Saturday, January 8, 2011
Journal 2
How do arguments based on emotion work in different media? Are such arguments more or less effective in books, articles, television (news and entertainment), films, brochures, magazines, email, websites, etc? You might explore how a single medium handles emotional appeals or compare different media. For example, does a commercial for a product effect you more than a magazine advertisements of the same product? Why do think that is? Similarly, why do you think Internet newsgroups or bloggers seem to encourage angry outbursts versus our newspapers and television news programs? These are just examples so don't feel compelled to answer to those questions but your answer should address how you think appeals to pathos work different (or not) in different media.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
In my opinion, emotion works differently in all sorts of media, but it’s most effective in pictures and television. Hearing and seeing Martin Luther King Jr. deliver his famous “I Have a Dream” speech evokes stronger emotions than reading the speech itself. Hearing his powerful and prosperous voice and seeing all of his believers in front of the Lincoln Memorial is something almost impossible to recreate in words. For instance, it’s nearly impossible to recreate, the look and tears running down Jesse Jackson’s face on the historic night of November 4, 2008 in Chicago, as president elect Barack Obama stepped out onto the stage declaring victory. Video allows watchers to feel the moment and be a part of the emotions felt at that time, therefore using emotion to build bridges. Although cliché, the saying “a picture is worth a thousand words” applies perfectly to this situation. Political cartoons are a perfect example of both using humor and pictures to prove a point and bring out readers emotions.
ReplyDeleteI believe Internet newsgroups and bloggers seem to encourage angry outbursts in comparison to most major newspapers and magazines because of the nature of their reputation and their followers. Internet newsgroups and bloggers are able to target a specific group of people interested enough in the topic to research it on the Internet. Most newsgroups and blogs are able to appeal to their readers in an uncensored manner, provoking stronger emotions from those already engaged in the topic. They are much more likely to connect with their readers on an emotional level and therefore use emotions to sustain arguments and use arguments based on emotions. Most major newspapers and magazines on the other hand, are much more censored and in a way “politically correct”; they have an unbiased imagine to uphold which makes encouraging strong reactions difficult. Most magazines and newspapers serve a broader group of readers not all of which may be interested in the topic, nor share the same opinion. Most major magazines and newspapers may be considered to be trustworthy and must maintain a reputation, therefore, rarely do they use emotions to insinuate, provoke, or encourage angry outbursts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI believe that the most effective sources of an argument are whatever option is most accessible in our daily lives. For example, someone who works with computers all day long would more likely be influenced by an Internet ad rather than something in a magazine. In addition, the arguments that go into more detail would have a stronger appeal to the audience. If there was a commercial for a cleaning supplies and it demonstrates how it works, would that not be a lot more invoking than picking up a newspaper add that is lifeless? The more accessible the type of media is to our society determines which option would appeal the most.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Diego’s post, I strongly agree that television is the most effective way of appealing, however, pictures may not always be the case. If it was a picture of a famous speech such as the one Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. gave, then it will draw attention. However, if it is just a plain picture it will not be as effective. Television takes the topic and expands on it, such as showing videos or clips to appeal to the audience, therefore, it has a much greater effect.
Arguments based on emotion are effective through various types of media. However, some media affect others much more strongly. Viewing images of starving children or warfare on television are much more powerful than reading about what is taking place in an article. Just reading something allows your imagination to play a factor in what you see but what you feel from the image you created may be less than how the actual image is supposed to affect you. Even commercials for products have more of an effect on people than just looking at the product in a catalog. Young children will be a prime example of an argument based on emotion that is effective. When they see a commercial for a toy they would like to get, there is always a tune that they can sing-a-long to and images of other children enjoying the toy will influence them to want to buy the toy even more. Arguments of emotion in books or magazines can be more effective than just viewing images based on the enlargement of titles or words that draw the attention of the readers and make them think. Internet newsgroups and bloggers seem to encourage angry outbursts versus our newspapers and television news programs because newspapers and television news programs are there to inform people about an issue that occurred. Bloggers and internet newsgroups are specific areas where people can express themselves and there aren’t certain rules and regulations that hold them back from saying what they want to say. It is more effective place to hear opposing views of a topic.
