laviesstuff

[laviesstuff]

*TUMBLR 4: RHETORIC AND THE SELF*

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: (1) How does this rhetorical artifact or the person who produced it navigate the rhetorics of self? (2) Is it ultimately productive and/or unproductive for the audience?

To investigate these questions, I analyze a selected scene from the reality show “America's Next Top Model” as my rhetorical artifact. In this video, Dani - one of the contestants is debating and expressing her disagreement about diversity and race matter, which puts her against other people in the show as her belief is “accused” racist and homophobic.

America's Next Top Model (ANTM) is an American reality television series and a platform for a model interactive competition. Aspiring models will compete for the title of "America's Next Top Model" and the opportunity to step into their modeling career. Tyra Banks, the Victoria's Secret model who hosts and executive produces the show, has been a model of ethnic diversity. Though most magazine covers still feature white models, ANTM gives young women of all colors the chance to pursue their Cover Girl dreams. In season 6, a competitor, Dani, shocks the media and the participants by her interview in which she identifies herself as a Republican and against “anything liberal”. She further instantly makes an impression on the other girls, especially the Black girls, with her exclusive personal views on race.

According to Hauser, “rhetoric can reflect a self through the type of argument developed and the language used”. In other words, the speaker’s self is assumed in the manner her argument is built and how her implicit invitation to listeners to share her viewpoint. Before Dani’s perspective unfolds, she reveals that her “entire life was a dream” and that she had “so many friends” (0:20-0:25) which indicates that she did not encounter any troubles with her point of view and the way she addresses matters about different races and cultures. While sitting in the car with other competitive models and being asked “How many girls were at the try-out?”, Dani replies with the impression of surprise that when she auditioned for the show, “It was like 95% black girls. These were all black girls. I didn't really think it was gonna be like that. Like whenever they went out I was like okay”. The fact that Dani acts surprised in her statement about the minority population at the try-out when she tries to explain her point reflects her exposure to mostly white people who hold the same belief system, and seeing more Black people concerns her obligations. Her comments definitely rubbed the others the wrong way, resulting in Furonda Brasfield (the black girl) questioning her conscient “What’s your point though?”

This question seemingly gives Dani a chance to rethink what topics she is discussing, however, she does not find her comments inappropriate in any way. Instead, she continues “Usually it's like half black half white or you know, more white. (More white?) It's naturally like a population wise minority.” Hauser thinks that by evoking a self, rhetoric may offer arguments in ways that encourage people to rethink their beliefs and the self they identify. Critical examination of issues, in particular, can have such significant repercussions that it leads to the discovery of a self. In this scenario, Dani does not seem to implement evoking a self rhetoric in her conversations. She is drastically consistent in her political views and freely expresses them to the oppressed group without concerning the consequences to others as well as not reconsidering what needs to be changed.

After receiving negative responses from other girls, Dani immediately switches her discourse style to maintain a self including her beliefs and values on many occasions. Hauser argues that “not only can rhetoric bring us to a new self-awareness, but it can also support and sustain an existing self”. In a brief interview, Dani tries to communicate her self-awareness, insulating it from attack by other contestants and maintaining her sense of self-worth: “I have my opinion and I try to stay to it”- she says. During her audition tape, Dani states that she is the most "uber-conservative republican, hardcore baptist you can ever imagine" and boldly announces that "I don’t like gay people, I don’t like Muslims, I don’t like abortions, I don’t like anything liberal. But other than that, I really like to get along with people". Her claims once again show that she has not accepted the freedom to choose and to be open to shift her mindset by others. Additionally, when Danielle - one of the blak girl warns Dani about what she is saying “You don’t think before you speak. Yeah you need to watch what you say”, Dani repeatedly replies that “I am thinking” twice and invalidates Danielle’s point by interrupting her: “It doesn’t matter, I know how I feel and you don’t. So you can’t tell me that I’m racist when I know I’m not”, proving to others that she is highly and self-consciously reflective about her experience as well as her feelings.

