Unit 5 TOW Post #3

Documentaries have been influential to public opinion throughout history. They are defined as movies or a television or radio programs that provide a factual record or report. This style has been replicated thousands of times to suit almost every topic known to man. Documentary film can be an extremely effective method of displaying information, influencing views, and calling for action. That is exactly what Bowling for Columbine by Michael Moore did. After the Columbine High School shooting, in which 15 students and teachers were killed, America as a whole became extremely cautious and preventive in relation to gun violence. The media, newspapers and magazines reflected this. Why not an extremely successful documentary as well? Bowling for Columbine was very effective at reflecting this sense of urgency with Michael Moore’s leftist portrayal of the issue. The film was also very successful in addressing the underlying causes of the issue. This was received by the world in the movement to end gun violence that followed. Moore juxtaposes America’s culture and fixation on danger with other countries that have a much lower prevalence of gun violence. This was done through a series of successive images of countries accompanied by their respective gun death totals. The numbers continued to decrease until it got to America, where the interval increased by an immense proportion (over 10,000).  This drew great attention to the prevalence of the issue in America and motivated activists to create reforms that addressed it.  Ten years after being produced, Bowling for Columbine is still relevant, informative, and captivating. It is exemplary to the mode of communication known as documentary filmmaking. 

Unit 5 Post #2: Bowling for Columbine

On the morning of April 20, 1999, teenagers around the country woke up for school like it was any other day. For most of them, it was. Unfortunately, this was not the case for those at Columbine High School.  That day would go down in infamy as Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold (parts of the “Trenchcoat Mafia”) brought semi-automatic weapons to school and shot many of their classmates. This incident sparked a widespread debate about the issue of gun control. “Bowling for Colombine” is a film written and directed by Michael Moore that documents this issue when it was at its peak. The movie features testimonies from both extremes and all the in-between. From the head of the NRA to the victims of the shooting, a huge array of voices were taken into account with the making of this film.

“Bowling for Columbine” became one of the world’s most provocative documentaries, and set documentary box office records in multiple countries. To be such a successful and powerful film, Moore utilized various rhetorical devices to reach a huge audience about the topic of gun control. One of the most prominent of these was juxtaposition. When looking for answers to the gun problem, various responses have been given. However, when it comes down to it gun violence is most prevalent in America. Moore sheds light upon this by juxtaposing the number of gun deaths in other industrialized countries as compared with the number of gun deaths in America. Doing so creates an aura of urgency to discover the true source of such a significant difference so that legislation can be made to fix it.

Additionally, a resonating cartoon was utilized to depict the prevalence of guns in American history and culture. The cartoon basically summed up American development, from colonial times to today, through the eyes of the firearm. This showed the audience what a profound effect the gun has played on society in general. This is very important because it takes into account Moore’s opposition. There are many people who think that making guns illegal will stop gun violence, and that simply isn’t the case. Gun-enthusiasts look at the past to argue against this. While Moore wants to lessen gun violence, he emphasizes the understanding that a clear-cut, immediate answer just isn’t viable. “Bowling for Columbine” has received a huge response that has included praise and criticism as well as everything in between. The truth of the matter is, you’re going to have to watch it before you can draw any conclusions of your own.

                                                                                                  

Unit 5: Post #1

Many of the things we do in life begin with confusion. You ask yourself a multitude of questions like why am I doing this? How do I do this? What benefits will I receive through doing this? But eventually, there is that moment you just “get it.” Something clicks, and you’ve had all your questions answered. For me, my TOW assignments underwent this same process. My first couple of TOW’s were lacking in solid analysis and utilization of true arguments. For example, my TOW about the poverty rates in Brazil consists heavily of summation and introductory fluff. I spent too much time referencing the content of the article rather than analyzing the rhetorical devices used within it. As times goes on, this trend changes. This is evident through my TOW’s about the women’s’ rights and Apple.

