I hold members of our military in the highest of regards and I have the most respect for them for what they do for our country, but is war really the answer?  When we did not find weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.  Why did we stay?  Could it of been because we wanted to maintain a sphere of influence in Iraq. 

My professor told us a personal account of his father and the Post Traumatic Disorder he acquired while fighting in World War II.  It was pretty emotional and difficult for my professor to describe events and situations in which he had to help his father go through.  I will not go into the gruesome details that our professor explained to our class, but I will say that his religious father is unable to accept the fact that he killed 11 men.  He told us that he had to wake up his father from numerous dreams in which he was back in the war.  For many religious Christians, there is an afterlife.  He is afraid of going to hell once his time comes.  PTSD is very common from those that come back from war, but can PTSD be prevented for many if there were no agendas in Congress to fight overseas.  Formally we have not been in a war since World War II, but thousands have given their lives for their country since then and many have returned home with PTSD.  The Military is not to blame at all whatsoever.  It is Congress and its agenda.  The military answers to them not the American people.

http://www.alternet.org/story/47998

This I Believe Podcast

Mitt Romney vs. Newt Gingrich

Earlier this week, we discussed Kairos in class.  I wanted to make a note of Kairos from last week’s Republican GOP debate in Florida.  Throughout the debate, the Republican GOP hopefuls were talking about the issues that Americans were facing today.  CNN had the main coverage of the debate and were giving a question and answer type poll for all registered Republicans in the audience of the debate. At one point in time, Republican GOP candidate, Newt Gingrich decided on questioning Romney about his finances and what he paid in taxes the past year.  

The crowd seemed very displeased with Gingrich and felt that really it was not the right time to be discussing what the finances were of one of the candidates and really they were right.  Even though, he made accusations of Romney as to whether he made enough in taxes prior to the debate.  During the debate, he refused to talk about explaining his accusations to his opponent because he was afraid of facing him there next to him instead of in an interview.  I am neither in support of Mitt Romney nor his beliefs towards current issues, but how is talking about someone’s personal finances relevant to what the candidates were debating about.  How is that relevant to answering the questions of registered Republicans in the audience? Or to the current issues that many Americans face?  While many may feel that tax reforms should be made for those with higher incomes, I feel it was not relevant to answering the questions of Republicans in the audience.  I felt it was wrong for the interviewer to interrogate him like that, even though he is wrong.

I agree that there should be tax reform laws, but I do not think it was the right point in time bring up someone's finances or the little they paid in taxes the past year.  Ultimately, I felt he paid for his accusations in the end, because people were chanting, “Romney! Romney!!” once the debate was over.  These chants for his opponent were reiterated on Tuesday when Republicans voted.  Mitt Romney ultimately won the Florida Primary and Newt Gingrich came in second.  I guess the moral of the story is to think before you speak. 

 

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/mitt-romney-wins-florida-primary-newt-gingrich-places/story?id=15484049#.Tys0yFz2a_h