The art of persuasion was something I believed I had skillfully mastered by the age of five. Convincing others that the best candy was without a doubt “Sour Patch Kids” or that spinning the tire swing as fast as possible would truly benefit them, was something I maneuvered well. I also could convince my dog to do most anything, my favorite included eating any bugs that flew in my path. I was quite disheartened when I noticed flaws in my skills, as I attempted to persuade my parents, my big sister, her friends, or any other adult that I encountered. I was quite perplexed by this fact, especially after thinking that I was a master, and maybe in the sense of my five-year-old friends and dog, I was, but when it came to adults, I still had some refining to do. In time, I realized that my ability to persuade truly relied on my audience. And nowadays, when people are beginning to question whether or not persuasion is dead, I like to believe that is indeed alive, it just depends on whom you are trying to persuade.
I often realize this while strolling about campus. There are signs advertising free subs, free pizza, free ice cream, free burritos…the only catch is, you have to apply for a credit card. They convince you that you are just applying and that you are not actually opening up an account. They lead you to believe that it is okay and that your free meal will come with no strings attached. Two cancellations and a credit card in my wallet later, I realized that this was not true. I was persuaded by the thought of free food and no strings attached, it seemed perfect in my mind, I am a hungry college student. These people know exactly whom they should appeal to. It is not like you would see these advertisers sitting in the parking lot of a business building, trying to convince the businessmen. They are aware that their persuasion methods will fail. They recognized their audience; they determined who could be persuaded and who could not be, and that is who they aimed for.
In terms of a more influential act of persuasion, it can be demonstrated when considering the presidential election. There are always those who vote strictly republican, democratic, or to whichever party they are loyal to, but then you have those who are open-minded and who truly would like to have the best candidate for presidency. Those who sit with their ears, eyes, and mind open will truly be persuaded by what the candidate has to say. This is often the reason that the candidates spend much of their time campaigning in the “swing” states. They know that the speeches they make are being heard, internalized, and hopefully have taken effect in their favor. I recall talking to my Grandpa Allan, a rather conservative man, and asking him which candidate he had chosen in the election. His answer had astounded me, he had voted for Obama; he had voted democratically, which was very unlike him and his past voting habits. He then explained to me that he had chosen Obama because he believed him to be the right man for the job. If Obama had not made influential speeches in order to persuade those such as my grandfather to vote for him, if persuasion was truly dead, there is the possibility that a different president may be sitting in the oval office.
Also, the art of persuasion is not limited to public affair such as credit card applications and presidential speeches, it is also used amongst our interpersonal relationships. Whether you need a helping hand, want company while procrastinating, want permission to stay out late, or anything else, persuasion helps you to fulfill those wants and needs. Some will be easy to persuade, some will take more prodding, and even some will be relentless. As I know that I can easily persuade my best friend to hang out instead of do homework, that I have to work a little bit for my mom to extend my curfew, and that I will never be able to convince my father that piercing my nose is a good idea. It truly depends on the audience you desire to convince.
So, if you hear that persuasion is “dead,” think twice. Consider that articles discussing this topic are ironic, as they persuade you that persuasion is dead…or maybe I have just persuaded you to that fact…
Tuesday, February 24, 2009
Persuasion is not dead
While some may believe that persuasion is dead, it is clear that it is not. Some may not agree with this is what I have to say because they believe it is and refuse to change their mind on the subject no matter what they hear. This is fine because there are those that it is very difficult or even impossible to persuade.
Matt Miller wrote on article on this idea titled "Is Persuasion Dead?" In his article he wrote about politics and said that politicians and the press had killed off persuasion, but not intentionally. I disagree with him. I'm not sure what Miller's opinion is when it comes to persuasion in places other than politics because he ignored these other areas in his article, but it is in these places where persuasion is still alive. When deciding where you want to shop many people will either go to their favorite store, or somewhere that is having really good sales. It is these sales that persuade customers to come to the store and buy their products.
Proof that persuasion is not dead lies in the simple fact that advertising is still going on, both in politics and in everyday life. It is in these ads that people are persuaded to buy products, shop at certain store, eat at a restaurant, and vote for someone. We are constantly seeing ads for products everywhere we go. When you are in a city it is impossible to go down any street without seeing a billboard somewhere or even an ad painted on the side of a bus. The problem is not that persuasion is dead, its simply that people no longer realize that we are being persuaded. When is the last time you have watched a commercial and thought to yourself that the company just tried to persuade you to buy your product? Chances are you didn't think this, all you thought was why is this junk playing instead of my show? While you may think you just ignored a commercial for something you actually didn't. If you just saw a commercial for a certain brand, next time you are at the store and see the name, chances are you will think about trying it out. If you do, then you were just persuaded to buy that product. The same goes with politics. There are a lot of positions that many voters don't even realize they are going to have to vote on until they show up at the polls. Chances are that sometime leading up to the election, one of the candidates for one of these lesser known categories ran a commercial or put up a billboard somewhere. When you go to vote and recognize the name, if you vote for that person over the other one you haven't heard of, you were persuaded to vote for this person.