ReplyDeleteI agree with what mab10f posted. The more effective an argument will be to a person really is based on what is accessible to him or her. Those involved in technology on a day to day basis such as computer technicians or accountants would surely be more influenced by the Internet. People who work in coal mines will easily come across a newspaper article than a commercial on a television screen because there will be newsstands that are near them. Even people in undeveloped countries will be more affected by an article written in the newspaper than from arguments of emotion in a commercial because not everyone has that kind of media within their possession. The example about the cleaning supplies is so true because it really is more effective to people when there is a demonstration on how good or bad the product may be against others. People don’t really like to read that much so watching the cleaning supply put into action is much more beneficial. So yes, if there was a commercial for cleaning supplies that demonstrates how it works, it would me a lot more invoking to the audience than picking up a newspaper. Arguments based on emotions can be found everywhere but are more prominent in images such as commercials or billboards. Anyone can view them but not everyone has the ability to view them.
I believe that appeals to pathos all generally work the same. I think that in different situations certain mediums of media work better. For example, a picture of the '68 Black Power salute is effective just as a picture to protest black poverty. If someone tried to describe the event that took place, I do not think it would have had the same effect. However, I think that when it comes to appealing to emotion using an anecdote, words are better. The reading referenced a speech made by Steve Jobs where he appealed to the audience by telling three stories from his life. So i believe that for different situations, different means of media are effective. I also think that something can be more effective depending on the person. Some people can be more effected by words than by looking at a visual. So i find it hard to believe that any one form of media is more effective. When it comes to being more effective, i think that what ever source of media is more readily available will be the most effective. Millions of people watch television and use the internet, but not as many people read magazines or newspapers. So arguments on television or the internet may be considered more effective because they hit a larger group of people. Just think of how many advertisements you see in a couple minutes of web browsing or channel surfing.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mab10f, i agree that the effectiveness of an argument depends on the accessibility. That the most effective means of appealing to pathos is the one that is the most abundant.
ReplyDeleteI think arguments based on pathos work extremely well in different types of media. When commercials, magazines, and speeches use certain words and images to evoke emotions from their audience they can make people feel happy or unhappy with themselves. Also, triggering a person's emotions can persuade them to take action and even convince people to buy things. For example, many of the songs on Taylor Swift’s albums are about falling in love and heartbreak, so when listeners hear her music and read into her lyrics many of them can relate so well. This is an extremely effective use of pathos because when listeners can relate their own situations to Taylor Swift's songs, it triggers many emotions, such as love, sadness, and even happiness. Because Taylor Swift’s music triggers those emotions it also poses as a way to convince listeners to become fans and buy her album.
ReplyDeleteIn "Arguments Based on Emotion: Pathos" the text reveals how humor also plays a key role in argument. In my opinion, humor is very effective in all types of media because it puts people at ease and it assists in making a point, good or bad.
I do think that different types of media can be more or less effective, depending on what is being advertised. For instance, I feel a commercial for almost any product would be more effective than a magazine article at persuading someone to purchase something because it goes more in depth about the product. On the other hand, I think magazine advertisements for products like food are far more effective than commercials. I feel they are more effective because the close up, detailed photo of the food will make your mouth water and tempt you to go buy it. All in all, emotions in any argument are effective and can be used in all types of media.
In Response to Diego Rodriguez: I agree that television and commercials are the best way to get across a point as well as the emotion your trying to convey to the audience. Although "A picture is worth a thousand words," is a cliche, it is the absolute truth. If an image has the right aura and the right look it can have so much meaning and can be portrayed in several ways. For example, tumblr, is another type of blog that focuses on images, and of the millions of images posted on the site, almost everyone one triggers an emotion, proves a point, and contains humor.
Although arguments can be strong through any type of media, in my opinion arguments made through pictures and videos are the strongest. Although reading arguments in a magazine or online can certainly provoke strong reactions, seeing something instead of just having it described to you is much stronger. I think a great example of this being true is the Vietnam War. Many historians believe that opposition to the war was so high because the public was seeing all the atrocities of war on their televisions everyday for the first time instead of just reading it in a newspaper. It’s not that the Vietnam War was more horrific than World War II or any other previous wars, it was just that people actually got to see what really happened. I think that bloggers and internet newsgroups encourage angry outbursts instead of newspapers and televisions because often bloggers and newsgroups are trying to target a certain audience that has the same beliefs as them, and because of that they can get away with angry outbursts. Newspapers and television stations are mostly there to deliver news to their viewers in an unbiased manner.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mab10f’s post, I’m not sure that I agree that the most accessible source of argument is the most affective. Although someone may work on the computer all day so they get most of their arguments through the internet, it doesn’t mean it’s the most affective. They could be affected a lot more through a video clip than reading an internet article, but they just happen to read an article on it because it’s most accessible to them.
