E-Portfolio

My name is William Sefcik and included in this e-Portfolio is a selection of works that I have completed as an undergraduate student at the Pennsylvania State University. I’m currently a History and Political Science double major with a minor concentration of study in Military History. Upon graduating from Penn State, I plan to receive a commission, as a Second Lieutenant, in the United States Army. At Penn State, I’m involved in many organizations, most notably the Pennsylvania State University Army ROTC. As a cadet in the ROTC program, I have participated in many philanthropic opportunities, including THON, Penn State’s Dance Marathon for Pediatric Cancer, and tutoring struggling high school students in Math and Science. 


At Penn State, not only am I receiving a great education, but I’m learning so much about the art of communicating effectively. The works that I have included in this e-Portfolio are selections that I feel truly demonstrate my proficiency with rhetoric and portray a clear understanding of communication. The professors that I’ve had while attending Penn State have inspired me to be an effective communicator. Living in a world that is constantly experiencing change, communication is, by far, one of he most important skills for an aspirant of higher education to master. Lacking proper communication skills is equivalent to not being able to breathe. Communication is purpose and direction to a young leader, such as myself. If I want people to follow me into combat, or into an important business investment, I need to be able to inspire others with my words. I hope that after browsing through the collection of works that are located in the, “Selected Works,” section of this e-Portfolio, that you get the idea that William Sefcik is an extremely respectable communicator. If you have any questions about my works, or would like to get in contact with me, please find my contact information in the, “Contact Will,” section. I appreciate your viewing of my e-Portfolio and I hope you enjoy what you view!

http://williamsefcikportfolio.weebly.com

Switch up on hit comedy will change up the rhetoric of the show

      Next week on the hit TV comedy, The Office, Will Ferrell will begin his role as the replacement of the character Michael Scott, played by Steve Carell. To many people out there who don’t pay attention to the show and it’s developments will just look over this change in the show as nothing, but to the devoted fans of the show this is a major change in direction. Steve Carell has been known for the past couple of years as one of the funniest people on television. His ability to be funny by playing the incompetent boss on The Office gave the show it’s name. Now at this point you might be wondering what this post has to do with rhetoric, so let me explain.

      Will Ferrell is known for his over the top theatrics and ridiculous use of over-exaggeration and nonsensical comedy – not the subtle, more relaxed comedy that Steve Carell uses. The producers of the show are taking a major risk by implementing Ferrell into the plot, because his form of comedy just might not jell with the rest of the actors on the show. I feel that Ferrell will be funny, but will not fit the typical mold that people are use to on the show. It will be interesting to see if Ferrell tries to appeal to different aspects of comedy, in order to reach the taste of the typical viewer who watches the show, which is a very broad demographic. It will also be a challenge for Ferrell to try and fit the mold, while also creating his own character traits, which are specific to each character on the show. Ferrell will have to try and appeal to a more logos base form of comedy, instead of the emotional comedic appeal he is use to. Instead of always screaming like a ten-year-old or falling off of something in an awkward way, Ferrell will have to appeal to the ‘office’ humor that makes the show so popular.

Rhetoric of the Drunken History Youtube Series

Drunken History is a web-based comedy mini series, which features many popular comedians telling stories from America’s history while heavily intoxicated. Other prominent comedians are used as actors who play the parts of the characters from history and go along with the funny dialogue that gets put in their mouths by the drunken narrator. I discovered this series over the summer, when my roommate at the time showed me an episode, which he had been shone in class. My old roommate was not a fan of history in high school, but the whole shenanigans of the premise of the show intrigued him. I thought at the time that this was a very interesting concept, because they are actually bringing a very valid idea to the table. Why not present history to young adults in a way that entertains them? The history lessons follow the general storyline of the actual event, and if the viewers actually learn something from watching the episodes, then why not?

