VOYEURISM What's Next?

Catherine Crump gives a Ted Talk about license plate readers and what that our local police department, and the federal government is doing with this stored data. Catherine's speech shows one of Larson's Cultural Images and Myths, the myth is the presence of conspiracy. Catherine wants her audience to believe that storing this data will lead to the data being, "abused, maybe for blackmail, maybe for political advantage, or maybe for simple voyeurism."

What caught my attention to this conspiracy was the word voyeurism. Merriam-Webster.com defines voyeurism in two ways: first, "one obtaining sexual gratification from observing unsuspecting individuals who are partly undressed, naked, or engaged in sexual acts; broadly: one who habitually seeks sexual stimulation by visual means." This definition shocked me, how could someone interpret the act of storing data to lead to voyeurism? I decided to give Catherine the benefit of the doubt and go with Merriam-Webster's second definition, "a prying observer who is usually seeking the sordid or the scandalous." Although it is not quite as drastic, it is still quite shocking that one would think the storing of data could lead one to believe in this result.

I'm not saying that Catherine's speech does not shed light on, what most would consider, an infringement on our right to privacy. I am not here to debate the right to privacy or whether or not data should be stored at all. I am here to point out the presence of conspiracy that exists in her argument. Catherine is taking what could be a small situation, that could be meant to keep us safe, and turns it into something of greater risk. The situation thus is escalated from safety of the public to the public’s lack of safety and privacy, hence the presence of conspiracy.

Catherine is using scare tactics. The firsts process premise would describe these scare tactics through Maslow's Hierarchy of needs, with our need to feel safe, and Packard's "Compelling Needs", emotional security. Catherine wants her audience to feel unsafe due to the collection of this data, by the government. She wants her audience to feel that their emotional security and safety are in jeopardy and does this by using the second process premise of fear.

Catherine starts her speech by comparing the collection of this data to what took place in Ferguson Missouri with the death Michael Brown. Catherine compared the surveillance equipment that collects this data, to advanced battlefield weapons and equipment used in war. Catherine's comparisons bring the second process premise of fear immediately into the conversation.

Catherine attempts to create fear are too far stretched to making one believe that voyeurism could take place. However, Catherine's use of the process premise will make us think differently about the collection of data in the future. She does create a cognitive affect in her audience that is brought on by the presence of conspiracy. I do feel, on the negative side, that this speech nurtures the distrust of government that is growing in our society. More positively the speech will encourage us all to possibly ask more questions.

Catherine's purpose in her speech might just be that, to make us think and ask. Catherine probably wants us all to be a little less trusting of what the government tells us. That we should all be more involved with what is going on in our communities, making sure it is the right thing for us all. I would say Catherine's usage of the process premise succeeded in creating the cognitive effect of influencing a change in the way we look and think at this situation.

To GMO or Not

Pamela Ronald a plant geneticist is trying to persuade her audience to take a second look at genetically modified organization (GMO) specific to food. Pamela's talk compares the use of GMO's with the great need of good food in order to nourish the growing population without destroying the world. Pamela is using the process premise of needs, specifically Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs with regards to the safety of the human population. Pamela is attempting to show that the human populations safety need is in reducing the use of harmful expensive pesticides, and naturally reducing pests with a final goal of overcoming malnutrition.

Pamela attempts to motivate the audience into persuasion through discussing widely know facts about the children who have malnutrition in third world countries. Pamela wants to motivate the audience to have a greater acceptance of GMO food so that these foods can be used to solve their food needs. The speaker is also using this information to play on the human emotions of the audience, which is the second process premise. Using the first process premise to discuss the need for the basic human need of safety. These individuals do not have enough food to guard the safety of their health due to the use of pesticides or pests destroying their crops, causing malnutrition. Pamela also uses the second process premise to motivate the audience on an emotional level through sadness for the situations that these people find themselves. Fear of the outcomes is also a part of this process premise, fear that if a resolution cannot be found and agreed upon to solve the problems that the negative statistics will continue to be prevalent. Pamela is trying to move the feeling about the use GMO's from low motivation to high motivation.

Pamela addresses the abilities that we have to help this situation. We now can genetically engineer plants that can withstand the harsh conditions of the areas where individuals live. This will allow the local farmers the ability to grow the plants necessary to feed their families. Modifying these plants will allow the plant to grow and thrive in the environments where farmers have struggled to feed their families due to the loss of their crop. There is currently high ability that will allow geneticists to modify plants to feed the growing population. Geneticists are growing in ability to continue to modify plants to help communities thrive instead of die. She explains that the problem with the ability is that there are individuals standing in the way with lack of information. These individuals arguing against GMO's, and are preventing the farmers the ability of growing the modified plants.

Pamela is triggering the emotions of the audience by talking through the tragedies that are occurring in other countries due to the lack of good foods. She uses triggers of the success of GMO foods in other countries that will help lower the negative statistics due to the causes of malnutrition. However Pamela misses an opportunity to encourage the audience to action. She does not invite them to get involved with supporting the cause nor does she explain how they can become involved. She talks about our general responsibility in needing to get involved and to scientific innovation. I feel she missed an opportunity to get specific about how individuals can get onboard and help the cause. She failed to trigger into action the audience but rather gave them information that they may or may not know how to use.

I feel the speaker did reach the audience on an emotional level, tugging at the heartstrings for the needs of the children in third world countries. I feel the two process premises she used helped open the door to a better understanding of her cause to gain a wider acceptance for GMO foods especially for those who are going without. Further triggers will be needed to get the audience out of their seats to plant the seeds to move the work forward.

Yes, Let's Do This!!!