Arguments based on emotion can be some of the most powerful arguments made, but the source of media from which they come is very important in determining just how powerful they are. In my opinion, arguments from television are the most effective, especially here in America. Most Americans watch TV, so naturally the most well-constructed arguments would be broadcast over television. This is the easiest way to get a point across to a vast number of people since not only do most Americans own and watch TVs, but they can connect better with real people saying or doing real things, as opposed to inanimate pictures. For example, video footage of the war in the Middle East can strike up many emotions within a person, such as anger, fear, or sadness much better than a still image. I think the video makes the viewer feel like they are actually there. Also, while pictures that show horrific living conditions and famine in other countries can be quite effective in bringing out feelings of those looking at them, I personally feel more emotional when I see firsthand how the people in those situations behave and act on television. We live in a world where we want to experience everything up close and personal, and to make that feeling more real, arguments made on television can really bring out the strongest emotions in people. Whether it's a serious, somber commercial about animal cruelty or a silly, over-the-top advertisement for Old Spice deodorant, companies who put out commercials on TV know how to stir up the strongest emotions in people.
ReplyDeleteIn response to what mab10f posted, I definitely agree with the fact that people are influenced mostly by what they have access to. Even though I think TV is the best way to impact a group when making an argument, there are obviously many people in other parts of the world who do not own TVs. These people are still valuable assets to many causes out there, so they must be influenced by other forms of media.
I definitely think that the effectiveness of Pathos is contingent upon the medium in which the argument is presented. On Television, arguments are displayed not just visually, but aurally too, where the sound of a person's voice, the music that plays emphasizes the argument being visually displayed. For example, Sarah Mclauhlan's Television commercial against animal cruelty is particularly effective because it uses visual images of cute household animals in depressed states. Not only are the visuals present in the commercial, but in the background, the song "Arms of an Angel" plays, driving home the sadness and distress the animals are in.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mabf10, I would have to disagree. The accessibility of the media in my opinion doesn't make the argument any more or less effective. In my example above of Sarah's commercial, i saw this commercial a lot when i was home over the summer, and each time I saw the commercial and heard the song, I still felt a slight "call to action". Now that i am living in a dorm without a TV, I don't have to opportunity to see the commercial as often, and when i do, I still feel the same way about the issue as I did when the commercial was consistently exposed to me.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteEmotional content in a piece of writing, video or any various method of communication is one of the best ways of adding some backbone to a particular argument. In looking at the various sources of advertisements that we have available, I do believe that out of all of them, TV commercials are the best example to show the arguments appeal to pathos. In a TV commercial two types of emotional display are very much highlighted. Two such components are being able to witness visual emotion and verbal emotion. In visual emotion, the viewer of a particular commercial can actually witness facial expressions, the mood of the actor or commercial star, and are able to hear the tone of anyone speaking. By having these two components, it is easier for emotion to be conclusive amongst many viewers and in turn provoke a similar response. Like if an advertisement is in the form of paper or newsprint (i.e. book, magazine, or newspaper), the emotional component lacked in my opinion is the hearing aspect of verbal emotion. What this means is, the reader of such advertisement must interpret the ad and hence figure out the authors tone and mood to provoke an emotional response. One reader’s response to an ad on the emotional level may not be the same for another reader of the same ad. When the author of the reading gave the example of Steve Jobs’ speech about some history with Apple, the emotional content would have been so much stronger had there been a link to the video record of that same speech. Viewers would be able to then see every bit of emotion Steve Jobs possessed at that moment. In answering the question about internet newsgroups or bloggers being able to encourage angry outbursts versus newspapers and television news programs, there are a couple of factors to look at. Newsgroups and blogging sites appeal to a certain group of viewers, normally a classification (democrat, republican, male, female, etc.) and anger is usually provoked from someone commenting on such site not agreeing with a particular view. In newspapers and television news programs, the content is made for a widespread population, and unless the program appeals to a certain interest group, the content is usually not biased and appeals to large numbers of people, therefore not really provoking an angry emotional response in regards to pathos.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Evan Kastrenakes’ argument, I completely agree. I didn’t even read your response before I wrote mine and we have similar viewpoints. Viewing somebody’s total emotional situation is a lot stronger than reading about the situation or even a documentation of the words spoken. Your example of the Vietnam War is very true in its appeal to pathos. For the first time America saw real-time war encounters and this viewing was a lot stronger than what America read about in previous wars, when televised newscasts weren’t available.