The American Psychological Association defines microaggressions as “the brief statements or behaviors that, intentionally or not, communicate a negative message about a non-dominant group—are everyday occurrences for many people” (Clay, 2017). The fact that microaggressions are often subtle can make them harder to shake off than more overt forms of discrimination, says psychologist Dorainne J. Levy. She adds: "There's uncertainty about whether or not your experience was due to your race, for example, or due to something unrelated, such as the other person being in a bad mood or having a bad day, that’s distressing!"

Based on the events and Dani’s unchanged choice of expression such as “I don’t believe in affirmative action like biggest load of craps I have ever heard in my whole life, ever” or “Black people” this and that towards others when being asked “So what type of racism do you have for people to think that you're racist?”, her statements resemble discrimination in many level although she denies to be a racist and whether she realizes it or not.

Finally, after continuously rubbing the contestants the wrong way and explaining herself, Dani shifts her rhetorical style to destroying a self by asserting her belief and disagreeing with the judges. Hauser claims that by slaying the selves of opponents, “both sides used a unilateral rhetoric that protected their perspective selves from external attack, from considering the possibility that their perspective views were mistaken.” To prevent her political views from the judges, Dani provides a convincing/religious explanation: “I just have moral obligations to my church and I just don’t agree with your lifestyle. I'm a hard ass and I know that, I don’t apologize for my opinion.” By using the bibles and the Christinalilty rules, she successfully slays the selves of the three judges as well as the gay community since their lifestyles are agaisnt the belief system in this religion. Although Dani’s statements are controversial, she does not seem to be close-minded intentionally nor does it seem like she is trying to push her views on others. It seems that she is open to the idea that there are more than just white people out there, but she did not grow up with any sort of diversity, reflecting in her statement: “Everything in my life was perfect and then I came here”; untill she says: “They should have a more open mind as to what I was born in, where I was raised in. You can't choose where you come from.” It is true that she has a point, yet, it can also be applied to herself, rethinking how she exhibits her religion and perspective causes separation not union. This once again indicates that Dani does not evoke a self through rhetoric but rather destroying one.

Although Dani’s values do not complement the freedom and open-mindedness in the fashion industry and her message certainly does not sound productive for both the participants and the audience, the show AMNT itself has always been on the cutting edge of inclusive casting, not only in the competitors but also the judges. Throughout this artifact, ANTM has proven to be more than a reality series steeped in drama and superficial relationships. This show tells the stories of contestants, not just striving to win a model competition, but also addressing personal issues such as race and LBGTQ issues, and creating a platform where women, and eventually men, of all clothing sizes, heights, skin tones, genders, sexualities, are able to compete for the same title.

All in all, Dani appears to limit opposing ideas and protect herself from the impact of liberal views on Black and homosexual people particularly through reflecting, maintaining, and destroying a self. Although Dani's attitude and demeanor do not align with the show's ultimate goal of inclusiveness and equity, the show has presented more genuine connections and conversations about acceptance and the breaking down of disempowering stereotypes.

Work Cited

Clay, R. A. (2017, January). Did you really just say that? Monitor on Psychology. Retrieved May 12, 2022, from https://www.apa.org/monitor/2017/01/microaggressions

Hauser, G. A. (1986). Making commitments through rhetoric. In Introduction to rhetorical theory (pp. 44–55)., New York: Harper and Row.

[laviesstuff]

*TUMBLR ENTRY 3: “Why do they make her wear that?”*

https://youtu.be/gvSqKSkRFuM

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: In which way does this artifact demonstrate a problematic application of one's own positionality on a group they are not part of or harmful perpetuation of a stereotype of a particular way?

To investigate these questions, I examined a stand-up comedy called “Feelings: Why do they make her wear that?'' by Ramy Youssef. Through invitational rhetoric and critical localism, Ramy Youssef contributes to motivate the audience to appreciate and put effort into understanding different cultural heritages, especially Islamic clothing. Specifically, he challenges a specific stereotype of Muslims wearing hijab in the eyes of white people by sharing his identity and questioning cultural norms in the West, recognizing the potential of misconception among foreign cultures.

