TOW #28 - Documentary Rhetorical Analysis of Food, Inc: Pt. 1

For my documentary TOW posts, I have decided to analyze Food, Inc. This 2008 documentary aims to expose the majorly unknown and inhumane policies that are widely practiced by America’s food industry. The doc also attempts to spotlight a few specific companies, and their practices, that are both ethically responsible and significantly healthier as well. Although containing some graphic footage from facilities such as slaughterhouses, the film was given a PG rating meaning almost anyone can watch it. However, simply due to the subject matter and its ethical complications, the primary intended audience is most likely adults. More specifically parents who are buying food for themselves and their family. Lastly, the loudest speaker of Food, Inc. is its director: Robert Kenner. Kenner has worked with National Geographic, for corporate producers, as well as on many other projects surrounding the American food industry.

The documentary’s ultimate purpose is to help create change within the American food industry, starting from how crops are grown and animals are raised, to how consumers make decisions about what food to buy. To accomplish this goal through increased awareness of the current popular practices, their negatives, and their alternatives, Kenner primarily relies on emotion-inducing footage and personal stories, statistics, and a problem-solution arrangement.

By far the most memorable scenes of the film are those in which young chicks, pigs, cattle, and other livestock are being abused, slaughtered, or otherwise handled in a way that would upset the average consumer. Scenes like those only make the repeated phrase, “If slaughterhouses had glass walls, everyone would be a vegetarian,” all the more true. Personal stories, such as the one that focused on the industrial chicken farmer, are also highly effective as they show that not only do the animals suffer, but the people involved at the lower levels of the industry (i.e. those who are raising/growing the actual food such as farmers) suffer as well. In that particular story about the industrial chicken farmer, farmer Carole Morison refused to change her already confined chicken housing structure to an even more constricted one, and was fired due to her decision. Morison stressed that when farmers like her sign contracts with food companies like Perdue, they are often trapped in their contracts as a refusal to expand or conform to the company’s demands will result in a lost job. This is a worst-case scenario for the farmer as, on average, they have already invested $500,000, much of which is usually borrowed from banks. Stories like these not only make the audience feel sympathetic for the farmers, but also helps point the finger at the corporate leaders rather than the actual farmers.

One of the most rhetorically crucial aspects of the entire film is its problem-solution arrangement. For about the first two thirds of the entire movie, the major focus is on what is wrong with America’s food industry. The unhealthy processed foods we consume, the damage being done to our environment, the animal cruelty, the monopolization of the industry, as well as the suffering of the workers and families involved. By the end of the first two thirds, the audience is left wanting to change their food-purchasing ways, but feel as if finding affordable, responsible, and healthy food is not possible. To save the day, the last third of the movie is mainly about companies and farms that are ethically responsible and produce healthy and affordable food. This classic arrangement is effective as it first changes the mindset of the audience by encouraging a need for change, and then presenting the change that the audience now seeks. Through this arrangement, the film’s audience is left feeling hopeful and satisfied knowing that there are viable options out there for the responsibly minded.

TOW #27 - TOW Reflection

For my TOW reflection post I’d like to start with the good, address the not-so-good, and then discuss my progression before finally addressing how I’ve benefitted from these TOW posts. At this point, I don’t believe that I’ve honestly “mastered” any particular skills due to the fact that writers are constantly improving the more they write. With that being said, I believe that what I do best is being able to accurately identify rhetorical devices as well as read for the overall purpose. At the beginning of the year, I literally had no idea what a rhetorical device was, much less how to identify one. On the other hand, I still feel that there is much room for self improvement relative to different forms of organization as well as finding better hooks. Throughout the year I have used the same basic structure for every TOW — intro, analysis, conclusion — and have become rather bored with it. In terms of progression from the beginning of the year until now, I would say I have made significant improvements across the board. From the skills I previously mentioned of accurately identify rhetorical devices and reading for purpose to more fundamental skills as well such as vocabulary, and certainly grammar usage, I feel that I have advanced significantly. Somewhat, thanks to these TOWS, which leads into answering the question of how I benefited or did not benefit from having these TOW assignments. I have benefited through reading articles and learning things that I otherwise probably would not have, as well as through the obvious practice of writing short analysis responses. Not only have TOWs improved my writing itself, but they have also made it much easier to identify rhetorical devices, in both visual and written texts. Although they may have been annoying and, at times, simply another assignment to complete, I would say the benefits gained outweigh the perceived inconvenience. 

Article: "Being a good mom can get you fired"

Given today’s occasion, I thought it would only be appropriate to discuss an article that deals with the same reason today is a holiday in the first place: our mothers. Ellen Bravo of CNN, who is also the executive director of the Family Values @ Work Consortium, argues that there needs to be assistive policy changes for pregnant women and those on leave within the workplace. Her nonpartisan, nonprofit network of 21 state and local coalitions aims to do just that by striving for benefits such as paid sick days and family leave insurance. In this specific article, Bravo uses exemplification paired with anecdotes and emotional diction to demonstrate how hard it is to be a good mom that works, as well as how badly work policies need to be changed.

Bravo begins the article with a generalization about mothers stating that they are typically “warm, loving, patient, generous, protecting, [and] wise,”(Bravo) therefore, why would anyone want to fire them? Here Bravo uses emotional diction to quickly and effectively create the image of what she wants her audience to imagine as a “good mom”. She then continues to give an example about when a good mom, Rhiannon Broschard of Chicago, was fired because she had to stay home in order to care for her special-needs child. Bravo continues to give another example in Brenda of Milwaukee who was fired after giving birth. These examples and anecdotes both appeal to pathos by making her audience feeling sympathetic for the mothers’ situations. The actual examples also strengthen her argument by making it more concrete and displays that this problem is legitimate.

Overall, I found the article to be effective, although there was one area in which Bravo could have improved. While she did offer real examples, they were both simply of someone being fired. If she had chosen a real example that displayed the implications of having been fired (i.e. having to selling a house, going bankrupt, etc) then her argument would have been stronger. Other than that, a solid article.

TOW #26 - Opinion: "We're Not No.1! We're Not No.1!"

While many, both young and old, take pride in America’s standing amongst the other leading countries in the world, Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times argues that we may need to reconsider why we’re cheering, and whether or not we’re actually number one. Relying primarily on statistics and exemplification, Kristof argues that the United States, while remaining the top economic power in the world, is seriously lacking in other areas.

He begins by stating that although Norwegians are wealthier per capita and that the Japanese have a longer life expectancy, America can at least be proud that, “the world watches the N.B.A., melts at Katy Perry, uses iPhones to post on Facebook, trembles at our aircraft carriers, and blames the C.I.A. for everything.” (Kristof) Here he uses statistics to support his claims about Norway and Japan, while using exemplification to somewhat sarcastically support that claim that we’ve grounds for boasting as well. Kristof continues to state that “proposed Republican cuts in Medicaid, food stamps and public services” (Kristof) that are believed to increase America’s competitiveness, would actually do the opposite. In that instance, Kristof used exemplification of somewhat popular policy changes to illustrate the reasons for America’s 16th place out of 132 other countries according to the Social Progress Index.

As Kristof concludes his article, he includes the idea that, “All this goes to what kind of a nation we want to be, and whether we put too much faith in G.D.P. as a metric.” (Kristof) The inclusion of this makes the audience question something that they may not have previously considered: what exactly do they imagine the United States’ future to look like? Overall, I believe that the article was effective in encouraging Americans to rethink our national values, and wether we will place social factors over economic ones.