Pathos is definitely a successful ingredient in appealing to people in all kinds of media. Depending on the type of person you are depends upon the effectiveness of the method used. I can safely say that most Americans are accessible to a television. Observing an action visually and orally can better affect the person's emotions. For example, when watching "A Few Good Men", the court scene with Tom Cruise cross examining Jack Nicholson, I felt the hairs on the back of my neck stand up when Nicholson screamed the memorable quote, "You can't handle the truth!". Or in the news, seeing President Obama's acceptance speech, and the faces of the many Americans shows how moved they were by his words. Just recently, I watched an interview with a World War I veteran, explaining his survival during the Jewish execution; he was Jewish. Seeing the recollection in his eyes, and the use of dramatizations moved me to feel even more sadness towards the man. His words almost moved me to tears.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Gary Wong, I one hundred percent agree with your example of animal cruelty. Flashing images of cute cats and dogs makes one want to save its life. The song is also effective in setting the atmosphere of helpless animals needing anyone's help.
The use of pathos in media is apparent in almost every situation in our lives. Media is a way to get into our minds and convince us to buy something, donate to a cause, or take action. In the media pathos is extremely effective and is meant to grab our attention. The first thing that comes to my mind is a commercial that is asking you to donate to a cause in Africa to feed hungry children. The commercial flashes to different children’s depressed faces and you can’t help but feel empathy for them. The man in the commercial says something like a dollar a day can feed them and explains the simplicity of feeding a child in desperate need of nutrition. This particular commercial appeals to pathos perfectly, because it pulls at your heart and makes you want to see the distressed children smiling. Television commercials seem to be very effective.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to my next point, which is that television commercials seem to be more effective than newspapers, magazines, etc. What I mean by magazine advertisements is the one page or two-page spread; I am not referring to long articles that do an exceptional job portraying information. Television commercials have more to look at and a longer time span to present information. Magazines have a picture or a few pictures accompanied usually by a few words or a small paragraph. I believe that looking at people or images on television and hearing music or voices can help you make an opinion based on the information present.
I am not concluding that magazine and newspaper articles/ads are less useful, I am simply stating that in my opinion a television program or commercial catches my eye more quickly than a simple magazine ad.
Although the type of media does influence how the audience will react to the emotional argument being made, I think that the topic at hand is a much more prominent determining factor. For example, if there was a picture of a slaughtered baby in a pro-life campaign, I feel that it would have a much much stronger reaction than an article about the same topic. At the same time, I believe that a picture of a grandmother and her dog may not be quite as strong of an emotional argument as the story about how the two lovingly came together.
ReplyDeleteWith all that being said, despite the topical differences I believe that certain media are more appropriate for certain types of media appeal.
For example, fear is best delivered in a photograph as you can immediately be drawn to it and project that fear upon yourself, such as a dying man in a hospital with lung cancer from smoking.
Also, a written piece is best to portray more positive emotions such as hope, love and consideration, because reading a black and white page leaves you to your imagination to develop the strongest personal relation you can think up to connect with what the reader wants you to feel.
I believe that a film, with its length and strong usage of visual and auditory imagery and manipulation is the very best way to make an emotional argument with an audience.