Ramy Youssef: Feelings (2019) is a stand-up comedy show generated by film company HBO, which is presented by an Egyptian-American comic - Ramy Youssef. He is the comedian and actor’s first HBO stand-up comedy special. The exclusive presentation was taped in front of a live audience at the landmark Chicago Cultural Center. “Feelings: Why do they make her wear that?” is part of the whole an-hour long show, in which Ramy Youssef discusses questions he often gets about hijabs and differences in cultural norms. Throughout this comedy, he uses what he thinks are relevant examples to correct misrepresentation of an underrepresented group - Muslim community by describing how the West perceive temperature differently from the East and how the image of a hijab or a short dress varies in perspective.

According to Syed Reza, portrayals of Islamic and Muslim success stories are rarely highlighted in the news and are hardly reported by the mainstream media. Muslims and Islam are frequently represented negatively in Western media with a narrative of excessive violence. However the majority of news coverage on Islam and Muslims in the media today is inherited from previous representations. For example, much of the film industry, particularly Hollywood, has contributed to frame the community and produce misrepresentations, with Muslims and Arabs playing opposing characters in over 900 films since 1896 (Reza, 2011). As a result, Ramy Youssef comedy on Muslim acts as a new wave of education about cultural differences and influences potential social change.

To open his controversial comedy, Ramy starts speaking slowly and clearly: “The questions that happen when people haven't met each other. It’s amazing. These white mo… There’s really something to it.” Although he does not finish his sentence ''This white mo…”, this hints that he is targeting white people when they raise biased questions about other cultures. He then continues on with a specific question that he recieves: “Because they’ll find out I’m Muslim, the second they find out, crazy quesiton: “Why do you make them wear that?”, in which “them” is referred to Muslim women. He replies: “I’m like “who?” and making direct eye contact with the camera, expressing his reaction as a Muslim when hearing the concern about Islamic culture to the mass. Many critics think that there is an issue of gender equality exists in the Muslim comminity as outsiders believe that Muslism men supposedly oppress women (Ruby, 2016). Thus, this question indicates the misconception of Muslim traditional clothing whether women are oppressed by Muslim men and forced to wear a hijab or choose to wear one.

According to Goldzwig, critical localism is “a project demarcated toward the realization of democracy in action.” Critical localism revolves around the communication of local communities, practices, and cultures, including theorizing about the communicative actions of indigenous and/or marginalized peoples and employing critical practices as sites for understanding both rhetorical invention and reception.

By criticizing local practices, Ramy furthers his argument by sharing a conversation he had: “This woman goes, “I was in the Middle East, it was so hot. It was 100 degrees out, and this woman had to wear a scarf and she was sweating. Why do you make her wear that?” In this part, he demonstrates how different cultures such as attires, perceptions, and norms pose different questions, especially among the West and the East, American and Muslim. He specifically mentions the use of different temperature scales in the East (Celsius) compared to the West (Fahrenheit), and subtly exhibits his attitude towards how white people perceive cultures other than their own when it comes to cultural differences; he says: “I was like first of all, you’re in the Middle East. It wasn’t 100 degrees because they use Celsius. Maybe it was 30, I… If it was 100 degrees, you would have melted.” As speaking of clothing, although he identifies himself as a Muslim, his choice of outfit in the comedy gives the impression of a typical white American guy with a t-shirt and white sneakers, proving that by being a bicultural individual he can relate and understand both sides of his cultural identities without leaning more towards one over the other.

Ramy mildly shifts his humor manner to a more soft and calm tone when he says: “The other thing is just because you don’t get it doesnt mean it’s oppressive. If you step outside of even your own culture, things might look weird. I realized this.” Instead of speaking and making eye contact with the live audience, Ramy once again looks directly at the camera to channel the seriousness and significance of the subject; and that he is communicating with a wider audience whether they are in the auditorium or watching his show on TV. By declaring that he “realized this”, he narrates his ethos to appear as a neutral person who can see and understand the differences between the Western and the East. Then he allows the audience to acknowledge the differences by praising these cultures at the same time as criticizing the misconception that all Muslim women are made to wear hijab. Rather than trying to display Islamic ideology to the audience, he successfully engages people with his experience, assuming that his audience will be able to relate to some extent. The fact that the audience laughs at his jokes and keeps silent when they can hear the seriousness in his tone shows that even though some of them respect the culture, their mindset is still implemented with the depiction that white people put on Muslims.

