Is there some sort of Law about this?

Ethics, as far as writing go, were for many years defined solely by the conscience of the author. In modern times, ethics, along with many other traditional values, have been thrown out the window with a forceful "forget you!" as a salutation. Thus, many codes, statutes, and standards have been set in place with dire consequences to those who transgress. In a valiant effort to fight plagiarism, and in an effort to kick lazy students out of school and the professional world; we have become intimately acquainted with MLA format. But really, that's not what writing is about. Writing is for the reader, for the active seeker of knowledge. To write is to create, and the ethics surrounding that should be of the authors own dictation, not forced upon by some code. But, with a world of liars and cheaters, everyone suffers for the transgression of the one.

A famous incidence of plagiarism occurred with the no less famous for it author Doris Kearns Goodwin in her award winning novel "No Ordinary Time" on the life of the Roosevelts. Caught having copied several chapters of her manuscript from another less known author, Goodwin was publicly disgraced for plagiarism, prompting many news articles to label her work "No Ordinary Crime". However, Goodwin did not cease her writing career, or suffer any setback in profit. The sales for the book soared in the period surrounding the controversy, and Goodwin went on to write an award winning novel on Lincoln, called "Team of Rivals". For a student, this displays a very disheartening message. Why should Goodwin be allowed to prosper from Plagiarism when many students have lost whole careers for one thoughtless act of desperation? Ethics were blurred on this line.

Goodwin was wrong, and should have been ashamed of herself. The fact of the matter remains that historical writing is for the enlightenment of the reader, and a historian especially who feels the need to take the easy way out deserves no place in the academic professional world. Nevertheless, ethics vary based upon who one is, and always have. Ethically speaking, any form of writing that copies something without citation is plagiarism, but cliches, commonalities, and other such things are used all the time in every form of writing.

What must be said, then, is that the only way to truly write something ethically is to use only yourself as a source, and write something from the heart. Explore your inner artist, even with a boring school assignment, and write something that is truly new. I have found that not only is this far more enjoyable to write, it is also extremely interesting to read. Its like following a treasure map; you don't know where you will end up, but the journey is enjoyable as you follow the anticipation of treasure all the way through. That is ethical writing.

Writing is More than Words

Writing, in it's purest, most true form, is like pouring your soul onto a paper. It's letting all your personal ideas and values stream into an insecure area, where they can be contended, challenged, manipulated, and morphed into something better or worse than before. It's transforming your hopes and dreams from the vapor they were inside your head to the concrete reality of a sheet of paper. It's exposing your innermost thoughts and ideals to praise, criticism, and ridicule, open to theft and disambiguation. It's like standing in your pajamas in front of a firing squad, with only your skin, that thin layer of self-preservation, between you and speeding lead.

If that is writing, then we need to consider the ramifications of its galactic impact. Writing is intrinsically cathartic, and that is why we can feel so much emotion from reading about something that we never have and never will experience. Therefore, writing merits mutual respect to make sure that this emotional power is protected. This mutual respect is shown by not claiming others' ideas and words as our own.

We don't like our siblings borrowing our clothes; why would we like other people “borrowing” our ideas? If we look at writing as a way to release our inner emotions, using someone's idea as your own isn't just taking their words - it's taking a part of them. When we properly credit the words and ideas we use to their original source, it's showing the author that their words have made an impact on us, that their ideas made us think in new ways. This is not a disrespectful gesture, but a form of praise, signaling to the author that their words have sparked change. And isn't that what we all seek to do? We write to release our emotions because we think it will help us get through hard times or remember good times in years to come. We want to be changed because of it, and if our writing changes others along the way, then so be it.

Spencer Tolson

Enlarging Experience

As I am a young freshman in college, there are many things I do not know or comprehend about the world. I just do not have the same experience in life that other people do. My scope of understanding is limited. That is why writing is such a beautiful thing. Writing can enlarge that scope to anything or anytime. People long dead can still portray their ideas to people hundreds of years in the future. A BYU student in the 21^st century can read and understand what philosophers believed hundreds of years ago. This is a service that writers have provided for us. We have out our fingertips thousands of years of experience, wisdom, and knowledge. To gain our own ideas, our own thoughts, and our own writing out in the world, all we have to do is read and write. Therefore, we owe it to those writers of times past to take what they worked on and produced to understand and comprehend fully. Only then can we provide our own insight into the matter, and move our process of thinking to levels it has never seen before. This is why avoiding plagiarism is so vital to the writing process. If we just copy what others have worked on and claim it as our own, it is the same as throwing all they have worked for back in their faces. This is worse than many crimes for which people serve jail time. It makes the hard work put into a piece we are reading useless. Therefore, as a writer, it is required- and essential- that I give credit where credit is due. As a reader, I expect writers to give their own personal ideas. These ideas can be based off of others ideas, but I expect to know who did the thinking and work for it first. I expect to be told the truth, and expect to have my mind opened to things I have not considered. Otherwise, why would anyone read? For reading is just a tool in the shed of learning. A very important tool. Plagiarizing and lying about your work is making that tool useless to many. These ethics of writing have been in place since the first symbol scratched on a cave wall. Writing is a way of connecting with others. Plagiarism destroys the very foundation that writing is built upon. We have to be careful not to be the destroyer, but the builder. We can add to the many layers of writing by submitting our own ideas. That is what makes good reading.

Writing: An expression of trust and commitment

I’ve heard it said that reading is an expression of trust and commitment. Truthfully, I had no idea what that meant until this year. I guess I always took the expression too literally. I would think to myself, “That makes zero sense. When you want to tell someone you trust them or you want a commitment from someone, you shake hands or buy the girl a diamond ring. You don’t sit down and read with them. That is so dumb. That is really dumb.” However, this semester amidst all the reading and writing I’ve been required to do, I have finally grasped the meaning of this phrase. When we read the words of another person, we put trust in and make a commitment with that individual. We trust that the words they have written are expressed honestly and are their unique thoughts. We make a commitment to ponder and respect their ideas.