In response to Bree Flowers, I agree that a television is usually of easy access and used more often than any other form of information. I like how you referenced the documentary you watched on the World War II veteran. I could almost picture the look in his eyes while revealing war stories. I agree that looking at the expression on the man’s face boosted the effect of pathos. Emotional appeal is often present in the look on someone’s face, or the tone in his or her voice. Emotional appeal is easy to present through a television, in a magazine or newspaper it is harder to depict the amount of emotion you are trying to express.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the arguments that are on tv are the most effective. In arguments using pathos you can feel the persons emotion much better than looking at a still life advertisement. In a tv commercial you can tell the persons tone of voice and their emotion and you can also use their body language to express their emotions. When looking at a print advertisement, such as a magazine, the ads are mostly just text and an image. It is difficult to use emotion successfully in ads like these and that is why i believe they arent as successful. The first magazine article i came across was an ad for pabst blue ribbon beer. The man is sitting on the couch with his wife handing him a beer. The man is smiling and you can tell he is happy. This ad though isnt as effective as a great clips ad that i saw on tv tonight. The ad has people getting their hair cut all smiling and clearly satisfied and all giving energetic good reviews. Tv commercials can go much farther in depth that print ads that usually just have their slogan on the print. In my opinion tv ads are more effective than any other type.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mab10 i agree that the most affective ads are the ones that are most accessible in our lives. Like you said someone who works with computer ads daily will have a greater chance of seeing online ads as the most effective. I think that one of the most accessible sources are from television and they are the most effective type because they can go more in depth that other sources
In response to sab10.
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you said about the influence of the emotional material depending on the person its delivered to. I am a much more visual person, which is why I have my opinion that visual mediums work best when dealing with emotion.
Emotion is, by definition, a subjective response to a person, place or thing. That being said, it is subjective, meaning that not everyone will illicit the same response to the same article, commercial or speech.
Also, your comment on availability is also an interesting point to make when determining how "effective" an argument is.
I think that arguments are based on emotion and they vary in different types of media. I think that is this way because of the different people that are targeted and the effectiveness based on the media. One of the examples we were given help to validate my view. The example of a commercial selling a product being more effective than an advertisement in a magazine I think can be the acne treatment commercials. When you see those before and after pictures and the person speaking to you (many times a well-liked celebrity) on T.V., its way more persuasive than seeing a picture with a phone number to order the product as you’re flipping pages in a magazine. Another example is how bloggers are more likely to encourage angry outbursts than a regular news program. This is because online people are more likely to express their internal views due to it many times being anonymous or just not directly connected with their point of view. I think that anything online will be more effectively demonstrated than on T.V. With people nowadays getting news stories alerts on their smart phones, they would be less likely to see a headlining story on television first.
ReplyDeleteIn response to: mab10f
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with what you stated. I think that the audience in which you are targeting plays a significant role in the argument that is being made. It may not always be the case when you said that someone who works on computers would be more influenced by an ad on the internet though. Just because it is most accessible to them, does not mean they really care about it. I think that is a hypothesis that cannot exactly be assumed.
In response to Evan Kastrenake’s post:
ReplyDeleteI agree that pictures and videos can be extremely influential especially in reference to war. The choice of which videos and pictures to show, along with how they are presented can be enough to change someone’s opinion on war.
In response to mab10f’s post:
I don’t necessarily agree that the accessibility to the Internet and different types of media is the most effective source of an argument. Although it may play a small role, I don’t believe it’s significant enough to be the most effective source.