The comparison between two cultural norms continues when he shares another story “I was on a date in New York. In January. It was 7 degrees Fahrenheit. The woman I was with was wearing a really short dress. You know, she wanted to look nice…”. Regardless of the extremely cold weather, Ramy reveals that “she wanted to look nice” to indicate that the woman chooses to wear a fashion piece that she wants to achieve her own purpose without any obligation. He adds: “And she's shivering, but she can’t really move that fast because her heels are slowing her down. And I just look in her eyes and I see this look of panic. And she is so cold. The only thing I could think of was like “Fuck, why do they make her wear that?” Despite his unexpected usage of a curse word, Ramy makes it clear that white Americans seem not to realize that they have their own culture and social norms such as their selection of clothes in extreme weather, which may be different from other regions and religions. Moreover, by comparing the two situations in his experience (Muslim hijab vs. A short dress), the message behind his story emphasizes that a Muslim woman wearing a hijab in warm weather or a white woman wear a short dress in cold weather is somewhat a choice not a must. Although in some regions women need to wear their traditional clothes and social norms can dictate what people wear, it seems different does not mean it is wrong or oppressive.

By providing a critique of dominant culture, Ramy Youssef not only effectively uses comedy to address various aspects of cultural misunderstandings, but he also successfully clarify the concerns with different belief systems; the ability of dominant cultures to suppress absent ones; and the dangers and misconceptions underlying stereotypes, prejudices, and discrimination. Furthermore, he demonstrates a freedom critique by acknowledging that people may not always understand cultures that they are unfamiliar with, and that they must make an effort to understand their own cultural heritage, prevent its suppression, and confront any irrational prejudices, encouraging people to change their perceptions of and actions toward, not only Muslims, but all minority groups.

Work cited

‘Ramy Youssef: Feelings’. (n.d). HBO. Retrieved April 20, 2022, from https://www.hbo.com/specials/ramy-youssef-feelings/

Reza, S. M. (2011). Representations of Islam and Muslims in press coverage. World Journal of Islamic History and Civilization, 1(4), 234-241. Retrieved http://dspace.fudutsinma.edu.ng/jspui/bitstream/123456789/1308/1/fddf84e06939 352b3d4aa4475b565c81a8d6.pdf

Ruby, T. F. (2016). Discourses of Shari'a law and Muslim women: A critical reflection on Sharia in Canada. Feminist Formations, 28(3), 121-147. doi:10.1353/ff.2016.0046

[laviesstuff]

*TUMBLR ENTRY 2: Assembly Member Park Eun-hee’s movie speech*

https://youtu.be/1CHFxtPhbhI

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: (1) What is the main purpose of this artifact’s message? (2) How are ethos, pathos, and logos used in this rhetorical artifact to achieve that purpose? (3) Is the way that these rhetorical appeals are used ethical?

To investigate these questions, I examined episode 8 of the Korean television show “All of us are dead” as my rhetorical artifact. In this episode, one of the characters in the government–Assembly Member Park Eun-hee uses ethos, pathos, and logos to argue that paternal love is everlasting and nothing, even the laws, can stop this bond. Although Park Eun-hee convinces the listener to share understanding as a parent and to not blame the man who breaks the law just to save his child - not otherwise, it is still a problematic message. Specifically, not only is she not telling the entire truth in her speech, but also she plans to use it to persuade her audience for her election campaign.

“All of us are dead” is a South Korean horror television series which paints a cynical portrait of high school, adolescence, and politics. A zombie apocalypse suddenly breaks out and threatens students’ lives at a local high school. The surviving students strive to escape their school with no food or water and communication cut off by the government. Meanwhile, Nam So-ju—a firefighter is trying to save his daughter from the school but is insisted to rescue the Assembly Member before anyone else as her vital role in the government. In the end, he finally decides to defy protocol in order to come to his daughter and puts his physical strength as well as survival skills to work in the process, including fighting with the army soldiers. Although Assembly Member Park Eun-hee intensely objects to the decision, she finds a perfect-time to give a speech on this situation when the army interviews her as a suspect in the incident. However, instead of telling the whole truth, she revises the situation in order to enhance her election campaign later.

