Final Blog

For my “proposing a solution” paper, I decided to target the problem of artists failing to consider how others are affected as they push past boundaries in the name of “self-expression.” My main example was the recent performance by Adam Lambert at the AMA’s. To define the problem, I discussed how offensive or inappropriate actions on a live, national TV broadcast could not only jeopardize the artist’s reputation and career but the reputation of the network as well as have a negative impact on their fans. In my paper, I wasn’t very clear on who my target audience was. Re-reading it, I kind of alluded to both the artist and the network as the audience. My solution to the problem at hand was for the artist to be aware of who their viewers are and let the network know what they planned to do in their performance. If there were a disagreement, they could work together to devise with a solution, which would still allow the artists to express themselves while maintaining the integrity and reputation of the network. Lambert should have been aware that the AMA’s were being broadcasted on ABC during Sunday night primetime. Had it been a different award show on a network such as MTV, his performance might not have turned in to such a controversy. The audience I am targeting with my new medium is the viewers at home and the networks. The medium is a magazine ad depicting a cute little old grandmother on the couch with her grandchildren watching TV. On the television would be a picture of an artist doing something inappropriate (i.e. grabbing his crotch) with a speech bubble saying “freedom of expression”, and the network’s logo is in the bottom corner. The grandmother and grandchildren have a look of horror on their faces. On the wall is a calendar showing that it is a Sunday night and a clock showing the time is 7pm. Underneath the picture would be the words “what about their freedom of innocence?” The ad appeals to the pathos of the viewers and networks by showing the shocked reactions of the grandmother and grandchildren. It makes the audience realize we don’t want our grandparents and children unexpectedly exposed to such vulgar behavior on a “family friendly” network. With the logo in the bottom corner, it appeals to the ethos of the network. They realize that their credibility as a “family friendly” station is being jeopardized. Lastly, the logos of this ad is shown through the calendar and clock on the wall showing that it is 7pm on a Sunday night, a time when families sit together to watch TV. The logos is that there shouldn’t be something so vulgar and offensive on a primetime network on a Sunday night. I chose to use an ad as my new medium for the mainstream culture because you can really get the basic point of the academic essay in one glance, instead of reading through 4 pages of argument.

Tasteful Censoring or Discrimination?

As almost everyone has heard, or seen, the recent performance at the AMA's by American Idol runner-up Adam Lambert has caused quite a controversy. The article describes his performance onstage, which included "simulated oral sex with a male backup dancer and a passionate kiss with a male keyboardist." In the article, Lambert attempts to make this a case of "discrimination" if broadcast networks edit and censor his performance for the reruns. The problem presented is whether or not it would amount to discrimination to edit out the parts of the performance that sparked this whole controversy. Lambert uses previous incidences as his fire-power to build his argument, i.e. the infamous on-stage kiss between Britney Spears and Madonna. Lambert argues that if two girls can make out on stage, why can he not make out with another male? I don't believe that the networks are attempting to discriminate against homosexual males, using Lambert as their poster-child. The AMA's and other nationally broadcasted programs are targeted for family entertainment. A male passionately making out with another male and simulating oral sex is not "family entertainment." When the Britney and Madonna kiss took place, it wasn't quite as raunchy as Lambert's and they did not simulate oral sex. It all comes down to considering your audience and having respect for them. I think an easy solution to this problem is for artists to discuss with the networks what they plan to do during their performance and either agree on it, or form a compromise.

http://www.rollingstone.com/rockdaily/index.php/2009/11/23/adam-lambert-says-censorship-of-american-music-awards-song-would-be-discrimination/

Evaluative Arguments

http://www.ew.com/ew/article/0,,20311908,00.html

I chose this review to analyze because House is one of my all-time favorite shows. Not just because it's medical and I'm a nursing major, but I'm truly fascinated by the arrogance and sarcastic, dry humor of Hugh Laurie's character Gregory House. The review analyzes the show by the depth and interest of the relationships portrayed in the show. The author dictates whether or not he felt the season was a good one based on the relationships throughout that season. While the medical plots are interesting, the author feels the foundation and therefore the success of the show is impacted by the different relationships created between the main characters, or new characters introduced into the show. According to the author of this review, the show lost some of its charm as it floated between different relationships and new characters, and away from the core relationship that the show built itself around, the relationship between House and Wilson. Now that House and Wilson are "back together," the author feels that the show is getting back to it's original quality and appeal. I tend to agree with much of what the author said. I felt the show lost a lot of its essence and charm when the original main characters were moved to kind of "sub-characters" and the relationship between House and Wilson disintegrated for a while. I think the author posed his argument well, using examples of the different relationships throughout the seasons to match his criteria for evaluation. I feel he could have given more details as to why the relationships either helped or hurt the show, but in general I think he made his point. As an avid watcher of the show, I definitely understood what he was talking about as he made his argument.

Censorship

http://www.rollingstone.com/news/story/7047694/fcc_censorship

The article starts with describing an incident in which Howard Stern was fined $27,500 for 18 incidences of "indecent material" through his radio show in 2004. In comparison to the bill that Bush was trying to get passed, this amount seems like "chump change." The bill that Bush was trying to push through increased the maximum fine to $500,000 PER violation. As the article goes on, it describes the cost of other various "indecent" incidences by other artists as equal to the cost of completely inhumane and ridiculous actions such as "illegally testing pesticides on human subjects." Others of these comparisons include "wrongful death of an elderly patient in a nursing home," "nuke malfunctions," dumping toxic waste in New York's drinking water," and "willfully placing an employee at risk of injury or death." The point of contention that the author is making is that he believes the government is making way to big of a deal about censorship. The author is expressing that it is completely unreasonable for Bono from U2 to be fined up to $500,000 for saying "f***ing brilliant" on the radio, while the biggest fine paid for by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission last year for a "nuke malfunction" was $60,000. I think this author was highly effective in his argument against the proposed plans of censorship. He uses hard evidence (ethos) and uses powerful comparisons (pathos). Personally, I'm in favor of censorship, but in moderation. There are some things that I know I won't want my future children to hear, but at the same time this bill places absolutely horrendous fines on simple swear words that are more expensive than the fines for testing poisons on human subjects. It just doesn't make sense.

Music Video Analysis

My family moved around a lot when I was younger. We've lived overseas 3 times and are now in our 4th location in the United States. While many things changed constantly as I grew up, one thing that never wavered was that country music was always in my life. My parents would always put on Garth Brooks, George Strait, and Toby Keith. When this song, "Courtesy of the Red, White and Blue" came out after 9/11, it became one of my favorites. My grandfather was in the Marine Corps for 37 years and my twin brother is going into the Marine Corps as an officer when he graduates college. With my strong personal connection to our troops, this song hit home with me. Though the lyrics are very bold and in-your-face, it's a very passionate song defending the country we live in. The use of Ethos is very apparent in this video, as it has real footage and photographs of our troops at war. Toby Keith establishes credibility for himself through videos of him playing concerts for the troops overseas. He also establishes credibility at the beginning of the song. As he is singing "my daddy served in the Army, where he lost his right eye", they show photos of his father while at war. Pathos is probably the most effective aspect in this strongly patriotic video. First of all, if you just listen to the lyrics they are full of passion for our country and the anger that was felt when it was attacked. Another way it "tugs at our heartstrings" is the footage of the troops when Toby is singing for them. You can see the emotion in both Toby and our troops faces as he sings this powerful song. I had some difficulty thinking of how this video uses Logos. I guess the best way to describe it is if you listen to the lyrics. It makes it pretty clear that if you attack our beloved country, we will be deeply angered and demand justice. The song makes it a fact.