Take some time to respond to the episode of
30 Days. Did having the show in Columbus affect you at all? How do Spurlock's rhetorical strategies differ from, say, Michael Moore's? What aspects of this did you find especially persuasive (or unpersuasive)?
“Minimum Wage” by Morgan Spurlock was able to show me a humorous, yet informational way of seeing the everyday life of the poor. I am from Cleveland and often travel to Columbus, and I have never even seen that side of the town. Since the film was based on somewhere so close to where I live it made me think even greater about the situation of those being paid minimum wage or even less. This film really affected me because we only saw a small portion of the problems going on with the poor. It made me realize that without the help of my parents growing up it would have been easy for me and many others to be in the same situation. I believe this film was different than many of Michael Moore’s because he often focuses on targeting a group rather than focusing on a documentary to show those less fortunate to bring about awareness and help. Moore often criticizes problems and people rather than putting himself into the situation to help find a problem and the truth. I found that Spurlock’s rhetorical strategies were more persuasive for me because he focused so greatly on pathos and ethos. He was able to bring out the truth and emotions in a problem that is not often focused on. He was also able to make this film humorous, such as the time when Spurlock was searching free things to do in the Columbus area. Although he still took the time to focus on the hard times those in the movie were facing having to pay paycheck to paycheck. This film was very emotional to me because it seemed as those living this way had no time to even think about anything else except bills and work. Spurlock’s strategies made me reflect on my own life and how there needs to be more of a change to help those working hard for so little.
ReplyDeleteMinimum wage is an ongoing issue within the United States. After watching “Minimum Wage” by Morgan Spurlock my idea of how low minimum wage really is has just strengthened. For those who can only find minimum wage jobs are being affected more than many people think they are. This video shows how hard it could be when trying to support a family on minimum wage. I believe no matter where it was filmed it would still affect the way I view it. Being from Cincinnati myself I am sure that many families around my area are dealing with the same conditions as the people shown in Columbus. With it being filmed in Columbus still hits home since I have been to Columbus many times without really realizing that people have to deal with those harsh conditions every day. I think this film could have gone deeper into the problem of why so many people are stuck with living on minimum wage. It showed some of the problems with not having health care because it cost too much money for families who are only making the minimum. They did show that there are free clinics for people to go but the fact that there in minimal help and that they can only care for a certain number of people a day affects those who truly need help. Many people are turned away each day and for those who cant work because they can’t get the help they need affects how much they make. Being out of work is just not possible for some people. Some strategies that I feel where persuasive would be the up close views of the medical bills showing that people are way over charged for medical bills. I also think the real life examples are very persuasive because it targets people’s emotions. I don’t think that the cartoons were very persuasive because I can’t really remember the cartoons. They didn’t stick in my mind very well. No matter what was shown by this film it is still an underlying issue for many families every day. Nothing is going to change unless the country does something to change it. Weather its increasing the minimum wage or supplying health care to everyone. Something needs to be done.
ReplyDeleteTake some time to respond to the episode of 30 Days. Did having the show in Columbus affect you at all? How do Spurlock's rhetorical strategies differ from, say, Michael Moore's? What aspects of this did you find especially persuasive (or unpersuasive)?
ReplyDeleteThe episode of 30 days on minimum wage was an extremely interesting show for me. Living in Ohio, it hit close to home just how poor our economy is and how people live in such terrible conditions. I really liked the way Spurlock's take on real life situations were much less biased, but more informative. Every documentary I have seen of Michael Moore's has his exact opinion in it. He gives a very biased look at any topic he covers and leaves the audience only seeing a one sided perspective. Spurlock gave a humorous insight into a not so funny topic. The way he went about it though was positive; meaning, he tried to make the best out of a bad situation. I learned a lot from the documentary and felt that the way it was filmed made it very captivating. I felt that since Spurlock was more informative than biased, that many of his arguments were persuasive. Also, how he showed exact medical records and put himself in impoverished living situations. I thought that the show was very persuasive and won over the audience.
Minimum wage has always been a prominent issue and I believe with the economy in the current state this is only heightened. I enjoyed watching “30 Days” and for myself taught me a little more about my surrounding area. I never thought of myself to be naive about what is going in the U.S. and where I live, but watching this episode made me really think about what’s going on in this world. I have been to Columbus a number of times and going to different restaurants have never really thought what the tip I give to my waitress means to them. People in our country are living in terrible conditions and it’s just sad, how are you supposed to get ahead when minimum wage is not enough along with all other expenses? Spurlock did put a humorous tone to this episode and I believe that had a bigger affect because it really made me want to watch it and see what happened. I believe that captivated the audience more than anything. It’s sad to think that some of these people can’t afford to take a day off of work and still able able to survive. Its work, work, work. I believe the close up of the medical bills the frustration over a fight of buying a donut showed how real and difficult this is for some people. When adding a child to the mix that only mad things harder and I believe that is the saddest part. Every child deserves the best and equal opportunity as the next child but that isn’t what’s happening. As I said before I enjoyed watching this episode and believe Spurlock used excellent strategies to gain the interest of his view.