Trust and commitment are two-way interactions. Because the reader places such great faith in the writer, the writer must hold up their end of the deal by upholding the ethics of writing. Many times writers fail to uphold these ethical standards because they do not understand what they are. Being an ethical writer means more than simply not publishing another’s work as your own. Plagiarism is the extreme. It also means that you as the author support your own writing. It is unethical for a writer to write about something that they do not personally support or believe in. When a reader commits to reading an author’s product, they assume that the author believes the words that they have written. They trust that the author is a moral individual. If any breach of this pattern of trust or commitment is broken, the writer has violated the ethics of writing.

Throughout the current research process for my Issues Paper, I have found many opportunities to put ethics into effect. First, I made sure that the topic I was researching was something that I cared about. Then, I strove to carry out ethical research. Now, as I am beginning to write my paper, I am sure to give credit where it is due to other others who have also done their best to be ethical. If each and every one of us was ethical in our writing, the power of the written word would be even greater than it already is. Trust and commitment between reader and writer would increase, opening the way for new thoughts and ideas.

Writing is Hard!

            I have never been a fan of writing. Writing is about coming up with your own ideas and I lack the creativity to do so. My writing tends to be bland and boring, full of similar sentences and boring phrases. But I’ve come to accept that fact. Despite my lack of ability to write engaging pieces of literature, I admire the people who can. My best friend in high school was a pro writer. She would rattle off poems, song lyrics, stories, and essays with no effort at all. I instead had to observe the writing habits of others and mimic their example. I never considered what I did as plagiarism… I was simply regurgitating information with a slight twist. But after reading the Penguin Handbook, I’ve realized that I probably need to be more dramatic with my “twists”.

            Like I said, I admire the skill and creativity of writers, and therefore, I think that they deserve credit for their work. As readers, it is our duty to give credit to anyone who sparks our own writing. When I read something that catches my attention or makes me understand a concept better, I want to use that same sentence or phrase in my own writing with hopes of getting the point across to my reader as well. However, we need to be careful in the way that we do this. It is acceptable to use others' ideas, but we need to be sure to give them credit for their work. We also need to remember that when writing a piece, we should be writing a piece of our own. It’s no good to completely mimic a piece of writing that has already been written… There would be no point!

            Writing is hard work. Sure, writing may come easier to some than others, but it is still time consuming so writers should receive credit for their efforts.

Obligations

The beauty of writing is, when done right, that something new is brought to the table: a new idea, a new insight, a new way of think of a situation. Writing is not regurgitating facts, but rather take the things we know and the things we’ve learned from research and see what we can add to the subject. With today’s technology, access to information is literally at the tip of our fingers. Because it is so easy to find other people’s work, we can learn more, think deeper, and then share our insights through writing.

When constructing a research paper, students are encouraged to read what others have written on their subject to get a better understanding and to form an educated opinion to argue. As readers, we expect the writers to give us accurate information and have enough background information to understand their argument. As we find sources for our own research, we also expect authors to cite their sources so we can evaluate the credibility. What we as readers expect from the writers, we need to incorporate into our writing. It is our duty as we utilize previous research to give credit where credit is due for the authors’ sake and for our readers as well.

What we read will influence what we write, whether we want to include it or information we want to avoid. If we find a good source to quote, or good ideas from other authors, it is important that we give them credit for the work that they did. By incorporating ideas, phrases, or entire sentences from someone’s work without the proper credit given is stealing and morally wrong. When we were applying to this university, we agreed to live by the honor code which demands high standards of living in all aspects of its students lives. While paraphrasing someone else’s work may not seem like a serious sin, it is taking credit for another person’s hard work. As BYU students, as writers in the making, it is our obligation as we add to the writing world to give credit where credit is due.

The Use of Ethics in Writing

Writing is the fundamental and universal tool that helps the world communicate. It affects our everyday lives, whether it be writing a paper for an English class, sending a text message, or reading a piece of writing posted in a public place. Because writing is such a prevalent part of our society, it needs to be protected as a piece of valuable work.

For instance, if I spend forty to fifty hours working on a research paper for one of my college classes--researching, citing, comparing, drafting, re-writing, revising again and again, losing sleep over--and it turns out to be flawless, I'm going to be very proud of that piece of work. Let's say the due-date comes, and I'm about to turn my paper in, when suddenly one of my classmates jumps up, grabs my paper, crosses my name out and scribbles theirs in its place, then turns it in, leaving me with no recognition for my hard work and effort! This would be a horrible scenario wouldn't it? Thank goodness something like that would never REALLY happen. My point, however, is this: it's important for someone to be recognized for their writing and to have a claim on their ideas. If this were not the case, none of the great writers that we know today (Shakespeare, Charles Dickens, Jane Austen, Charlotte Bronte, Anne Rant, William Faulkner, F. Scott Fitzgerald, etc.) would be rightly attributed to their masterpieces.

So, why is this so important? Who really cares if someone copies an idea? Well, the person from whom the idea originally came from definitely would. No one wants to be discredited for their original ideas. So, the solution is simple--just avoid plagiarism to begin with. No problems are created and everyone stays happy.

So, the take-home message is to always keep strong ethics while writing and follow the rules of good conduct. This includes always correctly citing sources, never plagiarizing, and doing research for our own work. By doing this, a piece of writing, particularly a scholarly paper, will retain its credibility and, in turn, become its own masterpiece.

Just Be Yourself

Formulating an opinion is hard. Formulating an opinion that is truly your own: harder. There is a wealth of information and ideas available to writers today, and so the challenge lies not in obtaining the idea, but in resisting the urge to parrot the ideas and opinions of others. As college students we are past the age of narrow subject guides that undoubtedly reflect the views of the instructor, and have evolved to a higher standard of writing. Now we must mean what we say.

Our duty as members of a society that enjoys the freedom to express our own opinions is to do just that. It is simply not fair to the reader or the writer to perpetuate common ideas simply because they are common. If a writer chooses to stray from his or her own opinions for the sake of conventionality, or in an attempt to please the readers (often professors), then how can we measure truth? Who’s to say that what is being written is really meant? The written word holds a great deal of power, and the decision to write something that you do not believe is a flagrant abuse of that power.

The urge to plagiarize another’s words can, on occasion, be very appealing, but the urge to plagiarize an idea holds much greater influence over writers. It would be an easy thing indeed to replicate the ideas of friends, family, or total strangers en lieu of taking the time and effort formulate one’s own thoughts, but this is a temptation that we as writers must resist. It is true that expressing something that you truly believe in can be difficult, but it is a feat that, if accomplished, will yield incomparable results. Not only will the ability of the writer increase, but the credibility of the writer will remain spotless before the writing world.

