Friday, October 29, 2010


This video is the very first thing a viewer sees when they open Charlie Baker’s website. In fact, it pops up even before the actual website that holds the information, press releases, other videos, and the like. It is the perfect video to open Baker’s website because it immediately turns you away from his main rival, Deval Patrick. The video uses many listening and visual devices to convince the viewer to question Deal Patrick, and want to continue into Baker’s website to learn more about the now intriguing candidate. The video opens with a birds-eye view of Fenway Park: a familiar landmark for all Bostonians and most Massachusetts citizens. Here, an unattractive photo of Deval Patrick shows transparently upon the screen with a title, “What will change”? The narrator asks that question (pertaining to Deval Patrick being reelected as governor), and immediately answer with: “nothing”. The camera pans in to the field on Fenway, with a blurb that reads, “21,000 Jobs lost in September 2010”. Then the narrator informs the viewer that that amount of unemployed people could take up most of Fenway Park, an image that a good fraction of Massachusetts voters can relate to. The animation of fans that represent unemployed citizens being deleted from Fenway really makes the viewer think, “Wow, that’s a lot of people!”, a first sign that makes one re-think voting for Deval Patrick. The next topic of the ad is the loss of teaching positions in the state. The narrator informs the viewer that this was also caused by Patrick. The camera pans to a familiar view of a classroom, a sight that would make many voters fondly flashback to their school days, and the educations that their children and other young people are getting today. The image of the teacher fading away in front of the class makes the viewer mentally frown, a second tick on the “Con” list for Patrick. Education is extremely important: especially in Massachusetts, given that we are number one in the nation. The last thing voters want to see is a cut in educators. The next familiar Bostonian landmark that the video shows is the John Hancock building. On it is a projection of Patrick saying that Massachusetts is “on the mend and on the move”. Placing this quote right after describing the many jobs lost due to Deval Patrick is a useful strategy to discredit Patrick; it makes the viewer question how Massachusetts could be “on the mend and on the move” when we are loosing thousands of jobs? The video leads the viewer to believe that in reality, we are going in reverse with all the job losses, and because of this we are certainly not on the mend. These thoughts also prompt the viewer to think that that maybe the state does in fact need a new governor. This thought is defiantly one that the Baker Committee (who made the ad) wants to promote. The ad finishes with the slogan, “Want change? Change governors. Charlie Baker”.

The ad does not follow the four main points that Orwell says are ruining the modern English Language. The narrator uses no “Dying Metaphors”, “Pretentious Diction”, “Verbal False Limbs”, or “Meaningless Words”. Instead, he uses clear language that gets the point across. Still, it is a little bit choppy, which could be because of the fact that it is supposed to be a quick commercial and preface to Baker’s website.

1 comment:

  1. Thanks Greta. I agree with your conclusion. This ad does not really apply to the criticisms that Orwell directs against political language. It’s fairly straightforward. Despite this clear message, it is loaded with rhetorical devices, most of which you correctly identify. The variety of Massachusetts’s images surely appeals to voters. It’s a good strategy. There are parts of the ad that I find humorous. “Cash cards for booze.” What do you make of this? Anyway, my only suggestion would be to organize your rhetorical analyses into paragraphs. I wonder if you would be more successful if you broke up your first paragraph. Perhaps you could organize paragraphs by rhetorical strategy (i.e. images of Boston, key issues, harsh accusations), rather than just list a chronological explanation of the video.

    ReplyDelete