Ad Analysis

The ad from 1976 that I read was in support of Jimmy Carter. He ended up winning this election accumulating over 50% of the popular vote and 297 electoral votes. The message the ad portrayed was that Carter is an honest man who will bring "change" and be more "open" with the people. This is essentially the story that Carter gets across. The past shenanigans of Richard Nixon have lost the people's trust, so the "story" that the ad is that Carter is not like Nixon. The ethos based argument used in this ad has a lot to do with decorum. The people felt after Nixon resigned, that they needed someone in office who they could truly trust. In other words, they needed someone to fit into this role, or to fill this decorum. This ad emphasizes just this. By portraying Carter the they do, the ad makers allow Carter to have the right decorum to fit the job of president. Aside from decorum, the ad also slightly deals with logos. The ad talks up Carter several times on character traits that Nixon proved he did not have. By emphasizing these traits in Carter, it would not make sense why an individual would not want to elect him. Although a stretch, logos does play its cards here. The simplicity of the ad struck me as interesting. Generally, a simple ad needs not ten seconds to wrap up. This ad proved extremely simple the entire time, but it lasted over thirty seconds. That was the only other component that stuck out to me.
The ad about Obama was in support of his doings in the past. It was a response to a Republican ad that must have bashed him. The response must have been sufficient because Obama came out on top that year in the election. The message Obama wishes to get across in the ad is that what the Republicans said is not true. He says in the video that the Republicans took his comments on small businesses "out of context." Obama claims he completely backs these people because of their "sacrifice." Ethos is a big part of Mr. Obama's argument as well. Part of the book's definition of ethos is the "ability to look trustworthy." Obama surely wants to abide by this idea. By setting things straight in this ad, he informs people of the truth while gaining trust. There is a quote in the TYFA book that complements this idea well when it reads, "While logos sweats over its GPA, ethos gets elected class president." In Obama's case, he gets elected the actual president. Other than ethos, I believe the ad exercises logos also. Logos states, "the best resources come from your opponent's mouth." Obama is obviously attacked earlier with his words on small business, but he turns around his opponents words to make it seem as if he had the right idea the whole time. This ad differs greatly from the past one, because the times have changed and campaigning is a whole new animal.

"Blurred Lines" Response

This was an entertaining subject to read about. Everyone knows the song "Blurred Lines", so it allows for a seemingly universal medium to debate through. Both articles brought forth worthy arguments that made it tough on the reader to choose a side. I was slightly swayed prior to the articles, and I have stayed put in terms of how I feel about the song. While "Blurred Lines" may be rather inappropriate in terms of its content, I do believe the song is relatively harmless, and not as evil as some subjects make it out to be.
The article by Jennifer Lai discussed whether the summer tune was a "rape anthem." Lai disagreed with this statement for several reasons, but possibly the best reason can be found in the words that escape Pharrell's mouth. Lai references how Pharrell sings in the background constantly, "I know you want it." No surprise, critics hear this and immediately get the wrong idea. Lai does make a valid point about this statement. She states,"Yes, "I know you want it" could be said by a rapist—but so could “Do you want to go to a movie tonight?”" This was an idea I had not really considered until after Lai mentioned it. Lai also compared this song to other R&B works in today's music industry. While the lyrics of the song are seriously questionable, they seem harmless in comparison to some of today's lyrics. Lai feels similar, and she explains this when she states, "I've listened to the song a few hundred times (yeah, I like it, and I don't find it any more offensive than other R&B songs), and I really can't imagine it depicting anything more than a flirtatious scenario in which a cocky guy (we all know the type) teases a girl who's flirting back (she's hugging him and grabbing at him)." A song like this makes me realize the inconsistency of critics these days. Maybe because "Blurred Lines" was so popular, but many other offensive and inappropriate songs stand in the top fifty also. From time to time, you may hear a critic rip on some new popular song about its content, but it appears "Blurred Lines" has been the ultimate magnet in attracting critics. Tricia Romano does a fine job revealing some obvious reasons why many show opposition to the number one song of this past summer. Romano states early on about the obvious problems, "Not surprisingly the combination of the lyrics and the video’s nudity has irked some female music fans." I entirely agree with this statement. The nature of the song is bound not to work in accordance with everyone's morals. Romano brings this basis of opposition to light various times in her article. She implements a direct quote from Robin Thicke that works in her favor immensely. The quote reads, "“We pretty much wanted to take all the taboos of what you’re not supposed to do—bestiality, you know, injecting a girl in her bum with a five-foot syringe—I just wanted to break every rule of things you’re not supposed to do and make people realize how silly some of these rules are.”" After a quote like this, the author has to do little to persuade at all. The logic just does not appear to be there in Thicke's quote. No rhyme or reason really resounds for the events in which he mentions. While these events might "break every rule", they are surely not as bad as other works and lyrics as Lai mentioned earlier. Both authors bring up great points about the subject, but the turning point for me was the quote by XOJane's Grace Rasumus. The statement by this subject reads, "these lyrics seem more like temptation after a lame relationship as opposed to impending sexual assault." This quote sums up how I feel about this topic of debate. While some see the song as a sexual misdemeanor, it seems more of a parody, or "lame relationship" than anything.