Ethics: Research, Ideas and Citing

Ethics covers a wide range of subjects, actions, and even thoughts. Similarly, writing ethically involves many steps: appropriate research, original ideas, and thorough citing.

In order to write ethically, one must first obtain good sources to back up a particular argument. Arguments with no evidence to support them tend to be weak, incomplete or just plain wrong. While it is important to find good, strong research to back up arguments, often times finding ethical sources is more important. Sometimes the most powerful, dogmatic sources aren't always the best evidence. Often times, a more speculative article, without exaggeration, can prove to be more relevant for proving a claim. Even though extremely one sided and exaggerated sources may seem the most convincing, they often provide a sense of dogmatism to the argument as a whole. It is important in writing to do enough research to have a general knowledge of what one's topic is, and be able to distinguish between fact and the possible stretch of truth within articles.

Secondly, once the proper research has been done, it is key that the writer comes up with his own original ideas. Simply summarizing sources does not prove an effective argument; this is also a form of plagiarism. By introducing new ideas, not only is one preventing plaguerism, but he is also potentially begging deeper questions into the chosen topic: adding a reason for the reader to read such a paper. In writing a paper, it is crucial that the ideas are the writers own work.

Lastly, after all this is done, the author most appropriately name his sources. Having no sources, or incorrectly cited sources not only is a form of plagiarism, but also hints that the argument has little validity, for it displays no professionalism. Authors work hard to have their works published. It is only fair that their original ideas, if presented in one's paper to strengthen an argument, are credited to the person who came up with them. All of human society depends on the fusing of ideas to make better ones. Nothing we say or do can be attributed to us alone, but rather a combination of many ideals and things we have experienced in life. It would be unfair and rather naive to believe one person can come up with a complex argument entirely out of thin air.

With all this said, it is very important to strengthen the ethical nature of writing. With so much technology out there, it is very easy to get lazy and use other's ideas, but as students striving to receive a higher education, we should know better; we should instead take advantage of the hard work associated with coming up with original ideas and make the most of our education experience.

plagiarism=bad.

When I read a book or article, I expect what I am reading to be the true work of the author, unless otherwise stated. I believe most people do this--it's natural. It's what writers do out of respect for the work of others. If something is not theirs, then they should give credit where it's due, or not use it at all. Students might not take this as seriously as employed writers because of a possible lack of seriousness regarding a care for the subject on which they are writing or a lack of time or just plain disregard for doing what is expected of them.
Writing is a serious method of transferring the human mind to paper. It is a visible manifestation of the works of the human mind all over the world. When someone puts their thoughts to paper, it is something that no one else can take credit for. Of course these thoughts can be used when the credit is given where it is due, but there is no excuse for taking them without permission and claiming them as one's own. Research is a scary area to deal in when worrying about plagiarism. If one little thing is not cited, a person can get into loads of trouble. Plagiarism is outright stealing--a plagiarist is a thief. They may not be stealing a tv or car, but for many people, thoughts are worth much more than anything material.
As human beings have attempted to create their own ideas and bring changes to the world, there are now loads of information, available at our fingertips for our own progression and learning. These works have usually been written in efforts to bring change and diversity to the world. With so much information, it is easy to simply write something down and take credit for it; there's so much information that almost nothing is completely original anymore. But this is dishonest--it is unacceptable to do this. It happens every day, but it goes against any respect for the ideas of others. As we are writers, it is our responsibility to provide truth to readers. It is our duty to be respectful and honest.

Righteousness in Writing

Before learning about the ethics of writing, I had a giant misconception about writing; I seemed to think that because plagiarism is so frowned upon that this meant that using the ideas of others in our writing was also a bad thing. This left me in a place where I was forced to do my own experiments and research, or otherwise make up a lot of research.

However, I realized this was wrong. We, as creative and persuasive writers, must use the research and analysis of others in order to write with any power. We are able to stand upon the shoulders of those that came before us to create new things that are hopefully better than anything before it.

In conjunction with this idea, there is an obvious side-effect for all those who stand upon the shoulders of the great ones before us. There must be some gratitude shown, if nothing else, to these men and women who have built the foundations upon which we build. That is why I feel citing your work very explicitly is so important. There is no writer worthy of note that does not have a profound sense of gratitude for those writers who have inspired and inform him or her about the topics they know and enjoy.

Citing works you have used in your writing is honest, ethical, and just the right thing to do. No one is going to look at you as a fool if you have many sources from which you've pulled your ideas, as if you were to dumb to figure things out on your on. In fact, it is quite the opposite; people will only see your work as a more validated masterpiece, one in which you worked hard upon and are well-informed enough to write about.

If anything, having ethics and avoiding plagiarism only helps you. It is honest, validates your work, and makes you feel good about yourself. It also shows your appreciation for the work that has come before you, giving proper credit where it is due.

If you haven't started yet, I implore you to begin giving full credit to those who you base your work upon. It fills you with warm fuzzies. It is simply the righteous thing to do.

Writing Ethically

By writing the Great Works papers as well as the Experience Writing assignments I have gained a far greater understanding of what the Ethics of Writing entail, and how best to uphold them. There are a couple of fundamental principles that found these ethics that can be applied to instances of writing. They are founded on an accurate empathetic representation, an emphasis on the individual nature of writing, and evaluation of possible implications.

The text is based on ideas that the author holds as well as experiences, and really, anything that influences the writer. The responsibility of the author to the reader is to effectively convey a message. This is very much like the triangle that we see on our Reading and Writing book. However, the message should be catered to the reader in such a way that some amount of solidarity can result from the ideological representation. One of the difficult things that the author has to deal with is the idiosyncratic nature of interpretation; this can be overcome through an effective use of literary devices. I’m sure that we all have experienced this before, one example that immediately comes to mind is when I was in middle school and we read some works by Edgar Allen Poe. His descriptions and tone quickly created an empathetic solidarity that reflected why the text was written, and very carefully the structures that supported it. I do not think that meaning has to be extremely concise, sometimes ambiguity is a redeeming feature in a work.

