Right now there are a gaggle of imaginative and intelligent students at Ohio State working on Critical Rhetoric Videos, an assignment that takes Raymie McKerrow’s concept of “Critical Rhetoric,” but uses digital video instead of print to perform the critique.
(go to www.elementsof276.blogspot.com to learn more about this assignment)
In attempting to better identify which rhetorical appeals will work best for their target demographic (mostly those between the ages of 19 and 26), we consistently come back to humor. This has me contemplating the potential value of a “precursor project”–more specifically, a parodic precursor–that would focus on the strategic use of humor before moving on to a project like the Critical Rhetoric Video.
So I thought I would share with you some great examples of parody, a term the Greeks used to describe works that imitated the epics in humorous fashion, poking fun at the style of master narratives. (Just consider the etymology: para (along side of) + ode (as in “lyrical ballad”).)
These examples are astounding for their efficiency in revealing the rhetorical structures of the genre they’re poking fun at, while engaging the audience with their own set of smooth rhetorical maneuvers:
(thanks to Alex Speck, who tipped me off to this bit-o-genius)
I remember when British Petroleum changed their name to “Beyond Petroleum” in 2000. When pressed about it, I bet most could, which means that their $200 million advertising campaign worked. (Ogilvy & Mather won the 2001 PRWeek award for “campaign of the year,” if you need additional support for its effectiveness.)
One of the most successful greenwashes of all time, the rebranding of BP has led them to be viewed as one of the most “environmentally aware” oil companies. The oil leak in the Gulf of Mexico is putting pressure on this perspective, of course, but there’s good reason to believe that BP’s image will recover. They’re veterans, don’t forget: of oil clean-ups, congressional “interrogations” of weak safety measures and poor environmental records, and–most importantly–PR disaster management.
(Eric Dezenhall recently wrote about when a “late public-relations honcho for a big petrochemical company” once told him “that he knew it was time to retire when, after a spill, the CEO’s first call was to him: ‘Get up here, Harry, we’ve got a PR problem.”)
PR disaster management is where rhetorician mercenaries spring to action; these are the Navy SEALS of rhetorical situations where making the weaker argument appear stronger seems nearly impossible. The documentary Our Brand is Crisisreveals some of this rhetorical mercenary work:
So after having spent enough time vacillating between rage and despair while reading accounts of the (continuing) oil leak in the Gulf, I thought it best to go to Derrick Jensen for some words of wisdom. In Endgame (Volume 1) Jensen discusses BP’s name change, which they framed as a “statement of priorities.”
This particular type of smokescreen has been most fully developed by a public relations consultant with the appropriately named Peter Sandman. He has been nicknamed the High Priest of Outrage because corporations hire him to dissipate public anger, to put people back to sleep. Sandman has explicitly stated his self-perceived role: “I get hired to help a company to ‘explain to these confused people that the refinery isn’t going to blow up, so they will leave us alone.'”
He developed a five point program for corporations to disable public rage.
First, convince the public that they are participating in the destructive processes themselves, that the risks are not externally imposed. You asked for it by wearing those clothes, says the rapist. You drive a car, too, says the PR guru.
Second, convince them that the benefits of the processes outweigh the harm. You could never support yourself without me, says the abuser. How would you survive without fossil fuels?” repeats the PR guru.
Third, undercut fear by making the risk feel familiar. Explain your response and people will relax (whether or not your response is meaningful or effective). Don’t you worry about it, I’ll take care of everything. Things will change, you’ll see, says the abuser. We are moving beyond petroleum and toward sustainability, says the PR guru.
Fourth, emphasize again that the public has control over the risk (whether or not they do). You could leave anytime you want, but I know you won’t, says the abuser. If we all just pull together, we’ll find our way through, says the PR guru.
Fifth, acknowledge your mistakes, and say (even if untrue) that you are trying to do better. I promise I will never hit you again, the abuser repeats. It is time to stop living in the past, and move together into the future, drones the PR guru.
