Political Ad Response

I watched the John F. Kennedy jingle from 1960 and an add for Barack Obama from 2012. Both adds put the candidate in the positive spotlight and both candidates ended up winning their particular election.

As far as ethos goes, I do not think either add used much of it. Kennedy's ad was catchy and exciting, but it made many claims that were not backed up and that were not easily credible. Saying that Kennedy is, "willing to try new things," and, "Old enough to know but young enough to do," sounds nice but how does anyone really know that it is true? It is hard to tell who someone is when the only glimpse you get of a person is through media so we have to relay on media to inform us with the truth. That doesn't however make it credible. Obama's add started off by saying that a previous add created against Obama by his opponent, Mitt Romney, was false. While it is easy to believe that Romney really did create a false add against Obama, it is difficult to find ethos in Obama's add because I had no knowledge of Romney's add. Obama then went on to talk about how he has small business owners' backs. This is slightly more credible only because Obama was running for reelection in this particular campaign so the people had already seen what he could and did do.

What both adds had in common was their use of pathos and logos. Due to the, in my opinion, lack of ethos, it was necessary for the candidates to use pathos and logos because without it there would be no connect to the voters. People are warmed by knowing that their leader is kind, educated, and willing to do what is best for them and so that's what Obama and Kennedy said they would be and do.

"Blurred Lines"

I would like to start off by saying how happy I am that Mr. Kunkle did not show us the original "Blurred Lines" video. Clicking play on the video inserted into Tricia Romano's review of this controversial song was a mistake for me. I watched about twenty seconds and then called it quits. Putting the original video aside, I originally had thought that "Blurred Lines" was an outrageously nasty song that shed a false light on women. After reading Jennifer Lai's review, my opinion changed. Is this song "bad?" Yes. Is it as "bad" as some people so strongly claim it to be? No. I respected Lai when she said, "Is Thicke being kind of a dick by assuming he could 'liberate' her? Yes. But is he forcing her to do anything? No." This quote is a complete 180 from Romano's review where she claims that "Blurred Lines" is rapey. 

As far as whether or not "Blurred Lines" is sexism disguised in a song, I think it is. Even though I would not go so far as to call the song "rapey" I would agree with anyone who says that it is downgrading women. Robin Thicke is is basically taunting women with himself and making them act ridiculous for his own enjoyment. He portrays them as needy and immature. I imagine White Goodman at the end of Dodgeball. Robin Thicke would be White Goodman and the food would be the girls. Nasty. Nasty enough that no one has to watch the video.

While it may be hard to escape seeing the video, and definitely from not hearing the song altogether, it is possible to avoid it. The, for lack of a better term, problem, is  that those who claim to be so outraged by the video and lyrical content still listen to the song and songs far worse.This then given the artist the green light to create more songs and videos just like the last and receive more fame and fortune. That discussed person has just made the song no so bad after all. That is the very reason that pop culture today is so risque. Do I personally think it's right? No. Do I still listen to "Blurred Lines" and other questionable yet catchy songs? Yes.