An emphasis on the individual nature of writing bridges many gaps in the Ethics that I perceive in writing, but I think that most effectively, if functions in a paradox of connecting the individual to the collective group. Emphasizing the individual nature of writing elucidates the internal link to creativity or sometimes greatness in writing, but it unites writers and groups of people in a contract that they will not become egocentric and prideful, and exploit the writings of someone else for their own gain. Ultimately it is pride and self-interest that drive issues like plagiarism. Readers will see that they really enjoy the ideas that are expressed and think that they would have mass appeal, so they bastardize them and reuse them without emphasis on the individual nature of writing and the ideas that are expressed. I realize that this can happen on accident many times, I’m sure that many of us might accidently do it, but we have a binding to try with our strongest intent to represent the ideas accurately with credit due where it needs to be.

The author and the reader also have a duty to evaluate the implications of the text in an accurate and fair portrayal. Sometimes the projection of the author’s ideas is widespread, they have a duty to represent them in a manner that fits with their personal morality, and the reader should make sure that they do not carry the author’s ideas to heights that they should not be taken. One of the immediate examples of this that comes to mind is the exploitation of Nietzsche’s works by the Nazis. As readers we should make sure we don’t exploit the text in a fashion that it obviously was not intended to be used.

Let Them Eat Cake!

Cake. Contained in that one, four-letter word is a myriad of meanings, memories, and magic that nearly everyone can identify with. Cake is a band, hygiene is helped along by cakes of soap, tests are (hopefully) a piece of cake. However, the greatest and most recognizable form of cake is that of the most versatile dessert in the world. Birthday cake, Bundt cake, get-well-soon cake, wedding cake, cupcakes, and on and on and on.

That’s one of the beauties of cake: versatility. Chocolate, yellow, red velvet, white, Devil’s food, carrot. It can be decorated for Halloween, baby showers, Christmas, spring, Mother’s Day, or reunions. You can choose buttercream frosting, royal frosting, fondant, or ganache. Accents could be sprinkles, edible flowers, plastic figures, candles, and photos printed on edible icing-paper with food coloring. Seriously, I could go on making lists and series until next November. Cake, when decorated well, can celebrate anything.

And when it’s decorated badly, it can be highly entertaining.

Enter Jen Yates, mastermind behind food blog phenomenon Cake Wrecks. It all started with one photo, a bakery-ordered cake with badly mangled wording (Best Wishes Suzanne/Under Neat That/We Will Miss You) that happened to be circulating the viral email track. Yates decided to put it on a blog with a witty caption and since then, the project has exploded.

"...And underneath that, write 'We will miss you'. Got it?"
Oh yeah, they got it.

Most of the cakes featured on Cake Wrecks are reader-submitted, meaning that all Yates has to do is sit around, check her email, and then formulate some of the funniest and wittiest commentary on badly-decorated cakes the internet has ever seen. Of course the big draw is the funny photos, but it’s the captions that really make the blog one you will want to visit again and again.

Outside of the overarching rhetorical use of visuals, Jen Yates makes the photographs of badly-decorated cakes even more hilarious through her use of allusion, sarcasm, and dialogue.

Allusion: 

Allusion is a great rhetorical tool for immediately laying a common foundation and context between author and reader. Yates applies this technique often, using that context to give her posts added hilarity by uniting common pop culture with badly decorated cakes.

The allusory undertones serve to tie together a collection of Cake Wreck photos that otherwise have no uniting factor. Yates tends to group her cakes together through either similar mistakes or similar occasions, but using an illusion gives her a tool to put together a post with completely random cakes while still giving her audience a united and smooth read. Then, every cake and caption builds off the last instead of existing as random snippets. It adds to the context, making it a journey of hilarity instead of snapshots of funny.

In the post “Far Side of the Wreck” uses a Far Side author Gary Larson-esque voice to create esoteric and dryly clever captions. Jen starts the post with a quick background, bringing up images of her as a child curled up with a Far Side anthology, growing up on the bizarre comics that she claims heavily influenced her sense of humor. The story immediately makes her more human; this glimpse into her childhood gives her a personable and very human tone. She gains immediate credibility, which only adds more zing to her following captions.

Alone and outnumbered, C3pO did his best to blend in.

Further credibility is added when Yates imitates Gary Larson’s style perfectly, which also gives the allusion more weight. Applying that tone to photos of ridiculously decorated cakes puts each wreck in a different context than simply looking at the photo alone. A picture of several Star Wars cupcakes is seemingly innocuous until the caption “Alone and outnumbered, C3pO did his best to blend in” makes it blaringly obvious that all the other cupcakes have plastic Chewbacca heads pressed into the frosting, while there is only one C3p0 cupcake. Suddenly, the solidarity of the robot head becomes funny because of Yates’ caption and because of the allusion.

Sarcasm: 

Jen Yates is a master of sarcasm. Every post has a little bit in it. In her praises of some of the worst cakes their weaknesses are made more obvious than a techni-colored rainbow cake. Her post “Come on Barbie, Let’s Go Party” starts the same as many, telling a quick story can gives context to the whole post. She begins to talk about those crocheted toilet-paper cover dolls that creepily protected your rolls of toilet-paper from any wandering eye that might be offended at its white, cylindrical shape.

Yates then connects the TP doll to the doll cake, which is just as strange, but more edible. Here the sarcasm become evident. She goes on to praise the great and diverse nature of Barbie doll cakes, giving each a name that is both flatters and points out it’s decorative “wreck-itude.”

The "I'm-A-Little-Teapot"

The "Girls-Shouldn't-Have-ALL-The-Fun"

The sarcasm may seem harsh at times, but Yates does it all in good fun. Besides, who's idea was it anyway to make a Barbie cake out of a Aladdin-like Ken doll?

Dialogue: 


It is often said that in fiction and non-fiction alike it is better to show than tell. Yate’s use of dialogue does just that. By telling a story through two people talking, the audience fills in their own details. It also serves to make a cake funnier by revealing the back story.

Take this wreck:

You may be confused as to why someone would want a cake with a USB drive on it, and a detailed one at that. In fact, besides the bizarre decoration, you may find nothing wrong with the cake. Sure, it’s strange, but well done.

Now, read the dialogue that goes along with it:

[answering phone] "Cakey Cake Bakery, Jill speaking! How can I help you?"


