Propaganda!

These older forms of propaganda could be considered (now) as racist and inappropriate; however when they were first published, they were accurate representations of how Americans saw their enemies (or how they were encouraged to see their enemies). Compared to the politically correct ads of today, these older posters were awfully harsh. The propaganda ads of today are easier to distribute via things like television, internet, newspaper, etc.

With the advent of new technologies, more people are able to distribute their own propaganda, unlike years ago where it was mostly the government and large organizations. It was pretty uncommon in the Forties for the average person to own a full printing press, able to make thousands of copies. Nowadays, you can buy a decent copier/printer for around $100, and make thousands of copies within an hour, as can be seen throughout our campus here at State. While most of it is just spam for kids to share their Twitter or to talk about a club, it still shows how easy it is to distribute information. Also, through sites like Youtube, people can record themselves talking about whatever they agree/disagree with, and share it with thousands of people within seconds, depending on where and how they share the link. Another good method mentioned in the prompt was a billboard. A person, or group of people, can pool their money together and put pretty much any message they want on a giant billboard, where it will be seen by thousands of people everyday as they drive.





















The propaganda available today seems to carry a much different message than its older counterpart, which mostly consisted of pro-labor and pro-war ads. Nowadays, its often something the like the PETA ad we viewed in class, which just encourages you not to eat meat, or something like the picture I shared above, trying to pick at or change someones political beliefs. It also seems to me that it isn't the government distributing the most propaganda today, its mostly private entities, such as businesses or individuals. A good example is how everyone will have you believe that the wars we are fighting are just for oil, while the government says it was to save the people of Iraq and Afghanistan from their tyrant leaders. I suppose either position could be right, depending on what your view of it is.

As for who (it seems) we should be afraid of nowadays, no person or group of people springs to mind. A lot of it falls back to what I said about the use of propaganda to push a political message, which in this case might be that people should be afraid of a political party based on their 'agenda'. Folks might also feel threatened by, or ready to fight, anyone who impedes on their freedoms, such as gun ownership or ability to smoke.

Overall, propaganda still exists in our modern world, though it might not be as harsh as it once was. Despite how it is changed or how it is distributed, it still exists only to persuade others into a certain line of thought.

The Rhetorical Triangle

Link to ad: http://wimg.co.uk/uWb.jpg

The ad I shared above uses all three sides of the rhetorical triangle in effort to sell, by today's standards, a fairly unattractive car.

The author appeals to logos by listing the features of the Capri, all of which can definitely be found on the car. One could have made sure of this by planning a visit to the dealership. They also use statistics in the form of the miles per gallon the car can achieve, which at the time was pretty impressive for that size car.

The author relies heavily on pathos in this advertisement, in order to make the car sound more attractive to audience. He lists such luxuries as a turbo-charged motor, a moonroof, upgraded tires and suspension, leather seats, and a top of the line stereo system to make you want to own this car. They also list such qualities as 'sexiness' and 'mysteriousness' to make the reader think that by owning this car, they may become sexy and mysterious. I feel that the pathos angle of this ad is the most convincing, simply because the author uses most of the ad space appealing to the readers' emotions.

Finally, the author does try to appeal to the readers ethical side. One of the subtle parts of this ad is the Ford badge, as Ford is the parent company of Mercury, the manufacturers of this car. Most of the time, people associate Ford with reliability and dependability, so they might purchase the car in hopes that they won't have to have it repaired any time soon. Another less subtle approach they take is by showing a full side view of the car, which shows that it only has two doors. Often, two door cars are smaller than four door cars, so the buyer with little space to store a new car might be more apt to purchase this car. Thirdly, the gas mileage, at 23/38 miles per gallon, is also a reason an ethical person may buy this car. The car offers performance, while delivering a very good MPG rating. Mercury backs the gas mileage up by giving an EPA estimate; an agency so reliable we still use their figures til this day.

The message in this ad is simply that if you're in the market for an affordable, sporty little automobile, then you should definitely consider this Mercury Capri. With the pictures and facts given by the ad, I feel the authors did a very good job presenting their car as one that is sporty, dependable, and affordable.

Response to "How to say Nothing"

Though the article was indeed dated, I did notice that some of the mistakes listed by Roberts apply to myself. Two that stuck out to me the most were using extra words in sentences where they aren't needed, and going with obvious content in my writings. The first mistake I do often if the piece requires a certain number of words, which was the reason given by Roberts in the article. The second mistake listed in the article that I tend to do, sticking with the obvious, is something that I had never noticed until I read this article. Using the normal responses may make writing the piece easier, but it shows that you didn't invest as much time or thought as you would have, had you picked to write about something original. From this article, I've learned to steer clear of my two usual mistakes, as well as using less padding, such as "In my opinion,", which I tend to use a lot in my papers and reports. The rest of the article was pretty irrelevant to me, due to the period in which it was written.