ReplyDelete“Minimum Wage” by Morgan Spurlock was a very entertaining way to show the problems and poverty that people out there are facing. It seems odd to say that it was entertaining but it was. It captured a new side to the problem that other documentaries and other television shows fall short in portraying. It pointed out the hardships too but in a lighter way. Having the show take place in Columbus did make it hit close to home. I live about one hour from Columbus and have been to it many times but I have never been to that side of the city. Sometimes it feels like poverty is something only seen on television. I have always had a comfortable life so I have never been face to face with it. So seeing that people living so close to me are living like that it made it much more real. I found the fact that they filmed this is winter, an Ohio winter that we all know can get unbearably cold, was very persuasive. Watching his girlfriend huddled in a parka in their apartment with her nose bright red was a good strategy for showing how little they really had when they couldn’t even have heat in the apartment. If it had been done in the middle of summer or any other season it would not have had as much of an impact. The snow and the frigid weather made you feel for them and thing about everyone in that situation. I thought the cartoons were cute and lightened the mood but I would not call them persuasive. They did not push the point like they could of. They just added to it but did not persuade on their own. I can not compare Spurlock to Moore because I have never seen any of Moore’s films.
ReplyDeleteI appreciated the reality show because it really did accurately portray the life of people who live on minimum wage. I could relate to the video because I have worked minimum wage jobs and tried to live on my own and it really isn't possible. The "ethos" strategy was powerful because so many could watch the show and feel exactly what the actor and his girlfriend were feeling because they have lived it themselves. I also appreciated the fact that they chose Columbus, Ohio and not Los Angeles or Vegas because that would have seemed too Hollywood like. I thought the show was very persuasive because they used "logos" to persuade. The cause and effect of getting sick and having to pay hospital bills with money you don't have could be a real eye opener to someone who has calculated that they could get out on their own and work at McDonalds. YOu can't account for incidents like car trouble or illness. The sickness caused her not to be able to go to work and thus not get paid so now they have a new bill and even less money than they would have had. That was very powerful. Spurlock did an excellent job in persuading his audience to see the lower class differently. Many people who live in the "slums" are genuine, honest, hardworking people who are just struggling to make it. Too many times we think that people put themselves in rough neighborhoods because they are criminals but in most cases, I would say the crime is also cause and effect.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the episode of 30 Days because it brought out a side of society that most people don’t often see or understand. I grew up in a middle class family with two parents who only had a high school education. They worked a lot, but always had time to spend with the family. Spurlock and his wife only focused on bills, their “bank” balance, and work. The movie made me feel grateful for what I have, for I can say that I have it a lot better off than most people. Spurlock helped achieve this feeling by heavily implying pathos. The movie took place during a cold part of the year in Columbus, Ohio. Ohio is not exactly friendly when it comes to winter and they had to suffer through the cold in a worn down, ant infested apartment. The viewer could sense their pain, but Spurlock lightened the mood when he included the more humorous parts of his journey, such as when he looked up free things to do in Columbus and the animated sections. I found this movie extremely persuasive, for it made me not only appreciate my own lifestyle, but empathize with those who don’t have it so well.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSpurlock’s episode of 30 Days on minimum wage I found to be very eye opening. The fact that the episode took place in Columbus made it easier for us to relate to. I am from Cleveland but both cities are very similar from an economic standpoint. Spurlock was using pathos as a rhetorical strategy because he really wanted to leave an impact on the viewer. Spurlock interviewed people who are actually struggling to survive on minimum wage which was able for the audience to put a face the problem. Spurlock showed that is difficult if not impossible to survive on a minimum wage income. He showed that almost all expenses are nearly impossible to cover and the living conditions are extremely bad. Spurlock wanted the audience to feel empathy while Michael Moore’s normal approach is to get the audience to feel angry. Spurlock also chose to go to Columbus in the dead of winter where it is constantly freezing in Ohio. Even though Spurlock showed the audience the struggle of living on minimum wage he also showed the audience that there are organizations out there that provide help to those less fortunate. The aspects of the episode that I found most persuasive were hearing the stories from the people of Columbus and how they are struggling to survive. It made me want to start bettering my community by donating and volunteering. We live in a city where we are surrounded with people who are less fortunate than ourselves and we are also surrounded by ways and opportunities for us to help even if it is just a little bit. The episode should be inspiration to volunteer our time at a homeless shelter or even donate old clothes that we no longer wear. A little time and effort can make the lives of the people around us a lot easier.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI thought that 30 days, "minimum wage" was very interesting and informative. It made me think about a lot a lot of things that I have never paid attention to before. It also made me realize how fortunate I am to be going to college and getting a degree so that I do not have to live like Michael and his girl friend did. It also made me realize that it would have been very hard to go to school and be able to live a comfortable life without the help of my parents. I couldn’t imagine how miserable it would be to have to worry about only eating food that you can afford, like rice and beans as they did, or not being able to get medical care because it is to expensive. Or having to live in an ant infested apartment that was previously a crack house. The fact that this episode took place was in Columbus, Ohio made this seem even scarier. I live in Cleveland and it is a lot like Columbus in the fact that it is also a poor city. It was frightening to hear that Ohio has lost over 250,000 jobs. This episode made me appreciate little things, for example, having furniture and a table to eat at. I think that Michael Spurlock’s rhetorical strategies differ from Michael Moores because Spurlock was a lot more optimistic and actually walked in these people’s shoes. Spurlock makes his argument so persuasive because he does it in a humorous yet informative way. He makes me believe that it would be so hard to do what he had to do for just 30 days, and that it is terrible how minimum wage cannot be raised. I think Michael Moore’s approach to inform people is less persuasive because he doesn’t use a humorous approach in his documentaries, he also focuses on a problem rather then the people and everything else involved.