It’s interesting to me that generally, people wouldn’t care about the history of Benjamin Franklin, and I would be surprised if the majority of the American population knew that Benjamin Franklin discovered electricity, but if they saw the Drunken History episode on Benjamin Franklin, they might learn something. Granted, Franklin didn’t hate his son and want him to get struck by lightning, but you have to take the episodes with a grain of salt and understand that the episodes are meant to entertain, not necessarily be completely factual. I would hope that people could watch the episodes and be able to separate fact from fiction, but that is the trouble with the series – being able to judge your audiences’ intelligence. If people watched the series and believed every word, we would be in a lot more trouble than we are now. So what does this series and its popularity say about society as a whole? It seems to me that younger generations are taking more away from Youtube videos than they are school textbooks. If the global community is going to continue to allow these sorts of videos to dictate what younger generations learn from history, it would be in everyone's best interest to take a moment and decide if this is the right decision. Can we afford to let our youth learn about our history through comedic four minute video clips? I would hope there are enough people out that realize the gravity that these videos can have on society as a whole. If you haven’t seen the series, I would suggest checking it out on YouTube, because it really is very entertaining. I've provided a link below, just in case you can't wait to figure out what all the fuss is about.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YjZR1Rjj_p0>

Pandora Ads

Every day when I start my homework, the first thing that I do is put on music. There is only so many times you can listen to the same iTunes playlist, so I have to go to a different source for my musical entertainment. My favorite source for music is Pandora, also called the Human Genome Project. Pandora allows the listener to constantly stream music that relates to a particular song, artist, or genre that the listener has selected.

I have been a Pandora user for about four years now. When I first started to use the site, it was like heaven. I could listen to a bunch of music I liked, and discover a lot of music I had never heard of before, but the honeymoon period I had with Pandora ended shortly after I realized the business of Pandora. The site is supported partially due to revenue it collects from the ads that it promotes on its site. A large ad covers much of the main screen and audio ads run on the site about every six songs. Before, you could have Pandora running in the background of your party, and everyone thought you had really good taste in music, but now, the ads are a dead giveaway that you are as boring as the rest of the world who can’t generate a decent playlist of music. The advertisements work in a way that can trick someone who gets lost in the music. One minute you could be listening to Mozart’s Symphony No. 40 and the next minute you hear, “Hey, have you tried this scent of Axe yet?” Other commercials actually use music to trick you into thinking you are listening to a selected piece of music, when suddenly, someone is trying to sell you another useful product or 100 free business cards. The ads in Pandora really take away from the music listening experience, but then again, the creators aren’t really worried about you enjoying the music as much as them making money. 

Rhetorical Billboards

This week, my roommate was stumbling and happened to discover a very funny website which spotlights rhetorical billboards. One of my favorite pictures was of two billboards, which happened to be placed right next to each other on the side of a busy street. The billboard to the left is an advertisement from the car company Audi that reads, “Your Move, BMW.” The billboard to the right is a response from the car company BMW, which reads, “Checkmate.” Both of the car companies are trying to showcase their newest, coolest cars, and the companies are obviously rival luxury car producers. What appears to have happened is that Audi decided to take a shot at BMW with the billboard on the left, and BMW’s response to the advertisement was the billboard to the right, which probably went up quite soon after the Audi ad was put up.  This ad does a few things for me rhetorically, with the placement of the ads, the simple words, and the simple make-up of the ads themselves.

The placement of the ads next to each other is very rhetorically genius idea by BMW. When the Audi ad went up, someone from BMW must have come up with the genius idea of turning Audi’s ad campaign into a positive for BMW. The phrase, “Checkmate,” is simple, but also is the perfect response to Audi’s challenging words. The response, which refers to the game of chess, is a response, which most people would be familiar with, and upon seeing it would get a chuckle out of the witty response of the BMW ad. The appearance of the ads is very rhetorical in themselves, because although there are pictures of each company’s featured cars on the billboards, the billboards draw the viewers’ eyes toward the words with their black backgrounds and white lettering which beg to be read. Aside from being pretty funny, this is a great example of rhetoric at it’s finest.