Before hearing the main speech and identifying its structure, an important factor to consider when analyzing this artifact is the time that the narrative begins. The argument does not start when the camera points at the speaker, instead, it is already started the moment she walks into the room and is questioned by the investigator. In other words, everything recorded in the video is the construction of her persuasion. Aristotle explains the takeaway value of rhetoric by identifying the three “artistic proofs”, including (1) logos, (2) pathos, and (3) ethos. In which, logos is “arguments and logical reasoning”; pathos represents “the names and the costs of various emotions”; and ethos is “human character and goodness”, which will be utilized throughout the artifact’s narrative. (Herrick, 2013)

Aristotle defines ethos as “human character and goodness” which refers to the speaker's ability to persuade an audience of their credibility or character. Particularly, the speakers use ethos appeal through appropriate language and fairness, to appear trustworthy and to convince the audience. On a base level, Park Eun-hee has some ethos as she is the Assembly Member and is part of the election. Thus, she wants to sustain her position as well as preserve her credibility. When the investigator informs the Assembly Member about the conviction, she remains silent and switches attention to the flaw of the investigation itself as it is recorded without any consent of the participants, and expresses concern: “Are you recording this?”. She utilizes this case to show the loopholes of the law in which even the serious investigation skips some rules, “Aren’t you supposed to inform us if you're recording?”— her assistant adds. The complementary between two questions creates a criticism for the investigation that the law misuser now can interrogate another lawbreaker, hinting that the investigator or the system is no better than her and the whole investigation is unvalidated.

In the Assembly Member’s speech, she builds her ethos appeal as an authentic and an empathetic leader through her understanding and sensitivity toward parental love. At the beginning of the scene, one of the firefighters—Kim U-sin, who aids the escape of Nam So-ju to save his daughter, denies the involvement of the Assembly Member, because he is telling the truth and willing to take responsibility for what he does. Despite his story, the Assembly Member replies: “I’m Assembly Member Park Eun-hee. I am being interrogated because I have been accused of aiding in the escape of Nam So-ju and Kim U-sin, the firefighters who saved my life”. Throughout her opening, she uses a lot of “I” statements, drawing all of the attention to herself. She starts off her speech by introducing her honorable role along with other words that contradict her reputation such as “interrogated” and “accused". Specifically, she uses the word “accused” to imply that what has been said before her speech is untrue. Although this is a serious case and those who are involved are seen as violators, she does not forget to praise and remember the great service of the escaped firefighter as he “saved” her life. This act not only promotes that they are heroes and do great things for society but also implies that she is a grateful person. After honoring the incident, she confesses: “I am not an accomplice. I was the principal offender” to further make her claim even more convincing and to identify herself as “the principal offender” who encourages the moral act but is wrongly seen as a wrongdoer.

According to Aristotle, when speakers use logos to appeal to the audience, they are using logic, meticulous structure, and objective evidence to strengthen their claim. By presenting facts, a speaker can appeal to the intelligence of an audience with extensive explanations to support crucial points. Park Eun-hee's logos based arguments demonstrate good sense fairly well after her confession, she explains: “Nam So-ju saved us, notwithstanding the fact that his daughter was nearby.” Once again, Park Eun-hee repeats the goodness that the law breaker (a.k.a the firefighter) has done to save the most people, including herself and her crews, not the people most precious to him—his daughter. In addition, she subtly puts the blame on the Martial Law Control for isolating the father when he has the chance to save his daughter, which leads to his decision to make an escape, when she says: “Although he tried to go save his daughter, the Martial Law Control stopped him. His daughter was everything to him.” Her overall logos has made it clear that this man has goodwill while the law is insensitive in life-and-death situations. Thus, her reputation in the association with the escape is also reasoned well enough to prove that she sees the black and white and stands on the good side.

