Persuasion Ethics : Politics Are Dirty

When people are running for the highest office in the land, the president of the United State, sometimes campaigns can get pretty ugly. Backs get pushed to walls and desperate times call for desperate measures. It is a do or die situation for people. When that Oval Office calls your name you will do anything you can, right or wrong, to make sure you get to sit there. This was very apparent in the 2000 election with George Bush and fellow republican John McCain.

George W. Bush would go to become the 43rd president of the United States after a brutal campaign that was a fight to the finish since it began. He beat out Democrat Al Gore and Green Party member Ralph Nadar in the general election but it was the republican primaries that biggest breach of ethical persuasion.

While campaigning in South Carolina for their primary Bush had a push-poll and asked voters if they would vote for opponent John McCain if they knew he had fathered a black child. Then there were flyers dispersed that claimed McCain had a "negro child". The poll and flyers were trying to paint McCain in a negative light and make him seem like he is not fit to be president. It was playing on the racially environment of the south. False information was given out, knowingly, to persuade people. This was an extremely unethical situation.

The real situation was that John McCain and his wife adopted a child from Bangladesh. So the information the Bush campaign was giving out was adamantly false and twisted the truth to make people think differently. It is one thing to run a negative ad about a candidate when it's true. Sometimes it can seem backhanded but the truth is the truth. However as  McCain’s national campaign manager Rick Davis said, a smear doesn’t have “to be true to be effective.”

Bush's breach in persuasive ethics ended up being effective because he would go on to hold two terms in office. There was blasted disrespect and offense in his claim about McCain because it made it seem negative to have a black child if you are white. He also tried to falsely paint John McCain as a bad person who did not have an ethical code.

The breach in ethics impacts the situation because it makes people vote in a certain way. They were using false information to persuade people to not vote for McCain. The argument could be made that Bush would still have won if he did not spread the rumor, however he still did it. That is a problem in politics and campaigning. It's an every man for himself do what ever you need to win situation. It sadly also shows that you do not need to be ethical to be president. You just have to be liked better, no matter what the truth is. Ethics gets thrown out of the window. This is just one example of a breach in persuasive ethics on the campaign trail.

Gooding, Richard. "The Trashing of John McCain." Vanity Fair. N.p., 31 Oct. 2004. Web. 28 Jan. 2016.

Depressed TV

The feature I read was a BuzzFeed article on “24 Heartbreaking TV Moments That Made You Cry Your Eyes Out”. I was an excellent list because it gathered scenes from all kinds of TV shows from every era from the ‘70s to the current year. Something I really admired that BuzzFeed di was to make the list they called upon their users to submit choices for the list. This was a really great way to get a large pool of selections from different age groups versus just one guy in his 20s writing up an article overnight. The article will really pull at your heartstrings.

                There were multiple entries that made me tear up from just thinking about, which really means something about the quality of those shows. I think something that really stands out from these choices, and not just the shows, is that the moments are not superficial and they feel very genuine. All of the users that submitted were given credit for their submissions, which I thought was very cool. A lot of the shows that were submitted were ones I really enjoy and some of them are my favorite shows.

                Something I did not like was the fact that there was nothing written about the show or scene other than the brief one sentence description of what happened in the scene. I would have like to have read the reason the scenes were so sad, if it was extremely self-explanatory. So in that respect this did not help me with the styling of how to write my feature. With mine I plan on giving explanations and backgrounds for each idea or topic I provide.     

                I am a huge fan of television since growing up I would watch a lot of it, and not just shows aimed at kids. Since I was little I was watching all the hit prime time shows, and since then I got hooked on TV. Now I actually want to create TV shows that other people can enjoy. The moments in the list is what motivates me because I want to be able to create a show that people get really attached to and then get as emotional as they did with the entire soon this BuzzFeed article. I really want to create a world where my viewers become emotionally invested just like I have become with some of these shows.

Yours or Mine?

The editorial I read was "Abusive and Frivolous Patent Suits" from the New York Times. It was about how Congress is attempting to create a way to weed out moronic patent suits, or people seeing for ridiculous patent infringements. The author(s) pointed out that patents were issued to give inventors complete control over their creations but in recent history so many people have issues law suits against companies for licensing fees, or in other terms, a quick buck. The editorial states that the cost of litigating fees and licensing fees cost up to billions of dollars a year even though the paten suits or so vague it is a wonder they were ever granted.