I had a much better grasp on the TOW when I wrote my post about the Women’s Rights article in January. My rhetorical analysis was stronger than it had been months earlier. Additionally, the analysis supported my thesis “It is through the perspective of women and a commiserating persona towards society that makes the article a very opinionated yet convincing piece” effectively. It wasn’t until March, when I wrote the TOW about the Apple article, that I finally “got it.” Instead of one solid chunk of text, I wrote two separate paragraphs. The second consisted entirely of rhetorical analysis and a thesis statement that was proven through the analysis.  This was a much stronger argument than the ones in previous TOW’s. From this progression, I have mastered the ability to construct an argument about the rhetorical devices in nonfiction articles. However, there is certainly room for improvement. I can improve upon my ability to locate more diverse devices, as it appears that I have a tendency to repeat specific ones in my analysis.

For me, the TOW was a tool to better my rhetorical analysis skillset and expose my mind to a wide variety of content and genres. This was certainly achieved. I wrote about different books, articles, and visual texts over thirty times. I learned new information through the pieces, and I got better at analyzing them as the year went on. The TOW’s have allowed me to broaden my perspective and become knowledgeable about many different things.  While they may have been a pain on many Sunday nights, I am confident that I have greatly benefited from my TOW assignments throughout the year. 

"Senate Speed-Trap" cartoon by RJ Matson

The United States government was founded upon the ideals of democracy and representation. When policies are enacted, they are supposed to be for the good of the people, and everyone is supposed to be taken into consideration. There is a general track record of success in doing so. But, what if the government can't pass such policies in the first place? With the growing bipartisan tensions as well as sluggishness of enactments, this has become a growing concern. While this is evident in both houses of congress, it is specifically the case in the senate. RJ Matson, the creator of Roll Call, illustrates this important issue in his cartoon entitled "Senate Speed-Trap." Matson utilizes metaphor as well as a pun to demonstrate his argument, illustrating the issue on a very effective and intelligible level.

In the cartoon, the senate is featured as a vehicle and the police force, entitled "minority", is depicted as giving it a ticket. This analogy relates the troublesome governmental issue to the topic of traffic tickets, which is an issue most citizens have a stigma towards. Doing this increases Matson's effectiveness, for the issue now becomes something much more relatable to his audience of the "common man." Within this metaphor, there is also a pun. The cop giving the ticket says, "Yes sir, I'm afraid attempting to pass any legislation here is a "moving violation."" Moving violations are a common terminology for traffic tickets, and here it has a dual-meaning. It can also be used to show the sluggishness of senate's capabilities, so that they are prevented from being able to move in any direction. This is a clever and effective way of relating the glacial abilities of congress to the commonly hated "moving violation." By utilizing this metaphor and pun, Matson is ultimately effective in illustrating his argument concerning the restrictions that are placed on congress, appealing to the audience of Americans who have seen very little change in the past couple of years.

"Profiles in Courage" by John F. Kennedy

John Fitzgerald Kennedy is one of the most iconic presidents in American history. Being the youngest president ever elected, his enthusiastic and energetic image is one that will live on forever in the minds of Americans. There was one quality that Kennedy revered the most: courage. He believed that, in a world of politics where pressures are heavier than any other, the courage to both stand strong and to compromise is most admirable. Due to this, he authored a book about certain characters in American political history that have demonstrated outstanding courage. He begins the book with an extremely resonating introduction to the truths and myths of politics, and then divulges into the lives of six of the most courageous senators in his eyes. It is through historical anecdotes and an academic tone, which ultimately add credibility and interest to his writing.

Kennedy describes politicians that are from very different time periods, who were involved in an extremely wide variety of decisions. To aid his discussion of courage, he utilizes interesting historical anecdotes about the senators. For example, Kennedy begins the section on John Quincy Adams with a story about a letter he received from a Federalist to demonstrate the political tensions. The primary source letter was included, along with Adams's own opinion in writing. By doing this, Kennedy is telling the story through history itself, rather than acting simply as an outside observer. The following sections are then dispersed with primary sources and quotes to allow the audience to follow along in an attention-grabbing and illustrative manner.