Even in every Presidential election there is persuasion. This is made obvious by the so called "swing voters." These are the people that are undecided sometimes right up until they cast their actual vote. These are the people that are unsure of who they want to vote for and sometimes win an election for one candidate. A lot of time is focused on these "swing voters" because candidates know that they are the ones who have to be persuaded in order to win their vote. There are even "swing states" that candidates have to pay attention to because if they ignore them and their opponent does not, then they will vote for the one who paid the most attention to them.
It's for those very simple reasons that I disagree with Miller and I know that persuasion is still alive. It is used in everyday life and it is also still alive in politics today. The only difference is that now instead of people realizing it's going on, we have gotten so used to it that we just ignore it until the product or person pops into our head later on.
Matt Miller wrote on article on this idea titled "Is Persuasion Dead?" In his article he wrote about politics and said that politicians and the press had killed off persuasion, but not intentionally. I disagree with him. I'm not sure what Miller's opinion is when it comes to persuasion in places other than politics because he ignored these other areas in his article, but it is in these places where persuasion is still alive. When deciding where you want to shop many people will either go to their favorite store, or somewhere that is having really good sales. It is these sales that persuade customers to come to the store and buy their products.
Proof that persuasion is not dead lies in the simple fact that advertising is still going on, both in politics and in everyday life. It is in these ads that people are persuaded to buy products, shop at certain store, eat at a restaurant, and vote for someone. We are constantly seeing ads for products everywhere we go. When you are in a city it is impossible to go down any street without seeing a billboard somewhere or even an ad painted on the side of a bus. The problem is not that persuasion is dead, its simply that people no longer realize that we are being persuaded. When is the last time you have watched a commercial and thought to yourself that the company just tried to persuade you to buy your product? Chances are you didn't think this, all you thought was why is this junk playing instead of my show? While you may think you just ignored a commercial for something you actually didn't. If you just saw a commercial for a certain brand, next time you are at the store and see the name, chances are you will think about trying it out. If you do, then you were just persuaded to buy that product. The same goes with politics. There are a lot of positions that many voters don't even realize they are going to have to vote on until they show up at the polls. Chances are that sometime leading up to the election, one of the candidates for one of these lesser known categories ran a commercial or put up a billboard somewhere. When you go to vote and recognize the name, if you vote for that person over the other one you haven't heard of, you were persuaded to vote for this person.
Even in every Presidential election there is persuasion. This is made obvious by the so called "swing voters." These are the people that are undecided sometimes right up until they cast their actual vote. These are the people that are unsure of who they want to vote for and sometimes win an election for one candidate. A lot of time is focused on these "swing voters" because candidates know that they are the ones who have to be persuaded in order to win their vote. There are even "swing states" that candidates have to pay attention to because if they ignore them and their opponent does not, then they will vote for the one who paid the most attention to them.
It's for those very simple reasons that I disagree with Miller and I know that persuasion is still alive. It is used in everyday life and it is also still alive in politics today. The only difference is that now instead of people realizing it's going on, we have gotten so used to it that we just ignore it until the product or person pops into our head later on.
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
Marathon Runners
The argument that the New Balance ad is trying to make is that their shoes help runners take on challenges they set for themselves. The ad is trying to make a very broad appeal to all types of marathon runners, from first timers to those that have done them before. This seems like a very good attempt tby the ocmpany to attract business from all types of runners. By not focusing on die hard runners or those who are just getting into it, they can make an appeal to a group without making anyone feel left out. Looking at the ad it is very apparent that the ocmpany is trying to make an emotional and sentimental appeal to the audience.
Three short blurbs are put inext to the pictures of three different runners which gives the audience the feeling that these runners wrote each little statement. However the ad does not say if these are from actual people or just the marketing people. However this does not make a big difference because the average reader will probably not consider this when reading through the ad. I did not realize this until I sat down and started to type this. Each of these follows a small trend. All three make mention of a different number of miles at least twice. They also tell the emotions that are going through each person at different parts of the race. This helps the audience to make a personal connection with the ad by putting in real emotions that actual people feel. By doing this New Balance is able to become more personal rather than just a faceless company.