The author(s) state that lawmakers are concerned about people who use small business over this. They clearly are against the "frivolous patent suits" and are encouraging congress to step up and do something about this. They do accurately represent the facts by using facts to back up their editorial instead of opinion, which that also use. Some words they use, such as "frivolous"  and "careful" while applying their own thoughts on the topic. Towards the end it also says they hope the new rules are not too strict to the point it hurts actual inventors and businesses.

It was very informative, especially considering it's not a widely popular topic. I was able to gather all of the important info from this. The writer did seem to be opinionated, but they were also able to justify their opinion rather than just saying "I'm right and that is all". As stated above they mention how much money is being spent on this and that number is ridiculous, especially considering how that money could be spent elsewhere.

It did a good job of bringing to light a problem not many people know about. I suppose that is what an editorial was supposed to do; talk about something that is not widely known. This topic is also reminiscent of arguments about welfare; how people are taking advantage of the system. People are creating law suits over the smallest of patents.  I know big name companies like Apple and Samsung are always in court trying to settle paten infringements, which is a little frustrating when you think about it. There are things so small you have to wonder if any one person should have ultimate control over it.

The Wolf of Home Entrainment..Street

I read a review of The Wolf of Wall Street Blu Ray set. However you would never have known tat it was for the Blur Ray if you did not read the title. The review itself was basically a review for the movie. It started out praising every little bit of the film including Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance, Jonah Hill’s performance and Martin Scorsese directing. In fact, the reviewer went so far as to say that not only was this the best performance DiCprio gave, the film is one of the Scorsese has made, right up there with Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Raging Bull.

I have seen the film and let me tell you, wow, the film is insane. It is literally three hours of sex and drugs, and I loved every minute of it. The review kind of made me chuckle because of how tame it actual was. If you have seen the movie you will know how hard it will be. The movie will most likely never see the light of day on cable television because all the censoring would probably cut the films original run time, the hours, to about 15 minutes.

I agreed with the reviewer for the most part. I do think everyone’s performance was top notch, but I would not go as far as saying it is his or her best. Well, it was certainly the best for Jonah Hill, but Dicaprio, and most recently Matthew McCaughey, have put in most substantial roles before. As for Scorsese, I feel like the movie is a nice addition to his filmography, but the three hours feels a little bloated and in fact he struggled in the editing room to get the theatrical cut. The film was original meant for an October release date but was pushed to late December to give him more time in the editing room. I think if he had more time it would have made for a much better movie.

            I would have liked to read an actual review of the special features; however once I read the last paragraph I could not really fault the author for it. The reviewer said there was only one extra and it was the basic making –of video, which was only 17 minutes long. I am a fan of DVD or Blu Ray extras; I must be one of the few people who actually watch the directors commentary. The Blu Ray comes with a DVD and digital copy, and I will most certainly make this a must buy.

This Sly Dog

Anthony Mascarenas

Journalism

3/18/14

This Sly Dog

            The man I chose to read a personal profile on is none other than Rocky himself, Sylvester Stallone. At first I was going to choose Matt Damon, but since I had just watched the Rocky marathon on AMC, I chose Sly Stallone.

            The first line is a brilliant summary of his career saying that in Hollywood Stallone is a bit of a joke and does not get the respect he deserves. It goes on to say that since he has made these mindless action films he is not really given the respect you would expect from someone who is been in this career for so long. The profile then goes on the defense for Stallone by saying they understand why some people think this, but they are wrong. Stallone has made two of the most iconic roles in film history, Rocky and Rambo.  The author then says that say what you will about Stallone, but he has written two characters that both perfectly represent men.  “The romantic and the warrior; the dreamer and the destroyer; the underestimated and the misunderstood; the lonely and the loner; the Rocky and the Rambo.”