"Hi, I need to order a cake for my boss. We have a photo of him playing golf that we'd like to put on it, though - can you do that?"


"Of course! Just bring the photo in on a USB drive and we'll print it out here."


"Great, I'll bring it by this afternoon."


Later...


"Hey, Jill, what am I putting on this cake?"


"Oh, check the counter; I left the jump drive out for you there."


[calling from the back room] "Really? This is what they want on the cake?"


"Yeah, the customer just brought it in."


"Okey dokey!"


Laughing yet? I am. The story behind the cake is what makes it funny. Once you realize that the decorator completely misunderstood the use of the jump drive, the well-done cake becomes a colossal fail. The dialogue helps the reader to this conclusion instead of simply coming out and saying it. The audience to finds their own context, and that sudden jolt of realization takes the USB cake from strange to funny.

It doesn’t take much to see that Cake Wrecks is funny. Really, the only thing you need to do to be convinced is to go read a couple of posts yourself. And, true, we could go on and on about how and why Yate’s captions make the wrecks funnier by giving them added context, but in the end, is that really why the blog attracts so many readers? Perhaps it is the simple reminder that not everyone is perfect. Don’t deny it: on some level, you revel at the disasters of others because it frees you to also make mistakes. That’s what Cake Wrecks is: a place that frees you to make your own mistakes because, well, at least it wasn’t as bad as that one cake.

Dove: The Multimedia Mastermind

Dove™ has always marketed its line of beauty products as soft and gentle. The Dove Movement For Self Esteem takes a similar approach-but its nonprofit! The movement is recruiting women everywhere to “Join the Movement” by signing their names and thereby commit to fostering self esteem in young girls. For most young women, their mothers will have the largest impact on their lives over all other adult women. Cognizant of this fact, Dove tailors its entire site to mothers and adult female caretakers.

To do this, Dove brings in traditional web design strategies such as size, shape and color to direct viewers to multimedia content, such as videos, images, and written rhetoric for the cause.

When persuading an audience via a website, the authors of the website have two jobs. The first is to create the environment in which the viewer will be most receptive to suggestions. Second, they must make those suggestions convincingly with whatever tools they can, whether that be visuals and videos, or words.

Visually, Dove Movement is effective and almost always keeps its target audience in mind with web layout, images, and videos. The text passages included in the website are heartfelt and moving, but often lack clarity and specificity, choosing to rely largely on pathos rather than logos.

So how persuasive is this website? In order to decide, you must first understand what Dove does to target its specific audience (mothers) and the emotional appeals it makes to them. After doing so, you will come to the same conclusion that I have: Dove is a master of multimedia rhetoric!

Web Layout: Setting The Stage

Whether you notice it or not, web design has a huge impact on your reaction to a web site. Colors, shapes, images, and even font size can be used to direct and grab our attention. Dove grabs not only the generic person’s attention, but female care givers specifically. It is only when Dove has its audience’s full attention that it can begin to give its arguments for why individuals should join the movement.





Colors

This website uses a predominantly light blue color scheme. The color blue is significant for many reasons. One: Dove’s mother site is dark blue, so the blue serves as a visual reminder of the connection between the two sites. Two: Blue is associated with feelings of trust and serenity. These feelings make the viewer more susceptible to persuasion and therefore more likely to join the movement.

◊✩Shapes✩◊

The basic layout for this webpage consists of a series of boxes over a shaded background. These rectangles have rounded edges, avoiding sharp corners. These shapes, coupled with the color blue, establishes the “persona” of the website. Dove is now established as a gentle and nurturing cyber mother! This persona encourages viewers to exhibit similar qualities and nurture girls and their self esteems. It also builds confidence in Dove’s sincerity.

Images

There are two main images of women with children on the site. This clearly indicates that it is mothers who Dove is targeting their campaign towards. One of these is a Caucasian woman and child and the other of an African American mother and child. Thus, Dove includes multiples ethnicities in their target audience. By showing multiple ethnicities, Dove expands the audiences ability to relate to these images because the audience is physically able to see the similarities between themselves and these pictures.

The Arguments:

Clearly, The Dove Movement is deeply invested in creating the ideal environment for its target audience (mother figures) to be persuaded. But what are they being persuaded to do? The Dove Movement asks all women to Join The Movement (joining involves a quick questionnaire, writing your advice to a 13-year-old, and giving your email address) and thereby commit to building girls’ self worth.

Because Dove has chosen an online format, they are able to use multimedia videos, a blog, as well as a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) page to make their arguments. These persuasive tools rely predominantly on pathos, but logos is also present.


The Video

Watch it Here!

The single most persuasive tool on this website is a short video that depicts a mother figure and two young girls. This video shows a five-year-old girl who’s embarrassed to have dimples. The girl shares her feelings and another girl near her age tells the first that she thinks her dimples are cute. Through out the video, an adult woman (who we assume is a mother or similar role model from the context) presides over this.

This video is persuasive because it clearly depicts both the problem, low self esteem in girls, and the solution, a supportive dialogue to boost self esteem (preferably created and presided over by a mother).

Because the children in the video are younger the viewers are naturally more protective of them. Psychologically, the children are also cuter and more appealing than older children, making adults more inclined to help them. Thus, this video employs pathos to appeal to the nurturing and caretaker specific audience by showing the audience how their actions can benefit these girls and appealing to the protective feelings of the audience. This argument is most effective for mothers, and adults in similar caretaker positions. Again, Dove is tailoring its content towards its target audience.

The Blog

It is here that Dove issues the challenge to spend 60 minutes with a girl and talk about beauty and self esteem with them. This is effective because it appeals to logos; the phrase “only sixty minutes” seems like a small amount of time with the use of diction”only”. Using minutes instead of hours adds to this illusion. Dove argues that taking this challenge will not interfere with viewers busy lives, so they should be free to take up the cause.

The blog also includes small narratives on how negative self esteem has influenced women’s lives. Dove again calls upon pathos by reminding viewers of their past feelings of low self esteem and inadequacy and creating sympathy for the writer. The nurturing viewer will then (Dove hopes) feel an obligation to raise others’ self esteems by taking the challenge (and joining the website).