Speaking to a group of mining executives, Sandman, who also consults for BP, stated, “There is a growing sense that you screw up a lot, and as a net result it becomes harder to get permission to mine.” His solution is not actually change how the industry works, of course, but instead to find an appropriate “persona” for the industry. “Reformed sinner,” he says, “works quite well if you can sell it…’Reformed sinner,’ by the way, is what John Brown of BP has successfully done for his organization. It is arguably what Shell has done with respect to Brent Spar. Those are two huge oil companies that have done a very good job of saying to themselves, ‘Everyone thinks we are bad guys…We can’t just start out announcing we are good guys, so what we have to announce is we have finally realized we were bad guys and we are going to do better.’ … It makes it much easier for critics and the public to buy into the image of the industry as good guys after you have spent awhile in purgatory.”
Here’s some “reformed sinner” performance, punctuated with blame-framing and blame-shifting. It’s rather remarkable that right after Senator Wyden says, “And the company always says the same thing after one of these accidents: ‘We’re gonna toughen up our standards; we’re going to improve management; we’re going to deal with risks,’ and then another such accident takes place,” BP executive Lamar McKay responds with the exact same formula just outlined: “We are changing this company. We’ve put in management systems that are covering the world in a consistent and rigorous way.”
But why depart from the template that has worked so well and so consistently for so long?
If you find such behavior and responses (both by oil executives and the “legal personhood” of a corporation) to be best described as pathological behavior, then you might find useful the documentary The Corporation, which uses some of the key symptoms of psychopathy as outlined by the DSM-IV as an analytical lens for understanding corporate behavior:
callous disregard for the feelings of other people
the incapacity to maintain human relationships
reckless disregard for the safety of others
deceitfulness (continual lying to deceive for profit)
the incapacity to experience guilt
failure to conform to social norms and respect for the law
Oil has brought us some nice things and (to borrow another phrase from Derrick Jensen) all other things being equal, I’d like to have some of the things that are the result of oil.
“But all other things aren’t equal, and I’d rather have a living planet.”
Before I condemn the BBC for severe lack of tact, I thought it best to run it past you all first to see if I’m way off base. Check out the picture chosen to accompany an article on the US military changing it policy on “don’t ask don’t tell.”
Are we being lead to believe that these two military men are holding hands? My guess is that their arms simply appear aligned from the perspective of camera; cropping out the hands at the bottom helps cement this view.
So why this picture? Why are we being lead to associate this policy change with open-hand holding amongst military personnel? How does this picture help frame the article’s message and how we interpret the policy itself?
Right now I’m more than a bit disgusted with such a maneuver, which seems beneath such a respectable organization like the BBC. This is something we might expect from FOX, but c’mon–the BBC?!
I find this dog food commercial by Pedigree strangely alluring.
I can’t seem to look away from it. Apparently, I’m a sucker for cute dogs jumping in slow motion after a tasty treat. Does it make me so engaged that I need to run out and get Pedigree dog food? No, not really, but it does keep my attention longer than some Super Bowl ads, so it gets a thumb up for creativity.
Okay, so my research has, for a long time, focused on issues of intellectualism and anti-intellectualism in American culture. And yes, that has resulted in a quick eye for all things anti-intellectual in my surroundings. Still, I can’t be the only one stunned (and frustrated) by the new Diesel ad campaign: “Be Stupid.” I noticed it first a few weeks back when getting off the D train at West 4th Street in Manhattan. The long tunnel I had to walk through to surface just a few blocks from the campus of NYU was lined with Diesel’s new “Be Stupid” ads. Here’s a taste of what I encountered…
Um, moving past the blatant anti-intellectual message that to be cool we should “be stupid,” there’s a whole lot here that’s problematic. Women as sex objects perhaps? The preference for balls over brains? The image of “stupid” (i.e. cool) as a white middle-class youth we may presume has had the privilege of a good education? Oh, and I just love that these ads (though I’m sure they appear elsewhere) line the subway tunnel right by NYU–one of the most prestigious universities in the country.
Call me “smart,” but I don’ think this ad campaign is as “stupid” (i.e. cool) as it thinks itself to be.
I just opened a letter from one of my credit card companies and was immediately put on guard: something just seemed different.