When speakers use pathos, they are attempting to elicit emotional responses from the audience in order to persuade them to agree with their thesis. Emotions can be pity, pride, sadness, or happiness which make listeners sensitive, and the speakers might take advantage of this vulnerability to persuade the audience on the “rightness” of their argument. Park Eun-hee uses pathos appeal to invoke affection and empathy in the audience when she states: “Even if it’s dangerous and we’re under martial law, no one can stop a father’s love for his child.” She clearly understands her nation’s core values and what can empower her audience in this situation. Aristotle discusses that one of the reasons for rhetoric’s usefulness is derived from the nature of audiences. It is confirmed from experience that a simple presentation of “the facts'' will not persuade the audience. In other words, he suggests that to make an impactful speech, the argument must have connection with the audience‘s beliefs (Herrick, 2013). The audience’s core value is to unite with their loved ones and the strong bond among family members. Understanding this value combined with obvious facts, the Assembly Member makes the unbreakable parental love more reasonable than the law, and finds common sense within her community by confirming the fact that everyone is “under the martial law” even in the current “dangerous” circumstance. Additionally, she uses the word “we” instead of “I” to express inclusion and to demonstrate that they are all in this together. Thus, this statement contains a lot of emotions which plant the audience with different feelings about the situation, such as feeling scared of the virus, unsure about the law, and sympathized with the unconditional love of a father. She wants the audience to look at this situation in the lenses of a human being not a law enforcement officer.

To end her speech, Park Eun-hee uses all ethos, logos, and pathos to secure her position as a considerate leader who understands the consequences of her action but is willing to fight aside her people and support humanity and goodwill regardless. Although she states “I said I’d take full responsibility and that he should escape using all means necessary to save his daughter.”, but there is not a single evidence showing her participation in the escape physically, except for her verbally expressing her concerns and bravery for granting him support and understanding. When she says: “Regardless of the punishment I may receive, I will always stand with the powerless people.”, she wants the audience to understand their role as “powerless people” compared to herself, and they will have her empowerment and stand by their side. This final sentence not only raises her reputation as responsible and considerate, but it also lines up with all of her narrative from the beginning.

However, whether or not the message is ethical for the audience is still in question. As mentioned earlier, Park Eun-hee does not agree or support the father to go and save his daughter at all. Instead, she persuades him to save her first and promises to use the law and other resources to help him get to his child, only after he saves everyone and stays with them. The man cannot wait as he is eager to find his daughter and leaves on his own after saving all of the government members. With this back story, it is clear that her speech purpose is to serve her campaign as she finds the right time to voice it, and Kim U-sin (another firefighter who witnesses everything) is aware of what is happening, explaining why he keeps denying her involvement in the first place. In other words, her audience is not experiencing sincerity and receiving the truth as her claims. The speech now has become a lie that will help her preserve her image and attract the potential voters. Thus, although her message is humane and based on a common morality, her misuse of persuasion and disinformation produce unethical issues on her end.

All in all, Park Eun-hee has effectively used etho, logos, and pathos to deliver her speech to the audience, convincing them to look at the situation in a heartfelt and empathetic manner. Yet, her tactic is unethical because she deceives the listener and manipulates the story according to her election campaign.

Works cited

Herrick, J. A. (2013). Aristotle on Rhetoric. In The history and theory of rhetoric: An introduction (5th ed., pp. 69–83)., Pearson.

[laviesstuff]

*TUMBLR ENTRY 1: MasterChef and Marketing Tactic*

Watch from (2:30-3:32).

In this entry, I will examine the critical questions: (1) What central narrative does an advertisement tell through its rhetorical elements? (2) What truth does it promote or ignore? And (3) What are the societal/ethical advantages and disadvantages of its narrative?

To investigate these questions, I examined season 3 episode 8 of the U.S. television show “MasterChef” as my rhetorical artifact. The show constitutes the audience to the ideology that Walmart offers affordable high-quality produce by featuring their promoted products within the show. This ideology is not harmful to the society but its narrative can be unethical for the audience because of the seamlessly and subtly placed advertisement. The audience may not be aware of what information they are consuming and it can affect their decision-making process when they do certain activities.