ReplyDeleteI thought the video "30 days" really brought light to an issue I hadn't really considered before. It made me realize how ignorant I am to poverty in the United States. It didn't quite occur to me that 2 people who work full time and live in the modest of conditions could still really struggle to make ends meet. You just never seem to realize that minimum wage really isn't enough to live a modest life on. I feel kind of stupid saying that but it really just didn't occur to me that a couple with 2 full time incomes could struggle that much, but it is a reality that was really brought to light to me by watching this show.
ReplyDeleteHaving the show in Columbus really hit home. It made me realize, as I'm sure it did most other students in the class, that it could very easily be me in that situation. It also hit home because I witnessed first hand that people living in my own community needed help so badly. It really inspires you to get involved.
One thing I really liked about this show was that it showed a whole other side to poverty then what the stereotype is. It showed that not everyone who is in poverty is lazy, illiterate, and uneducated. I feel that was a really important thing that people should know.
In my opinion, the use of pathos was the most persuasive rhetorical strategy used. Watching good people struggle like that had the biggest affect on me to agree with Spurlock's argument that the minimum wage is too low. I feel that this directly shows how Spurlock's rhetorical strategies differ from Michael Moore's. In my opinion, Spurlock used pathos to make the audience feel empathy towards the issue while Michael Moore used pathos to create a feeling of outrage or anger in his audience. To be honest, I am really not sure which strategy gets more people involved overall, but I personally am more inclined to get involved in something if I feel empathy towards the targeted group, so Spurlock's strategy really affected me more as an individual but I am not sure if the same is true of the majority of individuals.
After watching Morgan Spurlock’s film, I realized how truly hard it would be to live solely off minimum wage. I worked many jobs in high school, but never realized what it would be like to have to spend that money on basic necessities such as food and shelter. Spurlock made it a very real situation for him and we saw how hard it was for him to try and budget on such a small salary. What shocked me the most was when they had to go into the emergency room. I had no idea how much that would cost and was sick that it put them over $1,000 in debt. It makes me sad to think how many children aren’t getting medical attention they need because their parents just cannot afford the hospital. I feel that was a very persuasive that they used the emergency room and free clinic as examples because a lot of people are unaware of how difficult and expensive health care really is. The fact that it was in Columbus really hit home for me because although I live in Cleveland but have spent a lot of time there. I had seen what poverty looked like but I imagined those people to not have jobs at all but now I see that even people who work extremely hard still have trouble surviving. I admire Spurlock’s rhetorical strategies because he took a walk in a minimum wage salary worker’s shoes. I feel for a reader this is a lot more persuasive rather than Moore’s argument who judges people without ever knowing what life is like for them.
ReplyDeleteI really enjoyed the episode of 30 Days that we watched in class, and I found a lot of it to be very persuading; although some of it was a little over the top. I think having the setting of the show be Columbus, Ohio did affect me because I’m from Lancaster, which is only 40 minutes from Columbus, and growing up I never really thought about all the people who were struggling to make ends meet. It is shocking to see that it was happening basically in my backyard. Having it set in Columbus was a good idea in general because it is in the mid-West and could represent any typical American city. Filming the 30 days in the winter, as opposed to the summer, was also a choice made to enhance the argument that Spurlock was trying to show. Because it was winter, walking to work every day to save money was an even bigger sacrifice and challenge. They had to spend all of their time, when they weren’t working, inside their crappy apartment because it was so cold outside, even though it wasn’t even very warm there. Also, by choosing to film the parts of the 30 days that they spent in the hospital and showing close up shots of their hospitals bills helped to demonstrate just how unfair and ridiculously expensive healthcare is, and how most people living off minimum wage can’t afford it.