Unlike many of my friends (but perhaps not those who consider themselves professional rhetoricians) I’m in the habit of actually reading credit card policy updates and other fine-print heavy documents, like contracts, nutritional notes–you know–“enlarged to show texture”-type stuff. It certainly isn’t born out of some rigid sense of responsibility; it’s much more of a perverse delight in how much communication is swept under the proverbial rug. (If you’d like to catch this bug, I suggest you spend sometime at Mouse Print, a site dedicated to exposing the fine-strings-attached in 8 pt. font.)
So when I read through this letter I was tickled (not sure if that’s the right word) to find out that part of its purpose was about, yep, fine print.
One of the main changes? Font size. After years of years the fine print, this one looked almost childish with it massive, clumsy 12-pt font!
Although it’s not the language that is used in the legislation, the Obama administration has been promoting a rhetoric of “Plain Language in Plain Site.”
Credit card contract terms will be disclosed in language that consumers can see and understand so they can avoid unnecessary costs and manage their finances … These disclosures will help consumers make informed choices about using the right financial products and managing their own financial needs.
Something like this is very easy to make fun of when touted as “real reform,” but I’m in a generous mood and right now I’m of the persuasion that this is a step in the right direction. For instance, who is really going to take the time to read through something like this and connect the dots:
Don’t those call-out boxes, bolded terms, and line-breaks just naturally guide your eye?! They basically interpret the information for you! Unless you’re a fine-print-freak (like moi), this statement probably goes right in the recycling bin. (Which is probably why people are shocked to discovered their rates get jacked every year without them really being aware.)
Right now my class and I are finishing up a project on data visualization, so I’m thinking about how much our credit/debt-lifestyles would change with some powerful graphs that displayed the same information in compelling ways. For example, what if you were given a graph that compared your payment to the amount of time it would take for you to get out of debt? Take data like this …
… and render it visually persuasive? What if we had info-graphic specialists that worked in conjunction with consumer protection agencies to present this information in such a way that actually made people cognizant of where their money was going?
Perhaps something like this, but even better?
(Dennis Campbell: Center for Plain Language Symposium)
What if we started to radically reimagine the use of info-graphics and data visualization to improve daily practice toward something more sane and sustainable?
What if every plastic bottle had a visually compelling graphic of how long it would stay in the earth (roughly 5,000 years) compared to how long most people usually use it (less than five minutes)?
What if every gas station pump had a bar chart that revealed peak-oil information? Perhaps a timeline of when oil actually went into mainstream production for automobiles along side a graph that showed how much is left in the earth? Maybe include how long it took to actually make the s**t?
What if trash bins had graphs that showed the amount of garbage we put in the earth? Maybe even put a mirror next to it so the person could look themselves in the eye before they committed? (Or what if trash cans were renamed to be more accurate: LANDFILL containers?)
What if instead of just the name of the country your shirt was stitched in it actually had a map with the country highlighted? Perhaps put in a dotted line that showed how far it had to travel to be put on your back? Or maybe it could have a mandatory comparison graphic that revealed how much the worker was paid to the cost of the shirt to the profit made through it?
And what if we didn’t wait for anyone else to start doing this? What if we took it upon ourselves to inform others through creative measures? What if we bettered our communities through something as simple as a compelling graphic? What if we worked together to do it?
We all know this year’s Superbowl commercials displayed a less-than-shocking theme of masculinity under attack by women/harpies–and men’s resulting desperate need to bolster it through muscle cars and micro-televisions:
Does anyone else find it kind of heartening that even the ad-men think that such versions of gender roles are making their “last stand” — and acknowledging implicitly that they’ll fall like General Custer? (Of course, they’re probably relying on another problematic subtext: it’s just a battle lost, not the war. Though that might be giving them too much credit for self-consciousness.)