MasterChef is a popular and competitive American reality TV show which is open to amateur and home chefs. These chefs compete in a series of cooking challenges overseen by a panel of experienced and accomplished chefs. Each week they have to survive elimination and become a culinary master, earning the title of MasterChef. The show utilizes the theme and concept of kitchen supplies and food produce to advertise Walmart’s service. This narrative appeals to its target audience through the implementation of product placement which is the intentional insertions of branded products within media content not otherwise seen as advertising. The narrative further convinces and builds trust with the audience along the show, demonstrating the quality, price, and diversity of the goods promoted.

Sonja Foss discusses how we are all susceptible to dominant perspectives in the most normal and routine tasks of our life. He states that “the rise to dominance of particular ideologies is not always as deliberate and conscious as” other descriptions make it seem (Foss, 2004). Although we may have ideas that differ from the dominant one, we cannot help but engage in our societal and cultural activities through watching television, reading newspapers, and going to school. In this scenario, the television show - MasterChef is prompting and influencing its audience with an ideology that Walmart’s core value is matching with the motivation of becoming a cook, which is to help improve people’s lives by helping them save money. This narrative starts with Grahams - one of the most successful chefs in the TV show says: “Glistening before your eyes is a gorgeous USDA choice t-bone steak. Alongside it, a selection of wonderful fresh produce corn, watermelon, cabbage, peach, sour cream, tarragon, cayenne, and paprika. All of that in front of you including that beautiful steak will cost you less than $15 from Walmart” (2:30). Throughout this statement, he uses highly descriptive adjectives such as “glistening” to not only describe but also to influence the listeners’ perception of the groceries in front of them. Graham intentionally pairs the words “glistening” with “gorgeous” in the same sentence to narrate the viewers on the look of the T-bone steak which is very eye-catching since they can only rely on the TV screen. Additionally, in the phrase “a selection of wonderful, fresh produce corn…and paprika”, he mentions the words “a selection” and “wonderful fresh produce”, along with numbers of items, to prompt the audience that they will have many choices of nice vegetables and seasonings to their flavor palette. After presenting a list of “wonderful” groceries, he does not forget to emphasize on the product one more time at the end of his statement, which cost just “less than $15 at Walmart”. This final statement demonstrates strongly on the credible value of “all of that” “including that beautiful steak” as well as telling people Walmart is where to get the deal.

According to Foss, ideologies do not necessarily be extremely formal and can influence movements afterward. He asserts: “Individuals may identify with an ideology although they are not formal members of any group associated with that ideology” (Foss, 2004). In other words, the audience are accepting the idea of an ideology to a greater or lesser extent, and are employing bits of that ideology to organize their own knowledge, attitudes, and behaviors. Another thing contribute to the presentation of the ideology is the organization of each speaker in this advertisement. To make the advertisement subtle, two contenders are filmed to say different things about the challenge and one of them will touch on the product sponsored. The first contender’s comment is totally not related to the quality of the product or services but focusing on his chances in the test (2:26). The second competitor - Stacy’s comment, however, is placed right after Graham’s description of the food in order to consolidate the idea that these caliber items are available and easy to find. Before the advertisement, Walmart was known for a variety of products at good prices which were suitable for people who were economic-concerned. Hence, when Stacy says “When I think of Walmart, I definitely don't think of steak” (3:01), it is assumed that she knew about and had a customer experience with Walmart beforehand but was not aware that “beautiful” products such as steak was offered there. She firmly emphasizes on the value that Walmart provides by adding: “It was kind of cool to see so many different things in just such a limited but good quality ingredients” (3:04); while she makes some body language to express her point which is quite unusual than what she usually does in these kinds of interviews throughout the competition. The viewers are accustomed to view this orderly interview and they may not realize that they are being marketed to and they will subconsciously learn this information. In the future, the ideology that Walmart provides trustworthy produce and helps save up money will influence them in their decision-making process when searching for a store to shop.

When looking at this type of advertising, it is evident that the concept of ethos was successfully utilized to appeal to and persuade the target audience. Ethos is the essential talent and art of persuading people by relying on the character and trustworthiness of another person (Rosengren, Dahlén, & Okazaki, 2013). In other words, a narrator leverages his/her character to gain a listener's trust and authority over a particular subject. In most circumstances, the target audience is more likely to believe a character who exhibits a high degree of competence, abilities, and knowledge, as well as goodwill, than a character that demonstrates a low level of knowledge about a specific idea.