 Works Cited:

Author Unknown. cSlacker.com. 2011. 17, March 2011.

http://www.cslacker.com/images/file/mediums/billboard_wars.jpg

The Rhetoric of television

The Office is a very unique television shows for many reasons. The show has a way of using rhetoric to portray comedy in a way that television has never seen before. It was one of the first comedies to not include a laugh track in the background of the episodes. This creates a rhetorical effect with the audience, because the audience is forced to really pay attention to the plot of the show in order to get the jokes. It plays on the idea of kairos, or an opportune time, because the audience has to find a time to laugh. There are many times during the show when a simple chuckle will do, but other times bursting out in laughter is perfectly acceptable. The exclusion of a laugh track also makes the audience realize that everyone has a unique sense of humor. Some people will find jokes funny, because it may play on a current event that they are up to date on, while another person might not find the joke funny, because they don’t understand the context of the joke. The Office has been revolutionary in introducing a new form of comedy, which gives the audience to find humor without the guidance of a superficial laugh track.

            The Office also uses the rhetorical element of logos, but in a twisted sort of way. The show plays on an office environment, which normally would not have many abnormalities, but the show turns the environment into a complete circus where any amount of credibility is thrown out the window. The show works so well, because it plays on the lack of logic in the work environment. Some viewers might have a slightly odd boss, like Michael Scott, or work with a socially awkward employee like Dwight. Rhetoric can be found anywhere in entertainment and The Office is another revolutionary asset to the entertainment business displaying rhetoric at its best.  

Rhetorical Language in the Yemen Protests

Today the BBC ran a story on the President of Yemen, Ali Abdullah Saleh, and his recent orders regarding the protests, which have bee happening throughout Yemen. Saleh has ordered his police forces to protect all of the protestors, who have been getting killed recently during the protests. So far, the number of protestors who have been killed is up to 15 individuals.  Saleh was quoted saying, “The government... will continue to protect the rights of its citizens to assemble peacefully and their right to freedom of expression." My question is why would he want to protect the rights of people who are trying to overthrow his government, which he has retained power of since the late 1970’s?

I believe that Saleh is trying to use his language to inspire a new feeling in the protestors. At first, their protests were being met by violence by pro-government protestors and government security forces, but this new turn of events seems to cry a different message. I believe that Saleh is trying to gain back the trust of the people, a people that are plagued by a high unemployment rate and an extremely corrupt government. Saleh’s words seem very calm and considerate towards the people of Yemen, but can he really be sincere? He may be trying to gain the trust of the global community, whom has been watching his country’s government fall apart for the last several weeks. Nine of the members of the high government circle have stepped down since the recent deaths of protestors. Saleh has tried to meet the anti-government protestors’ wishes by vowing to step down from power in 2013, a whole 2 years away, but the people of Yemen don’t think that is soon enough. Saleh is in a very rough spot and is now trying to gain the trust of the people so that his government doesn’t fold around him. In some cases, concession to the crowd might be a good idea, but I believe in this case, Saleh has implemented this technique way too late in the game and has now made himself look weak in front of his people. A good leader uses his language to inspire and promote a sense of confidence in his group, or in this case, country. Saleh, through his language, has not come across as a strong leader, rather one who is indecisive and in a panic mode as the people of Yemen will soon enough reform the government.


The BBC. "Yemen's president orders forces to protect protesters." February 24, 2011. February 24, 2011.

<http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12564248>

The Rhetoric of President Obama's Speech on The Egypt Situation

President Obama’s speech on the former President of Egypt stepping down from office is very iconic for multiple reasons. Obama’s tone throughout the speech and his word choice were planned very well and the speech was executed with the upmost respect for all parties involved in Egypt. He managed to address the Egyptian peoples’ need for a democracy, without condemning the former Mubarak regime. Obama’s speech was very direct and straight to the point. The Speech is actually only four paragraphs in length, which seems quite short, but I believe that the short length was very effective in communicating Obama’s awareness of the situation, and also his want to see the issue be resolved quickly.