It’s been great fun to have the rampant sexism in advertising called out in the mainstream media (Slate, the Times, even USA Today— especially in light of studies suggesting how unsuccessful these ads were. And I’m ready to enjoy the potential for wittier and far cheaper responses:
I dig certain parts of this: “I will make $.75 for every dollar you make doing the same job…I will catch you staring at my breasts but pretend not to notice…” In some ways, I can see that it’s pointing out how the assumptions behind these duties are equally ridiculous. Those accepted by the men in the Dodge commercial are, for the most part, basic measures of maturity (“I will shave… I will be at work… I will sit through meetings”) undertaken not as a man but as reluctant partner (“I will take your calls”?!). But the spoof’s duties suggest that what women do for the sake of their men is not about basic hygiene, but self-subjugation: “I will diet, Botox, and wax–everything… I will allow you to cheat on me with younger women”?! Hmmm. If this spoof is looking to encourage identification among women, then depending on such assumed “duties” is disconcerting. And if it’s trying to challenge the sexism of the original, isn’t falling back on superficial standards counterproductive?
I’m not sure. I’m happy to see some talk-back to those ads, and can only hope we see more discussion as a result.
In the meantime, I leave you with SNL’s hilarious take on the powers of a Dodge to recuperate the male ego:
Well, that’s what you’d think by watching anything on TV lately. If there’s remotely any down time then Jillian what’s-her-face or P90X is telling you how to get in shape. I understand that some people make resolutions (I’ve never really taken that kind of thing too seriously) and I also understand that losing weight is one of those top resolutions. So, naturally comes the barrage of work-out commercials in the beginning year. Strike while the iron’s hot!
Let’s have a bit of fun breaking some down, eh?
(Disclaimer: I am all for being fit and healthy. I just think most exercise commercials are cheesy as all get out. So, yes, look out for your nutrition and exercise regime, but have some fun with these commercial critiques too.)
(By the way, I tried looking for some youtube videos of these commercials and the first ones I got were all for funny exercise commercials. I suppose our ideal workout is to laugh our butts off.)
Sooo, yeah. The photos are fantastic, aren’t they? But, uh, none of those people looked particularly bad to start off with, do they? Just average sized people who consequently get crazy ripped by using this system. So, I guess you know who their audience is, eh? Perhaps, average sized people who fantasize about being crazy ripped? The thing that always makes me chuckle at P90X is how they glance over their Nutrition Plan. They have one and it comes with the DVDs, but they always stress the workout, which is kinda funny, because no matter how much muscle someone builds up, if they’re eating in a particularly bad way, then there will always be fat over top that muscle. So, the nutrition aspect is important, but apparently not important enough to point that out.
Jillian Michaels
I couldn’t find a video for this, so you’ll have to trust me on this one. From what I’ve seen, she’s marketing the “Jillian Michaels QuickStart and Detox & Cleanse Combo™” right now. In this commercial, Ms. Michaels stands next to a picture of her product and assures us that this product will give us a great start to our diet. It’s absolutely, positively dependent on credibility. We should listen to Jillian Michaels, because she’s that lady who helps people lose weight on The Biggest Loser. She is a professional trainer, but by using the product she won’t personally yell at you. Hooray.
Oh yes. I’m including this game, because it’s taking advantage of this time of year just like everybody else. I actually like this for its “get off your butt while playing a video game” quality and their marketing strategy? Fun. Everyone looks so happy! And it’s a family thing! Dutch Angles! Whoo!
My guess for picking her specifically is because there are still men out there who fantasize about Jenny McCarthy circa Singled Out era. She might also be that representative Mom figure to reach the women folk. I know that it’s been nice to see her mature just a little bit in the recent years as she focused more on the well being of her child and less on, you know, fart jokes.
Alright, I can’t think of any more, but I know they’re out there. Plus, there’s a load of diets and diet machinery being advertised as well. ‘Tis the season. Hmm, I wonder. Are any of these decidedly better than others? For me, I’d probably be most persuaded by Wii Fit. Why not? It’s a game, right? 😉
I’m guessing all of your eyes and minds are as exhausted as mine after a day of work, which, for many of us, contains a fair amount of web wanderings. (I’m prepping a course in digital media composition, so I get/have to spend a lot of time looking for and at teachable texts and sites. Any recommendations are always welcome!) It’s not just the wretched pop-ups or those expanding ads, but all the colors, links, sidebars, and navigation tools that distract the reader from the actual text under examination. My burning eyes and burnt brain have seemed like an inevitable side-effect, a necessary evil. Until now!