In the MasterChef advertisement, the ethos comes from the individuals behind the groceries, particularly the powerful judges, who demonstrate that they understand, possess the necessary abilities, competencies, and expertise to cook a stunning dish. Before all the participants start producing their dishes, Joe - one of the three judges says: “You have 60 minutes to make one amazing dish that we could sell in any of our restaurants for $40-plus with just $15 worth of Walmart fresh groceries” (3:20). This statement is very powerful because Joe is implying that not only Walmart’s ingredients are more than qualified to be served in the most professional restaurants but they also can turn into valuable dishes that are worth more-than-twice as much as the original asset. Nevertheless, he repeats the word “fresh” from Graham’s part to once again affirm that Walmart produces new and clean goods which people tend to look for when buying uncooked supplies. The entire show and the participants never stress enough about Walmart’ steaks, and once, chef Gordon Ramsay says “during the entire time in the MasterChef kitchen, we have provided you with the best of the best ingredients”. Apart from all the potential qualities, it is hard to believe that the top professional culinary restaurants in the world use Walmart’s meat and promote it as the place for ingredients. The audience should raise a lot of questions whether the information is correct or not or whether these judges are up to their standards, if only they are actively filtering the information.

Besides verbally introducing the audience about the service, graphics also play an important role in planting ideas into the viewers’ subconscious mind. Foss’ analysis shows that semiotics or science of signs is beneficial as a form of structuralism. He explains that “semiotic is a systematic attempt to understand what signs are and how they function”, whereas, signs are units that may be substituted for anything else and hence have meaning. Anything can be a sign - for example, fonts, words, camera angles, colors, and gestures. Walmart's logo, which is depicted in a blue relaxing tone and sharp bold white text “Save money. Live better”, represents the pleasant and approachable nature of the brand. The yellow star in the Walmart logo portrays a spark which represents a 'lightbulb moment' for customers as the utilitarian and hedonic values they will find at Walmart. Their slogan “Save money. Live better” delivers Walmart's goal of providing low-cost products to customers to aid increase their lifestyle quality.

In a piece of product placement, Walmart's signature logo is neatly placed next to the products shown by intentional and professional camera angles. The full logo appears twice in different frames and presentations. In the first scene, the groceries are in the middle of the camera frame while the three judges play as a blur background (2:23). This arrangement signifies that Walmart is a legitimate shopping place and backed by three incredible chefs as judges in the competition, which enhances the credibility and trustworthiness of the service featured. The second time Walmart’s logo is fully shown is when Graham starts to describe the quality of the food, aligning with the content verbally and visually (2:34). In addition to showing the audience the logo, the goal of this advertisement is also to let the audience admire the beauty and freshness of the meat. The show does this by syncing the footage of the steak with each speaker whenever they mention the word "steak" (2:28; 2:36; 2:56; 3:03; 3:31). This tactic functions as a sign and a strategy for the marketers to hold on to and make their products stick consistently in the audience’s mind.

In conclusion, although MasterChef marketing strategy on Walmart seems harmless to the audience, this tactic of product placement might be unproductive for the target viewers as the advertisement does not go into detail of the actual quality of the products. While the words serve as a logical appeal as it seems to cover the fact about a service, the facts or the products at Walmart are unsustainable; but instead proven by the name of a television show.

Work cited

MasterChef season 3 episode 8 [Television series episode]. (n.d.). In American MasterChef. Retrieved January/February, 2022, from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8JTCNHGaQeQ&list=PLsZEr-Y3Nfm-S1iQrVEccyXZ0RegHUsOK&index=8

Foss, S. K. (2017). Ideology Criticism. In Rhetorical criticism: Exploration & practice (5th ed., p. 240). Waveland Press.

Rosengren, S., Dahlén, M., & Okazaki, S. (2013). Advances in advertising research (vol. iv): The changing roles of advertising (Vol. IV). Wiesbaden: Springer Gabler.