             Obama’s word choice is instrumental in conveying a serious tone, without coming across as condemning on either side of the issue. For example, in the first paragraph, Obama uses the words: concrete, credible, and unequivocal. All three of these words were put into this speech, because they carry very specific meanings. They each explain that the government must come up with a resolution in a very solid and fair way, so that the people of Egypt can be at peace. Obama set a tone for international politics with this speech, that I feel many global leaders will follow in the upcoming months, regarding the series of government revolts throughout the world.

Obama, Barack. Statement of President Obama on Egypt. 10, February 2011. 17, February 2011.

<http://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2011/02/10/statement-president-barack-obama-egypt>

Rhetoric of Jordan Commercial

This week I would like to analyze one of my all time favorite commercials. This advertisement first came to television screens in late 2010. The commercial tells the story of two of the greatest players to ever play the game of basketball, Lebron James and Michael Jordan. Both athletes have had merchandise contracts with Nike for many years and the objective of this commercial is clearly to sell Nike merchandise, but this ad takes a very creative avenue in order to sell its products. The first image that is seen in the commercial is James talking to the camera about some of his recent actions in his career that have upset many fans, especially in the Cleveland area. When he was traded to Miami, many fans were outraged and openly burned James’ jersey in the streets to express disgust in their once, “King of Cleveland.” James briefly discusses quitting the game, or just designing shoes, or possibly just disappearing from basketball altogether. Then something very interesting happens in this advertisement; Michael Jordan chimes in to express his thoughts on the matter, almost as mentor for James. This ad is appealing to a wide range of people, considering that Michael Jordan has been a household name since the 1980’s. Not only can ten-year-olds relate to this commercial, seeing their favorite basketball player on the screen, but their parents who grew up in the era of MJ and the Bulls. The ad then follows the story of Jordan from playing in high school and working out in old, sweaty gyms. Jordan talks over the ad the entire rest of the commercial in a rhetoric series of questions aimed at James’ fans. Jordan serves as the voice of reason in this advertisement, bringing sight into the issue of James’ status among other great NBA players. This commercial effectively addresses James’ struggle, but also works on selling Nike products to fans of the two household names. When you first watch the commercial, it is hard to envision that there are subliminal messages and hidden Nike logos all throughout the commercial. During the minute long commercial, you can see the iconic Nike swoosh symbol ten times. It is absolutely amazing the way that Nike can formulate this commercial in a way to tell a story and also effectively sell their products.

"Michael Jordan's Response to Lebron James What Should I Do Commercial." 26 November 2010. Youtube. 10 February 2011.

<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLZzWJxt-LE>

This I Believe Project

http://www.zshare.net/audio/863334562126c385/

Rhetoric in Advertisements

 

IHTad.jpg 

http://kleercut.net/en/files//IHTad.jpg

This advertisement really spoke to me in the way it conveyed certain rhetorical aspects that we have covered during class. Recently, we talked about the use of relevance and timing in what you are talking about. For example, the recent oil spill in the Gulf of Mexico, and the recent trouble in South America and the Middle East, has spurred much discussion about our energy resources and what we have to do in order to become more self-sufficient as a nation. This advertisement plays on the issue of deforestation, a topic that comes up every few years, but then somehow disappears back into the abyss of problems we have yet to solve.

The ad itself is a masterpiece in the way that it portrays the tissue brand as truly destroying the ancient forests of Canada. The box is decorated with a print of many stripped trees that have obviously been cut down to make paper, or in this case, it can be interpreted that they will be used to make Kleenexes. On other Kleenex boxes, there are usually cool designs or prints that draw attention to the boxes as more of a stylish accessory, rather than a box full of over-logged forest trees. Another aspect of this add which adds greatly to its overall effectiveness, is the three step process, which the add explains will destroy Canada’s ancient forest. The three step system is a great way to show how easy it is to lose one of the world’s greatest resources, which will be near impossible to get back. It also shows how little thought we put into a daily action, such as, blowing our nose. We could use a handkerchief, which doesn’t harm any resources, and is completely reusable, but instead, we would rather use the tissue, which we will disregard and throw directly in a trashcan in under three seconds. This add does a great job of portraying how effective using only a few words can be at portraying a message.