The FAQ

The Frequently Asked Questions page does a fantastic job pinpointing the specific questions of their audience. Questions range from “What is the Movement?” to “What does joining the Movement actually do?”

Unfortunately, the answers to these questions are not as specific. Instead they rely on generalizations that fail to answer the the questions. For example, in response to “What does joining the Movement actually do?”, Dove replies (paraphrased) ‘You will become part of a community making a difference on issues of self-esteem and real beauty’ .

This answer sounds appealing. It argues makes the reader feel important because they have the opportunity to make a difference by joining the community. However, it fails to clarify what kind of community and what actions will make a difference.

Dove is not taking the opportunity it has here to answer questions, but instead pushing sentiment heavy slogans from its website to encourage viewers to join the cause. These sentiments fail to logically answer questions, instead using vague pathos.

This may be because the aim of the Dove Movement itself is vague. Dove wants to establish a dialogue between young girls, adolescents, and their mothers; but it wants the viewer to figure out how to do that. Therefore, the site has few specific goals and resources other than the Self Esteem Weekend.

Conclusion: Is the Dove Movement Website Persuasive?

To the analytical mind, the lack of logos appears to be a giant hole in the Dove Movement’s rhetoric. However, this is not a hole, but a conscious choice. Dove is tailoring its web design and content towards mothers. The instinct to nurture and care for children (one of the defining characteristics of motherhood) is not typically a decision of logic, but of maternal feeling and desire. Emotions, not cool calculated logic, are what drive affectionate parenting.

Therefore, it makes little sense to appeal to logos! Instead, Dove stimulates emotional reactions to its website through visual layout and carefully selected persuasive pieces such as videos, blog, et cetera.

The Dove Movement For Self Esteem is a masterful demonstration of how use of rhetoric should be tailored for each specific audience. From the color blue up to the written word on the page, Dove engineers every detail to persuade its audience. Forgoing logos for pathos with gentle edges and colors Dove has carefully convinced its audience to join.

When considered in its entirety, it can be unsettling to realize how careful visual stimuli can influence our receptivity to persuasion. It is therefore of tantamount importance that we understand how rhetoric is used in a multimedia setting. If we understand what tools are being used to convince us, we can then evaluate the argument itself objectively. This increases our own power to make our own decisions without manipulation. Dove’s use of persuasion is for a good cause: helping girls raise their self esteem, but this is not always the case.

Next time you watch, read, or see something, evaluate it. How is it persuading you towards one action or another? Then ask yourself: Should it?

Discover Beauty

Dove is empowering woman to be their best selves. For thousands of years women across the globe have gone to great lengths to feel more beautiful: Eleventh century Chinese women binding their feet, Victorian women removing ribs for smaller waists, and today young girls starving themselves to obtain the ‘model figure’. Everywhere women are bombarded by media embedded with messages that we are not beautiful enough. Dove has taken a stand and has said enough is enough; it is time for us to see that beauty comes from inside each of ourselves. As Italian actress Sophia Loren shares,“Beauty is how you feel inside, and it reflects in your eyes. It is not something physical.”

One of the first times I heard of their campaign for beauty was when a friend emailed me a commercial from the Superbowl in 2006. Companies spend tremendous amounts for a few seconds of airtime between plays; Dove was no exception. However, instead of directly selling their products to America, they employed pathos and warmed the hearts of women and girls everywhere. Their 45 second commercial encourages girls to show their “true colors...because every girl deserves to feel good about herself." By focusing on the girls true beauty, Dove accomplished two purposes: one, helping the audience feel better about themselves and two, setting themselves apart. By focusing first on their consumers rather than on their products they are sending the message that they care for the women who buy their products - not just the sales.

Dove has continued to set itself apart from other beauty companies through their campaign for true beauty. Other companies market products that erase wrinkles or cover up bad spots while Dove is proclaims to women of all ages that they are already beautiful - a clever marketing technique. Naturally, women appreciate sincere compliments and reassurances of self worth, and will remember Dove’s kind words when deciding between two products. Rather than buy products from a company that tells you beauty comes after buying their goods, Dove tells their customers they are already beautiful. With each positive campaign add, Dove is appealing to that part inside each woman that wants to feel loved. On their website, there is a link that tells “how your purchase helps build self-esteem.” Not only do they tell women of their natural beauty, they donate a portion of their profits to charitable organizations such as Girl Scouts of America that helps build self worth in young women. Now we can buy products from a company that celebrates our natural beauty, and our money spent with them goes to help other women reach the same understanding.

Pathos is further seen through interviews and commercials with everyday women. They put themselves on a move realistic level- a company that can relate to real people. Other companies in the same field use woman who have been created through the work of professional make-up artists and computer programs to advertise their products often times leaving the viewers feeling inadequate. Dove does not prey on the feelings of vulnerability that plague all women at some point through impossibly perfect spokes models, but by having normal woman endorse their products. These are the women who shine from within sharing their happiness and beauty with all those they encounter. This appeal to the everyday woman makes them unique in a market swamped with unrealistic standards of beauty.

Dove utilizes various multimedia forums to send their message of beauty that all can reach. Besides television commercials, YouTube has a plethora of videos from the Dove Foundation with similar messages: discover real beauty. The central hub of activity is their website which is chalk full of articles, quotes, sayings, and movies that can help anyone feel good about themselves; I have never felt so uplifted when researching than I have reading the Dove website for this project. When I clicked the link to the page, I was greeted by a video of two sweet young girls playing hand games and giggling. A few seconds later one girl says she does not like her dimples because people make fun of them. These words touched my heart as I thought about how beautiful she was and how little of her beauty she actually saw. It caused me to remember the times when I have been unhappy with my appearance and reminded me that I, like the little girl, am beautiful. Dove again used pathos to make themselves remembered in a touching way.

To fight the affects of hurtful words, such as the words that made the little girl dislike her dimples, when signing up for the movement, one has the opportunity to share advice to share with 13 year old girls. Hundreds of tidbits people have shared on the site to help young girls feel better about themselves. Even though I am not in the vulnerable stage of middle school, I too found the advice uplifting and encouraging. Jen said, “Follow your dreams and never let anyone tell you you can't do something because of the way you look.” Regina said, “You matter- you are smart, pretty, not just outside, but inside. Your heart is tender and also compassionate. Love yourself!” April shares, “Beauty is far more about the way we treat others and how we handle the way others treat us. [Beauty is a] positive attitude toward life.” Sara shares my favorite advice: “the things that made me feel so *different* then are the very things that I love the most about myself now.” Fifty years ago, assembling words of wisdom from individuals across the country and placing them within arms reach of 75% of Americans for free would be nearly impossible. With the increase in technology, Dove has been able to share their message to a much broader audience-anyone with Internet access.