            That last line I think did an amazing job to summarize Stallone’s underrated talent. He created two opposite characters that are essentially both sides of a man.  It was no easy feat either. Stallone came from practically nothing, and even suffered an injury at a such a young age that went on to give him his famous droopy lip and slurred speech patterns. This man was really, deep down, Rocky Balboa in the flesh. A man who came from nothing, thought he was nothing, thought he was going to e nothing but then decided to fight and give his best. It all worked out for Stallone, and as the article says, he’s okay with being a joke in Hollywood. He is the type of man who can see everything for what is and he is just happy to be at the party.  Because not many people can be called a joke or not be taken seriously when A movie they wrote won best picture, spawned 6 squeals and earned him an Academy Award nomination in both Acting and Writing.

            There as a little expert I thought perfectly connected Stallone to an everyman in that when Rocky won Best Picture his bow tie was broken, so he did not wear one. However everyone saw that as a sign of disrespect and thought he did not take things seriously. But he did not know it was a big deal and said that if he did know he would have tied a shoelace or something, anything, because he meant no disrespect.

Hard News

The article I read was "Aide Shot Twice as Ukraine Hunts Ex-President Viktor Yanukovych" on NBC News by Reuters. It was a very short article but was reported on because the events in the Ukraine are important right now.

There is a lot of violence and trouble in the Ukraine with riots in the streets and many bloody protests. The ex-president of Ukraine, Viktor Yanukovych, was ran out of office on Saturday and on an arrest warrant was issued on Monday for his arrest.

The article starts off with the very basic lead, in fact the title itself was almost the whole article itself. All the lead said was that the aide was on the run with the president when he was shot twice.  His name, Andriy Klyuev, was not mentioned until the second paragraph. I feel like his name should have been mentioned in the lead, since this is a high profile story. All eyes are on the Ukraine and if someone close to the man the whole country is looking for then I feel his name should be upfront. However I can also see why they did not put his name upfront. The man himself is not important, his relationship with the Ukrainian president is.

The story itself was very thin because there was no a lot of information to report. It was written in the same way a breaking news story is. There is the the basic facts without any filler. It is like when the Boston bombing occurred. I read an article thirty minutes after it happened and all it said was "bombs have went off at the Boston marathon". They want to get the basic story out to the people as fast as possible.  There was not a whole lot of information but the story was still important enough to report on. You could read any part of the article and walk away knowing the whole story.

The article mentioned where they got the information from and how they got it. It was over the phone from Andriy Klyuev's spokesman Artem Petrenko. He said that the presidents aide was shot twice but not in any danger. However this spokesperson said that he had not met Kyluev in a while and he heard this all from a trusted source. The article ended giving a brief summery of the bloody events in the Ukraine.

Obit

Obit

I read an obituary on Chris Farley, who died on December 18th, 1997. The obit was in the LA Times

It start started out mentioning the different movies he was in before saying his age at the time of his death. Because this was written before an autopsy was performed it commented saying the cause of death is not known but suspected it to be a drug overdose. It also said he was found alone in his Chicago apartment by his brother.

It then went into the comparison of the SNL alumni John Belushi, who died of an overdose at age 33. The obit made the comparison of the two about their weight struggles and drug problems as well, also stating that Farley idolized Belushi and grew up wanting to be just like him.

The obituary then went into quotes from many close to Farley who expressed their concerns about him and his health and commented an a Us article about his health. Some were worried he would go the way of John Belushi, drug overdose, or John Candy, heart attack. It then went back to quoting those who were close to him talking about how nice and talented he was and how his death was a lose.

Three quarters of the way in it talked about his past before he was famous. It me tied where he was from and where he grew up, including where he went to school and were he started doing comedy.

Toward the end it mentioned the different characters he was famous for playing, both on tv and film including his final projects. It ended with a quote from Farley about fat comedians with him saying how he loves all fat comedians and how much people love them but also how he feels trapped by feeling he has to be the most outrageous guy in the room.

So the structure started off with how he was famous, such as his movies and his time on SNL. It then said his age, 33, then jumping into people talking about his past struggles with drugs and his massive weight gains. To end the obituary it talked about where he was from and his school and then how much people will miss him. I picked this one because I myself am a huge fan of Chris Farley, but was unfortunate to be too young to appreciate him while he was alive. In fact I already knew most if not all of the facts said about him in this obituary.