David Pogue’s “Pogie Awards for the Year’s Best Tech Ideas” in today’s New York Times introduced me to a groovy new (and, like all the best tools, free!) button for your web browser that promises, as Pogue says, to be a “real life-changer.” Readability clears all of the pesky distractions away from the central text under consideration, leaving only a simple, clean, and customizable view. Check out the difference between Pogue’s original article and the Readability version:
Pogue's original NYT article view
Pogue's article viewed through Readability
How cool is that?!?! My new year’s gift to you: some breathing room for your eyes.
Earlier this month, Facebook changed the way privacy settings work. In several posts across the web, people are talking about how the privacy changes actually limit how much Facebook users can keep private. If you’re curious about these changes, then check out ProfHacker’s “Managing Facebook Privacy Settings (Round 2),” digital inspiration’s “How to Cross-Check Your Facebook Privacy Settings,” the Electronic Frontier Foundations’s (EFF ) “Facebook’s New Privacy Changes: The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly,” or Gawker’s “The Facebook Privacy Settings You’ve Lost Forever.” (Personally speaking, it’s driving me crazy that I can no longer block updates about when I “like” a friend’s status. First of all, who cares to know that? Second of all, it’s cluttering up my profile. Third of all, that’s between me and the person I like. Ha, get it? 😉
"Facebook privacy with friend lists" by Trucknroll, flickr
We’re adding something that many of you have asked for — the ability to control who sees each individual piece of content you create or upload.
I assume what he’s referring to here is the ability to put specific privacy setting for each thing posted. If you post a status, then yes, you can determine whether it gets posted to friends, friends of friends, or everyone. You can also choose to share with specific people or choose a major group and leave out certain people. I think that is cool; however, it seems a user cannot update automatic feeds like new friends or “liked” posts. A user can delete these things off their feed/wall/whatever-you-wanna-call-it one by one, but the user no longer has the ability to say, “No, don’t add that without my permission.”
More perplexing is when Zuckerberg says this:
We’ve worked hard to build controls that we think will be better for you, but we also understand that everyone’s needs are different. We’ll suggest settings for you based on your current level of privacy, but the best way for you to find the right settings is to read through all your options and customize them for yourself. I encourage you to do this and consider who you’re sharing with online.
Um, what? First off, I hate the idea of Facebook as this benevolent dictator, who’s only looking out for their users. If that were so, wouldn’t we be able to have control over the things we already had control over—rather than having that ability taken away?
Secondly, isn’t it a bit hypocritical to warn users about who they’re sharing content with when they can’t even control certain very important things about their profiles. For instance, a user can no longer block the kind of content that would be shared with a search engine. Previously, it was possible to block someone from seeing who your friends were, what pages you were a fan of, and your profile picture from search engines. You might have been listed in a Google search, but it’s possible not much was listed. Now, there’s the option of being listed or not. That’s it. Two choices. No more.
"Facebook" by _Max-B, flickr
This, apparently, is in a move to make, as Zuckerberg says, “the world more open and connected.” Aw, isn’t that sweet? Facebook is gonna play psychologist and open us right up. The thought is nice. It’s nice in theory to think about being open and connected with the rest of the world—it really is, but merely taking away privacy controls is not going to make the world open and connected. People who wanted that privacy will just pull their content down. Moreover, Zuckerberg’s letter seems to ignore that those privacy controls will disappear. He concentrates more on the outdated network model and how changing that model will give more control to the user. Sure, I agree with getting rid of the networks, but that doesn’t mean that users have more control over their privacy settings. The two are not dependent upon each other. It’s kind of a shady look over here! (so, you don’t look over here) kinda move.
But, in the end, Facebook is a benevolent dictator. They make changes and Facebook users put up with it, adjust to it, and adapt, because they have to. At least, if they want to keep using that social network, then they have to. In this scenario, I’d say that most users probably didn’t take too much note. In my opinion, there are far too many people who are far too open and connected, so many probably didn’t even pay attention to the privacy settings when everything was first switched. And, in that case, they wouldn’t miss settings they never used. So, it’s not like Facebook or Zuckerberg would have had to do a lot of convincing for those audiences. The others, well, they’re the ones writing those articles at the top of this blog post and they don’t seem so convinced to me.