Other features of the website include quizzes, self-esteem tutorials, announcement of nation-wide conferences, online workshops, and global studies. There is something for everyone from the little girl to the elderly woman. Reading the study’s findings amazed me; only three out of ten girls happily view themselves while the other seven do not believe they measure up; 75% of girls with negative self esteem harm their bodies through cutting, drugs, smoking, drinking, and disordered eating to name a few (compared to the 25% of girls with high self esteem). These statistics establish the ethos and show how big of a problem this issue is. Not only do American teens deal with these issues, but women of all nationalities struggle with poor self worth. As you enter Dove’s site, it is necessary to pick a certain country to get to the website specifically tailored for each region establishing the fact that we are not alone - women around the globe are going through similar struggles.

Dove uses the media to spread their message far and wide: women, we are beautiful! Through television ads, YouTube videos, and a useful and interactive website, their message is reaching a wider audience everyday. The cynic may wonder if their motives are sincere and not purely profit based. However, it is important to remember, that a company cannot help the community if it does not have the financial means to do so. Dove needs to first meet its basic financial needs before it can reach out to others While employing their rhetorical devices help make them memorable and may increase their product sales, I believe their marketing strategies are doubly useful. While making their customers feel more confidant, they are also making themselves memorable, a win-win situation for all. I believe we should support their cause and by their products because “because every woman deserves to feel beautiful!”

Prison or Pardon?

The Hook: The New York Times article “The Mississippi Pardons” by Bob Herbert is an editorial trying to persuade the reader that the release of Jamie and Gladys Scott from serving double life sentences in prison by Mississippi governor Haley Barbour is not only an act of compassion, but morally correct and absolutely necessary. The question is, are the rhetorical tools of ethos, pathos, and logos used in the article effective enough to convince the readers? You be the judge.

The Story: The sisters were said to have persuaded two men to go to a rural area outside of Forest, Mississippi, in 1993, where the men were robbed by three teenagers who Jamie and Gladys knew. A total of $11 dollars were taken and no one was harmed.

Why we care: Governor Barbour has already pardoned 5 men, all with charges of murder, from their life sentences. They had all previously been in a prison program that had allowed them to work at the Governor's mansion. If he's already pardoned these men, why not the two sisters??

Ethos:

• 

  The information in the article is not specific, with few direct quotes. This could lead to decreased credibility because of the ambiguous sources of information. Your average Joe might not care, but your average New York Times reader will. If the information isn't reliable, why should they be bothered to act on something that they may have been misinformed of?

• However, the New York Times has also been described as a more liberal paper, so the readers might already have strong opinions for the sisters to be released because of the type of information they are used to seeing in the paper. This article was published for the purpose of gaining support from the liberal readers that are in favor of pardoning those who have been punished too harshly.

Pathos:

• The first emotional appeal comes in the author's noting that one of the sisters, Jamie, is suffering severely from medial problems, specifically kidney failure. The sisters are saying that Jamie will most likely die in prison because of her health problems. This strikes a chord with the readers, because almost everyone knows someone with a horribly painful medical condition and knows the hardship that the situation puts you in. More people will want to root for the sisters' release because they want Jamie to have time to live before she dies.

  

• Another well employed appeal to the emotions of the readers is the quote at the end of the article from the sisters' mother, saying, “I wish they would just hurry up and let them out. I hope that is where it is leading to. That would be the only justified thing to do.” Everyone has a mother or a mother-like figure in their lives that they respect and admire, a woman they would do anything for. By putting the mother's quote in the article, the author reaches into that sentimental pocket and pulls out a deep emotional connection that the readers feel, making them want to sympathize with the mother and help her get her children back.

• The diction that the author uses makes his opinion clear, and also helps to persuade the reader that there is “only one real choice.” Phrases such as “unconscionable and grotesquely inhumane,” “unquestionably committed shockingly brutal crimes,” “dangerous abuses of executive power,” and “beyond disturbing” are examples of the type of writing the author uses to make his point. These words put the situation in a “black or white” light, displaying good and evil, with no gray in between. These make the reader feel like it is their moral responsibility to favor the sisters and support them however they can. Readers that do not immediately take the sisters' side might even be criticized as cruel and without a heart.

• As I looked for more information on this case, I found that several articles used a quote from Benjamin Jealous, the president of the NAACP, that the author of this article chose not to include. Jealous said, “It is a travesty that in the state of Mississippi, the lives of two Black women are valued at little more than 11 dollars.” I think the author omitted this quote for a purpose. By taking out the racial part of the equation, the case is solely a moral argument, with no other factors, like race, that could taint the argument with misconceived prejudice and irrelevant hate.

Logos:

• The juxtaposition of the sisters' double life sentence to the two year sentence of the teens who actually robbed the victims serves to further the author's point that the sentence placed upon the sisters is too severe and that it should be rescinded as soon as possible. In my opinion, the author is so against the sentence placed upon these sisters that he thinks that the governor should make the sisters homemade cookies and write an apology letter in addition to pardoning them.

• Another appeal to logic is the governor's track record – he's already “...pardoned, granted clemency to, or suspended the sentences of at least five convicted murderers, four of whom killed their wives or girlfriends” (Slate.com). Why then would he have a problem releasing two middle-aged women who were only accomplices to the robbery? It also brings up a point of controversy that further weakens the governor: all the pardoned men had been in a program that allowed them to work in the governor's mansion in a prison trusty program prior to their pardons. This bit of information leaves us to wonder whether the governor pardoned them for legitimate reasons.