LA 101H This I Believe Project

http://www.zshare.net/download/8604201647f84d0f/

Sarah Palin's Rhetorical Skills

Regardless of your political beliefs, it is hard to deny that Sarah Palin is a highly followed political figure in today’s media. The way she uses rhetoric in her speeches and media responses is very unique and worthy of analysis. Voice infliction is a way that a listener can identify what a speaker’s emotions are regarding a particular topic they are speaking about. Palin uses different pitches in her voice, pertaining to what message she is lobbying for, and how she wants her point to come across. She does an excellent job of slowing down her speech, and raising her voice slightly when she really wants a point to be heard. For example, from her response to President Obama’s State of the Union Address, Palin was trying to poke fun at the acronym, “W.T.F.,” which is used in popular culture to indicate a feeling of disbelieve in a negative connotation. By poking fun at Obama’s acronym, Palin is using her language to strike a feeling of comedy in her response, and also she is connecting to a younger audience of listeners, who have grown up in a political world filled with popular satirists, such as John Stewart and Stephen Colbert. She is also trying to convince her listening audience of how ludicrous some of the current government’s policies are in her opinion. In my opinion, people look for comedy in every aspect of life, especially when watching the television. Politics is a very serious business, but comedy seems to take away some of the strain from the very hostile environment that political talk shows encompass.

              Palin also mixes up the rhetorical devices as she continues to speak. Mixing up the style of speaking keeps the message fresh and vibrant. It is very hard to keep someone’s attention for a prolonged period of time, but Palin seems to be affective in keeping her words and pattern of speech fresh and unpredictable. Palin catches a lot of flack in the media for stirring up drama and for playing the “ loving mother figure,” card too frequently, but she does an excellent job of staying in the spotlight. If she didn’t use rhetoric effectively, Palin would not be called back to speak on political news programs week after week. 

Works Cited:

Author Unknown. Copyright 2007-2008. Last Updated January 28, 2011. Accessed January 28, 2011.

<http://www.wisepolitics.com/sarah-palin-slams-barack-obama-state-of-the-union-speech-2011-3219.html/comment-page-1>

The Colbert Report

The Colbert Report is an extremely fascinating piece of comedy and satire. Aside from host Stephen Colbert’s very comedic message, lies an intricate and very well executed amount of rhetoric. Rhetoric can be defined as a way of using language persuasively, which is exactly what Colbert does. He has the ability to act and say one message that is understood to be in favor of an opposing side to politics. For example, in the most recent episode of the show from January 19^th, Colbert analyzes the choice made to throw a black tie affair at the White House, in which the President of China was invited. Colbert was trying to make the point that we shouldn’t be throwing fancy dinners for foreign delegates, especially when we owe foreign nations over a trillion “China bucks.” Although his point came across very humorously, it seems as though his strategy of giving criticism in conjunction with humor seems to work in this case. He further adds to his point by saying that the dinner should have been a, “sweatpants potluck.” He enhances the rhetoric of this phrase by dropping in tone and slowing down his speech. Colbert seems to have speaking down to a science, because he knows when to emphasize words, which carry a great importance. He could have simply said, “The White House shouldn’t be throwing ridiculously expensive parties,” but by adding humor to his point, he adds entertainment to what could be considered a boring lecture.

An interesting part of Colbert’s rhetoric is the way he stresses certain words to give effect. Like we talked about in class, the way that a person talks can affect the way a message is portrayed. The way Colbert uses a very serious tone naturally and drops the tone of his vice dramatically to make a point is very interesting. From what I can tell, it seems that Colbert raises his tone of voice when a point seems rather absurd, and he wants the audience to understand how ridiculous it seems.

Works Cited:
1995-2011 Comedy Partners. The Colbert Report. Accessed January 20, 2011.
<http://www.colbertnation.com/full-episodes/thu-january-20-2011-chris-matthews>