Throughout the book, Kennedy sticks with this academic style. He will offer an argument, and then utilize the immense amount of political documents that are at his disposal. This strengthens his points greatly, and it is a very refreshing writing style for a man of such political prominence. Many politicians in the current realm often get away with blank rhetoric; using style and drawing to emotions rather than relying on the cold hard facts. For a politician to write about other politicians, this could very well have been the avenue that Profiles in Courage went down. However, by developing and maintaining such an academic tone, Kennedy is successful in not only teaching his audience but persuading them as well.

From the very beginning, it was clear that Profiles in Courage would be very hard to put down. The interesting anecdotal information as well as the overall tone is what makes it so special, and what allows Kennedy to be so effective. As I venture further into the creativity and amazing writing of the former president, I will be on the lookout for more rhetorical devices that aid his purpose of displaying the courage of his subjects.

"Bad News"- Rick Mckee

The mainstream media has become a huge component of our society. Whenever an issue arises, the public looks to their favorite news station to provide them with the information they desire. Many have a tendency to open their ears and eyes wholeheartedly, and believe whatever they are told. News stations want to be the first to report, and therefore are often inaccurate in their premature broadcasts. In lieu of the recent Boston crisis, Rick Mckee's cartoon sheds light upon this precarious relationship that the media has with its public. In the piece, Mckee uses contradictory diction and satirical tone to portray the fallacies of news networks.

The cartoon features an anchor reading the news to an onlooking American audience. Under the man, the words are written that would appear on his teleprompter. "In an exclusive, sources tell us that a suspect has been arrested and also that no suspects have been arrested and also that police have no suspects, and in fact, none of this may be true... But you heard it here first!" The man's words are clearly contradictory. He seems to report multiple stories about the suspects, with each of the following stories disproving the former. Mckee uses this diction to represent the institution of news as a whole. Every source seems to fight for the audience's attention, and in the process presents news that is wholly untrue. The final sentence also paints an air of satire into the cartoon. The anchor basically admits that he is reporting news that is completely untrue, however it is okay because their viewers heard it first. The news reporter is portrayed to be unintelligent and naive, for the entire purpose of his job is to report accurate news. Mckee points out the problem with news stations by poking fun at their tendencies. Through this contradictory diction and satirical tone, Mckee offers a successfully resonating and reflecting piece about the mainstream news.

"Don't Get Bitten by Bitcoins"- James J. Angel

Everything the world does revolves around money. It is subjected to regulation, taxation and inflation by the government. What if there were a currency that was not? Bitcoin was founded with this vision. It is an attempt at creating an online currency. If you have been paying attention in the news lately, this has become quite a controversial idea. As more and more people decide either in favor or against Bitcoin, James Angel writes in hopes of persuading people to take the latter stance and avoid the usage of Bitcoin.

Angel utilizes rhetorical questions and historical analogies to aid his organization and strengthen the claim that people should stay away from Bitcoin. He begins with a short summary, synthesizing the mass of information that is available pertaining to Bitcoin. To begin the transition into his argument, he asks "Why not turn to Bitcoins?" Many people are wary of the government controlling their money, so this is a valid question to ask. His explanation addresses his opposition. A second rhetorical question strengthens his assertions by taking a stronger stance: "So are Bitcoins the currency of the future? I think not." By utilizing these rhetorical questions, Angel is able to successfully transition his piece from objectivity to acknowledgement to argument.

Bitcoins are a unique item; there have not been very many things like it in history. Therefore, connecting it to a well-known idea allows the audience to connect the novel idea to something already in their memory. "...Printing more almost worthless money, as the U.S. did in the American Revolution and Robert Mugabe did in Zimbabwe. One can expect governments to throw up legal roadblocks to prevent such competition from cutting into the lucrative business of printing money." Angel draws connections to the future of Bitcoins and the past American Revolution and Zimbabwe economic plunders. The future implications that Bitcoins will have are unknown, and this draws negative assumptions through the possibility of repeating bad habits. Angel successfully warns people from entering into a company with such an ambiguous future. 

If Bitcoins becomes very successful, the world as we know it would change drastically. Our monetary system has remained alive because of governmental assistance and monitoring. Through effective rhetoric, James Angel successfully argues that we must prevent this from occurring.