I believe that arguments are based on emotion and that every single media uses this in a different way. Each form of media knows how to effectively use emotion, but the same technique would not work for all forms of emotion. I believe that television is the most effective form of this because you get to watch and visually see the emotion that the person is giving off. In pictures, news articles, etc. you have to mentally try to see the emotion and sometimes there just isn't the connection. One commercial that always gets to me is the commercial with cruelty for animals. They show many animals with sad faces and the music. It break my heart having to see this and I usually have to end up changing the channel because I can't watch it. I have come across that same commercial in a magazine and sure, it got me sad, but I didn't feel the same strong emotion that I felt when I was watching the commercial.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jackie Randolph, I agree that commercial are more effective in that situation too because I usually ignore the advertisements in the magazines with that, but it's nearly impossible to avoid them on TV. The testimony's from the celebrities are better because in the magazine it's just a quote with their name under it, therefore there's no real way of telling if they said that or if someone just stuck their name at the bottom of the quote
I believe that appeal to pathos works differently in media in many ways depending on how it is being presented. In today’s society we have many ways of receiving information. Between the local television news, papers, radios, and word of mouth, emotion is expressed totally different throughout all of them. To begin I would like to talk about how emotion is expressed in these different types of media. In television media emotion I feel is on a greater level then any other type of media. On television you can see emotion and severity not only in their voice like a radio would do but you can see their mannerism and facial expressions. If something really drastic is happening you can see how it affects the broadcaster putting more severity on the situation that just occurred. I then feel that the radio does a little bit better at showing emotion rather then the newspaper which I feel doesn’t show much emotion at all. When you are listening to the radio you can hear the severity and emotion in the broadcaster’s voice but you now are lacking a visual image of how his charisma is at that moment in time. Last of all I think that the print does the least at getting emotion across. I mean the papers do captivate the reader and suck them into the task at hand but print can never do what a image or video can do. A cliché of this would be that a picture is worth a thousand words. This cliché fits perfectly here because no matter how much you describe something the brain will not be able to put all the pieces together but if you see an image you can completely grasp the situation and understand the emotions and value that this image posses. These examples let me come to the conclusion that in the world, pathos is expressed in many different ways in all types of media and the significance it has on media is very prevalent on getting across emotion and values.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Mitch Thompson:
ReplyDeleteI agree with your post. I like that you feel that television is the best example of pathos being presented. I touched upon the same thing in my response. I do feel that your example that first hand accounts gets emotions across greatly but for a normal human being it is hard to see some of these conditions first hand. Taking that out of the picture television does the best it could beside that and television I feel does this greater becasue they show you images and videos that you would not be able to see first hand and almost arise the same emotions from you that you would get if you saw it first hand. Technically you are seeing it first hand as you are seeing the real life images that are occuring.
Arguments that utilize emotions have a different attraction to viewers. Pathos evokes a sense of pity and sympathy. For example, television commercials with starving children or abused animals, reach out to all viewers. By changing the channel it’s almost inevitable to feel guilt free. However, if this same advertisement was on a page in a magazine, it would more than likely fail to be acknowledged the same way it would if it were on TV.
ReplyDeleteJust the other day I was watching the Today show and a man by the name of Ted Williams was the star of the show. Forty-eight hours prior to being on the Today show he was a homeless man in the state of Ohio. He was seen holding up a sign advertising his “golden” voice. After being recorded by a complete stranger his video received millions of hits on YouTube and he is now being swarmed with job offers. His wonderful voice is an example of pathos being used in media. If he were to become a radio announcer, his voice would appeal to many listeners, which is why he is being offered a great deal of jobs with high salaries. In my opinion this is an excellent example of how pathos works in media. If he didn’t have his voice he would not be where he is today. In today’s society almost everything is digitalized. It seems today much more time is spent watching TV or listening to the radio rather than reading. That being said, appeals to pathos are much stronger when used on TV/radio in my opinion.
In response to Lauren Mangine's post:
ReplyDeleteI agree with you when you state pathos is much more effective when information is being portrayed through TV, rather than newspapers or magazines. These written forms of media can do a great job of using pathos, but when it comes down to it, TV does a much better job. A simple page in a magazine could easily be ignored. On TV, commercials reach out to the viewers and have a stronger connection. Whether it's for starving children in Africa, or the Human Society's tear-jerker, the sympathy is much stronger after viewing the lengthy commercial.
Media has been man’s way of convincing others to believe something or buy something or even act a certain way. It has been a huge part of our culture for a long time. The different forms of media and how their play on people’s emotions varies. In my opinion, I think that a good read will always trump a video. Reading something has something a little extra, it gives the reader some room to have an imagination. Yes commercials and T.V. are usually the more prominent forms of media, but I think if people would take the time actually read the newspapers or read the articles about the important issues they would see that a written piece of media can have the same effect on our emotions as say a heart wrenching story on TV, about the ASPCA animals. Visual media is the more attractive choice for people, because they don’t take the time to actually read or give the other forms a chance. When you read something it forces you to pay attention to it, in order to fully understand. The author of the given piece of media can use his words like paint, and make this really vivid picture in your head, without the TV or actual pictures. The stronger the picture we create the stronger emotional response we will get from ourselves.
