Introduction
This paper aims to analyze the audience, purpose, rhetorical appeals, structure, and delivery of two videos about problems in the justice system and the need to solve them. “Common Wants You to Vote Smart Justice” was created by the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), and “Meek Mill: Do You Understand These Rights as I’ve Read Them to You?” was published by The New York Times. The differences in the nature of organizations create critical contrasts in content and audience. Both videos aim to convey information to the audience about the existing issue and the urgent need for its solution. However, the critical characteristics of visuals influence their persuasiveness and impact.
Audience and Purpose
ACLU Video
The two videos’ intended audience and purpose have similarities but retain distinctive characteristics. The general audience is citizens with a clear civic position interested in transforming the justice system to ensure equal rights. Although the ACLU video specifically targets people of color, it is aimed at all American voters and seeks to persuade people to vote for change in the current justice system. The speaker appeals to the audience’s general knowledge of social injustice and a rational desire to eliminate it (“Common Wants You to Vote Smart Justice” 00:05-19).
This video is not addressed to a specific audience but aims to increase general awareness about the issue and the need to address it collectively. The speaker uses relatively informal and straightforward language, which can have a positive effect on the audience by convincing them to support the position expressed in the video (“Common Wants You to Vote Smart Justice” 00:26-50). This advertisement is a call to action to motivate citizens to participate actively in social change through voting.
New York Times Video
On the other hand, the video published by The New York Times is more specific. From a general audience of people who could potentially be interested in changing the justice system, the speaker explicitly addresses people of color (“Meek Mill: Do You Understand These Rights as I’ve Read Them to You? | NYT Opinion” 00:15-30). This population more often faces civil rights violations and criminalization by society and law enforcement agencies. Appealing to the audience’s personal experience, the author uses evidence and statistics to increase citizens’ awareness of the problem.
The purpose of the video is to express support for black people who have faced injustice in the justice system and convince them of the need to change this situation. The speaker uses informal language and visuals to add more emotion to the advertisement, which is appropriate for the discussed topic (“Meek Mill: Do You Understand These Rights as I’ve Read Them to You? | NYT Opinion” 00:20-56). The main difference between this video and the ACLU one is its appeal to a more specific audience and greater emotionality.
Rhetorical Appeals: Ethos, Pathos, and Logos
ACLU Video
Rhetorical appeals are an essential component of the text, allowing it to have the necessary impact on the audience. In the video by ACLU, the speaker refers to well-known facts of racism and discrimination. It is intended to evoke an emotional response from the audience, including anger and a desire for justice. Moreover, by referring to such common concepts, the authors use people’s personal experiences to confirm their words, which furthers the goal of the video (“Common Wants You to Vote Smart Justice” 00:51-1:06). However, using more specific data, such as statistics or case studies, supporting the speaker’s claims could substantially affect the audience. The speaker also uses rhetorical questions and visuals to make the audience think about existing problems, opportunities, and solutions. Additionally, the call to action that ends the video justifies its goal of persuading citizens to take collective action for positive social change.
New York Times Video
The main difference in the video by The New York Times is the use of specific data to establish the credibility of the speech. In addition to appealing to collective experiences, the authors use statistics and visuals to support their claims about racial injustice in the justice system (“Meek Mill: Do You Understand These Rights as I’ve Read Them to You? | NYT Opinion” 00:52-1:21). Moreover, it helps to increase the emotionality of the video, causing the audience to feel resentment and disappointment in the current system. This approach is appropriate for providing reliable information about the problem.
Structure and Delivery
Both videos have a similar structure, consisting of a short introduction to identify the problem being discussed, a main body to fulfill the purpose of the communication, and a final call to action. This structure allows them to hold the audience’s attention and gradually increase the emotional component of the content. Additionally, both videos use color changes to draw people’s attention to the main messages.
The video by ACLU begins with a darker background, indicating the severity of the problem being discussed, and gradually becomes lighter as the speaker moves on to the prospects for a solution. At the same time, the video by The New York Times, on the contrary, gradually becomes darker as new facts are added that highlight the seriousness of injustice against African Americans. This approach can affect the audience differently, giving hope for improvement or emphasizing the complexity of the issue and the need to solve it.
Conclusion
Both videos speak to a conscious audience who may have experienced first-hand inequality in the justice system and recognize the need for change. Moreover, the materials are similar in content and aim to convince people of the seriousness of the problem. However, the authors use different approaches to achieve these goals. The New York Times video provides more convincing evidence of the problem, like statistics, which increases the possible extent of its impact on society.
Works Cited
“Common Wants You to Vote Smart Justice.” YouTube, uploaded by ACLU. 2018. Web.
“Meek Mill: Do You Understand These Rights as I’ve Read Them to You? | NYT Opinion.” YouTube, uploaded by The New York Times. 2018. Web.