ReplyDeleteSpurlock used rhetorical strategies throughout the episode. By using real life testimonies he really established logos—these testimonies put a face to the hardships that Spurlock was trying to bring to light. He also used statistics throughout the show to create a more logical argument. By living off minimum wage himself for thirty days, he showed that he was a credible source, demonstrating ethos. He also played off the viewers’ emotions by pointing out the people who work hard every day at minimum wage jobs but are still struggling to provide for their families.
The "Minimum Wage" episode of 30 Days certainly opened my eyes to what life could be like. Often I take luxuries for granted, forgetting that many people are not as fortunate. Before seeing this episode, I never really considered how difficult sustaining a life on minimum wage would be. Watching Morgan Spurlock attempt this feat was quite entertaining; however, it exposes a very humbling reality. There are people that work endless shifts at multiple minimum wage jobs just to get by. And, seeing that this is happening so close to home, I was especially astonished. The director took great care in providing stories and testaments of those who live in this situation. This, I feel, was the most effective way of invoking emotion from the audience. Unlike many of Michael Moore's documentaries, Spurlock tended to stay pretty unbiased; he let the stories of those he met do the persuading. Seeing Spurlock face troubles of his own was also a valid way to capture the viewers; watching a successful filmmaker and actor struggle to pay the bills is quite amusing—definitely not an aspect seen in a Michael Moore film. I think the only thing that does not support the persuasive rigor of the show is the lasting negativity. The mention of the “free stuff” store was a good start, but I feel that there is more organized help available. Providing some sort of hope would give the audience something to hang on to, and possibly invoke some sort of action.
ReplyDeleteThe pathos and ethos in which Morgan Spurlock is able to emulate through his documentaries is simply amazing. Putting himself into situations in his show 30 Days, he is able to give the viewer a close look at the point he is trying to make. That is directly where he differs with Moore; Moore attacks problems moreso than addresses and exposes them. The fact that the show was in Columbus didn’t really affect me, it was the situations in which he was in that directly affected me. Coming from a family in which financial difficulties have struck, the documentary empathetically reached me at a deep level. I am currently working two jobs in college to pay my way through, all while trying to budget the life of a college student. I would not compare myself to the living conditions Spurlock was in (I am still a 20 year old student with loans), however, the constant financial stress is there. Spending extra money on a movie night, or taking your girlfriend out on a date can truly be financial burdens—something you have to ‘plan’ for. The documentary was truly persuasive because the situations that the Spurlock’s faced are situations that people without financial problems would not realize are day-to-day hurdles. Walking away from the documentary I started looking at what I was spending my money on, why I was spending that money, and how I can spend it wiser. Prior to the film, I honestly thought that I was in a horrible situation. I then realized, I am in college, I’ve been given an opportunity to not have the life that was illustrated in the documentary. If any persuasive message rung true throughout the entire documentary and could reach every individual it would be that no one would ever want to be in a living situation such as the Spurlock’s were in Minimum Wage.
ReplyDelete“Minimum Wage” by Morgan Spurlock is very eye opening and moving. It is very hard not to feel for the many people who support families and live from pay check to paycheck on just $7.15 an hour. The argument Morgan Spurlock makes in this documentary is the minimum wage law is unfair in the United States and has not changed in over 15 years but the cost of living has risen drastically. This doesn’t seem fair for people who work hard labor jobs and can’t afford medical bills or even to buy food for their family. A good point he made after his visit to the hospital was his bill of over $600 for getting his wrist looked at. A $300 dollar fee for just walking in the door as well as a $40 charge for a $5 ace bandage wrap. He made the point that it needs to start somewhere and healthcare would be a good place to begin. The audience to the short film is every American that has the luxury of making more then minimum wage especially our fellow congressmen and senators who run our country. Spurlock adds a twist of humor to keep it a light tone however the reality of his message is depressing. Spurlock make use of his wife in the film to exemplify the pathos rhetorical analysis strategy by her expressing her emotions to the viewers on a day to day basis. Also by showing film clips of other less fortunate people making minimum wage or less trying to receive free health care at the free clinic who have diabetes. He asks them what they would do without the free health care and they say merely kill themselves which is sad but unfortunately true. After watching the short film it really changed my opinion of McDonald’s workers as well as all of the other hard working Americans making little pay. I definitely think something needs to be done about this issue. It just isn’t right having a fellow citizen working over 40 hard hours a week barely making enough money to survive off of. Hopefully this video will pass the eyes of congress and the heads of the United States and realize there needs to be a change.
ReplyDelete