• The way the information in the article is presented is a logical appeal in itself. After the first paragraph, the odds are already stacked in favor of the two sisters because the article has been set up in the best way possible to keep our interest and our opinion. The author reels in his readers by minimizing the involvement of the sisters and making the severity of their sentence seem nonsensical. He then gives the obvious “right choice” to pardon the sisters from their sentences, and finally fills in the details by using supporting information to back up his point while subtly attacking the opposing side of the situation. This grabs the reader from the start and doesn't let them go until they are thoroughly convinced of the author's opinion and make it their own opinion as well.

The Verdict:

The author did a great job using rhetorical appeals to convince his readers, and an even broader audience of average people, to side with the incarcerated sisters in their petition for a pardon. Despite the authors misuse of ethos in giving ambiguous information that could have possibly been detrimental, his use of pathos and logos more than made up for it. The emotional appeals of reader association and diction were used effectively to make the audience feel connected to the sisters and their plight. The logical appeals of organization and background information serve to satisfy the intellectual reader by bringing up new points proven by fact to help further the argument. I'd say the article is effective because, hey, I'm convinced.

Do You Believe in Love? Mormons Do.

        Sex, politics, and religion are three topics that should not be discussed at the dinner table (or anywhere else for that matter.) It is very rare that one can express his or her opinion on one of these issues without accusations, disagreements, and plain misunderstanding from the opposing side. On October 4, 2010, the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) filed a petition including 150,000 signatures, which spoke out against a talk given by Elder Boyd K. Packer, a leader in The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. In his talk, Packer reinforced the Church’s viewpoint that marriage between a man and a woman is ordained of God. Although Packer intended for his words to inspire and remind Mormons to keep the commandments of God, many people misunderstood his intentions. His words were misinterpreted and many viewed his remarks as detrimental towards gays and lesbians.

        In the HRC petition, David Melson, Executive Director of Affirmation: Gay and Lesbian Mormons, said, "Elder Packer's remarks in General Conference were not only ill-advised and contrary to fact, but were mean-spirited and will be perceived by many as bullying. We see no potential for good coming from his words and much possible damage, to the Church, to individuals, and to families. The LDS Church should be a source of love, compassion, and conciliation, and not of fear and unfeeling petty hatred."

        Contrary to the Melson’s belief, the LDS Church is in fact a source of love and compassion. On October 12, 2010, Michael Otterson, a representative of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, gave an address regarding the petition. Through his words, he successfully expressed the viewpoints of the Church and its’ position regarding the issue through a variety of rhetorical tactics. By focusing on love, using doctrinal references, and reaching a common ground between different groups in the audience, Otterson was able to deliver his address in an effective and successful manner.

Love.

        Otterson states that the doctrine of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is based on love and this becomes an underlying theme in his address. True to the Faith, an informational resource book published by the LDS Church, reminds that we are all children of God. The world is full of many different types of people, but if we remember that we are all brothers and sisters, this realization can “transcend all boundaries of nation, creed, and color.”

        Because there are varying types of people, there are some who claim that they are attracted to the same sex and that those feelings were inborn. However, a key point to Otterson’s address is that there is a difference between having these feelings and acting upon them. Although the feelings may in fact be inborn, in the end, it is our decision whether or not we are going to act on those feelings and give in to temptation. Corinthians 10:13 says we will not be tempted more than we can handle. This means that even if someone is born with an attraction to the same sex then they are able to overcome these feelings. However, this is easier said than done. Otterson acknowledges this by saying, “There is no question that this is difficult, but Church leaders and members are available to help lift, support and encourage fellow members who wish to follow Church doctrine.” He emphasizes that although life is full of difficulties, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is one to help others through these difficulties.

        Despite the strict viewpoints of the LDS Church, Otterson recognizes that everyone is able to make their own decisions and not everyone will choose to follow the Church’s established guidelines. By doing this, he recognizes that the Church’s standards won’t be accepted by all, yet the Church will be acceptant of all people. Jesus Christ, whom members of the Church believe in and follow teachings of, commanded everyone to love one another. Otterson reminds that this is one of the underlying concepts of the Church. Throughout the address, the example of Christ is brought up and the reminder that the LDS Church focuses on love is emphasized. Members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints strive to show unconditional love towards all men despite their decisions. Many people think that Mormons aren’t accepting of people with different standards but Otterson rhetorically discredits this claim by focusing on love.

Doctrine.

        Throughout the address, Otterson establishes a ground of credibility that clearly gives justification for the words spoken by Elder Packer. He directly states the Church’s doctrinal belief which outlines to non-member’s why Mormons have the viewpoints that they do. He says, “As a church, our doctrinal position is clear: any sexual activity outside of marriage is wrong, and we define marriage as between a man and a woman.” These beliefs come from The Family: A Proclamation to the World. This proclamation given by leaders of the LDS Church blatantly says that marriage should be between a man and a woman. Members of the Church aren’t simply making up their own ideas of what’s “right”, they are following the words of counsel given by their prophets. This rhetorical strategy gives credibility to Otterson. Because he is a representative of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, he is acting under the direction of the Church’s prophet and therefore the things he is saying are true.

Common Ground.

        Even though Otterson uses an abundance of religious references, he balances out his claims with mentioning the HRC as well. Because he is speaking to a wide audience, he is careful to appeal to each type of person. Otterson does a good job of staking a common ground between members of the LDS Church and the rest of the world, especially gays and lesbians. In his introductory remarks, he acknowledges that there have recently been “tragic deaths across the country as a result of bullying or intimidation of gay young men.” Although the Church does not agree with homosexuality, Otterson says that that should never be the cause of unkindness. The LDS Church does not support any level of cruelty “whether those differences arise from race, religion, mental challenges, social status, sexual orientation or for any other reason.” By making it clear that Mormons are accepting of all types of people, Otterson is able to get his point across in a more effective and all-encompassing manner. Instead of people simply being upset at the Mormons because they are Mormon, they can be more understanding that we have good intentions. After recognizing this, others can make a more educated stand on the viewpoints of the religion.

        In Michael Otterson’s address in regards to the HRC petition, many rhetorical tactics were used to get his point across. He acknowledged that not everyone will agree with the Church’s standpoint but states that “We (as a Church) hope that any disagreement will be based on a full understanding of our position and not on distortion or selective interpretation.” By accurately explaining the viewpoints of the Church while focusing on love, using a doctrinal approach, and reaching a common ground between the members of the audience, Otterson is successfully able to deliver his address and increase awareness of the issue at hand.