ReplyDeleteIn response to Jackie Randolf:
I agree with why you said that people are more likely to be expressive online, they don’t have restrictions you would have on the radio or on T.V. The internet is a place where all can make their opinions and arguments known without fear of censoring or diminishing their points.
I feel that arguments based on emotion in media work well in brochures, magazines and television. Take television you have commercials that run trying to get you to buy or do something. In these commercials they appeal to the emotion to the cause of the commercial but also the person watching it. Take the commercials about adopting a kid and giving it food and clothing. They use photos and kids to make you want to help the kid. In magazines they appeal to emotion when trying to get you to buy something. They put pictures of people and other thinks that intrigue you mind and make you want what the person in the pictures has. Brochures use emotion when they are trying to get a person to do something. Take if it’s a family activity, they put a picture of a family on it so you see that it has to do with family. If you compare a commercial to a magazine I would say that a commercial would affect me more because it’s really people talking and not just a picture. A commercial to me makes things real life. When it comes to internet bloggers, newspapers and television, I think that people encourage angry outburst on the internet because they are not as widely read as the newspaper or watched as television. Newspapers are bought and sold every day and blog may be read but a lot of people don’t know about the blogs. Television is watched everyday by people and if you put angry outburst it may offend someone and cause problems.
ReplyDeleteIn response to mab10f I agree with you on the fact that a person who works with computers would be more inclined to look at internet ads. Also I agree that is I saw how something worked rather than read about it in the newspaper I would be more inclined to buy it or use it.
I believe emotion works differently in each media. How each type of emotion is exhibit is different, yet remain similar. For instance, if you read a book then you would have to image and feel those exact emotions for those types of emotions to be conveyed. On television, you are able to view the facial expressions and other senses as well. I believe books are the hardest to convey emotion. As people, I personally believe you are able to connect better with another if you are able to see them rather than image. I believe we are visual people so pictures, television are a strong way to convey emotion. Books on the other hand, make you think which is good. Yet, I think sometimes we can’t completely comprehend the magnitude of the situation when we can’t see it. From the readings, I learned that emotions can ultimately be a persuasion technique. At night, info commercials on hungry children around the world illustrate effectively the usage of emotions. We, as viewers, are able to sympathize and be compassionate of what people are saying about these children. It may be so moving that we may send necessities or give money to the foundation. I do, however, believe emotion doesn’t need to a factor in some cases. If we attach emotion to some situations we are not clearly able to come to a logical conclusion or make an affective point. Therefore a certain usage of emotion is required. We must maintain a balance in order to persuade, convince, and explore our argument.
ReplyDeleteIn response to rhe10:
I agree completely that it is very easy to depict and influence people with emotion through television. Books and magazines are mainly text and you are not able to visual what the authors intended purpose of writing the text is about. Whereas when we see what’s going on, we can comprehend, be persuaded, and possibly convinced.
Personally, I believe emotions are better demonstrated in texts versus illustrations. When someone reads a book, newspaper, article, etc.. they get a clear idea of the subject. Words can help the audience picture abstract thoughts which leads to a more in depth understanding. Naturally, the audience will feel more relatable to something they understand and will have a stronger emotional response to it. Furthermore, illustration demonstrate the exterior point of view of a subject. For example, in the movie twilight, many viewers were confused to how the empathetic vampire, Edward Cullens, could fall in love with a corky clumsy teenage girl name Bella Swan. However, after reading the book, many fans vicariously fell in love with Edward Cullens because the text let them feel what Bella felt. The audience could read things that could not be premiered on the screen. For example, it would be impossible to video tape someone feeling chills going down their spine; or their heart stopping when that special someone walks into a room. Words let's us see what we cannot touch and allows to get a deeper emotional connection to what we are reading. In my opinion, passages go beyond what a motion picture can accomplish. Readers can go beyond seeing and hearing to actually being able to put themselves in the text. Passages allow individuals to enter a completely different world where they can vicariously see, hear, taste, and feel what's in the story they are reading. In the words of William Styron "A good book should leave you... slightly exhausted at the end. You live several lives while reading it."
ReplyDeleteIn response to Sab10,
ReplyDeleteI agree that different types of media work better for certain things. Yes, text does allow the audience to understand the work better, however not everyone will take out the time to read information. Therefore I do agree that at times different medias help send a message clearer then others.