The passages also have a similar style of language and writing. They all use short senteces that contain very simple words. This almost gives it a feel like the people are actually saying this or thinking it as they are running the marathong. Doing this makes it seem as if running the marathon is going easily for the people, which could be a result of wearing comfortable New Balance shoes.
The bottom portion of the ad also does a very good job of appealing to people in the Chicago area. They are able to make an appeal to the entire city by mentioning that they have sponsored the Chicago city marathon since 1997. Saying this shows that the company cares and is giving back to the area and supporting their sport.
By featuring a picture of both men and owmen as the focal point, New Balance was also able to appeal to both sexes with one ad. This is very important because a lot of ads are focused more on one sex than the other. There are also three different shoes shown, and it is noted that they are all available in both men's and women's. Having both men and women helps to show that the company does not favor one sex over the other, and support both sexes.
This ad overall is pretty effective. It focuses more on an emotional appeal of people who run marathons, which is a market that doesn't seem to receive much publicity. A good job was done targeting this group of athletes which tend to get neglected by more popular sports. The language used also helped make this strong by using emotions that go through a runners head during a race. Through this ad the company was able to make a connection to its customers.
-Jake
Three short blurbs are put inext to the pictures of three different runners which gives the audience the feeling that these runners wrote each little statement. However the ad does not say if these are from actual people or just the marketing people. However this does not make a big difference because the average reader will probably not consider this when reading through the ad. I did not realize this until I sat down and started to type this. Each of these follows a small trend. All three make mention of a different number of miles at least twice. They also tell the emotions that are going through each person at different parts of the race. This helps the audience to make a personal connection with the ad by putting in real emotions that actual people feel. By doing this New Balance is able to become more personal rather than just a faceless company.
The passages also have a similar style of language and writing. They all use short senteces that contain very simple words. This almost gives it a feel like the people are actually saying this or thinking it as they are running the marathong. Doing this makes it seem as if running the marathon is going easily for the people, which could be a result of wearing comfortable New Balance shoes.
The bottom portion of the ad also does a very good job of appealing to people in the Chicago area. They are able to make an appeal to the entire city by mentioning that they have sponsored the Chicago city marathon since 1997. Saying this shows that the company cares and is giving back to the area and supporting their sport.
By featuring a picture of both men and owmen as the focal point, New Balance was also able to appeal to both sexes with one ad. This is very important because a lot of ads are focused more on one sex than the other. There are also three different shoes shown, and it is noted that they are all available in both men's and women's. Having both men and women helps to show that the company does not favor one sex over the other, and support both sexes.
This ad overall is pretty effective. It focuses more on an emotional appeal of people who run marathons, which is a market that doesn't seem to receive much publicity. A good job was done targeting this group of athletes which tend to get neglected by more popular sports. The language used also helped make this strong by using emotions that go through a runners head during a race. Through this ad the company was able to make a connection to its customers.
-Jake
THEY'RE PATHHHHETIC
Before I get into the nitty gritty of what this class is all about, I must say I don't really care for this advertisement. If there is one type of personality that bothers me its smug and that is all that this advertisement appears to be. I mean really, who likes that on person in the corner of the room who sits with a smile on their face constantly and loves to share facts with their eyes closed. I move on.
The argument here is clearly that people should be eating food that not only benefits them but also benefits the environment and society. This is clear through their use of metonymy as the flavor of the cereal is referred to as socially and environmentally responsible and how those adjectives go well with milk, just like typical cereals such as Frosted Flakes and Cocoa Puffs. Ironically, they also mention at the bottom of the ad that they are not your typical cereal company. They even make a pathetic appeal through comedy to say that "typical" isn't even in their language. I don't find it funny but maybe the older crowd that are in dire need of flax oil and omega-3 will have a bit of a giggle. On second thought, probably not.
I am not sure what magazine this ad came form but I assume that it was well placed. This ad appears to try and garner a certain audience's attention in a hope to make them buy the cereal. The appeal is quite clear. They are trying to make the audience feel better about buying the cereal for a few reasons. For one, being environmentally and socially aware is quite "in" now a day. People love the idea of being "green" and caring about the environment. Some of those people love to even show it off. Examples of people showing off would fall under Hollywood stars. See George Clooney. No seriously. Go look at George Clooney's 2006 Oscar speech and see how long it takes you before you are running for the nearest trash can or toilet. Please, I can wait.
(tapping feet)...
Once again, off course, but making a point. This cereal wants to make people feel better about themselves for not only eating it, but for buying it.
Another appeal that is made through this advertisement is how the company makes the cereal seem like its more than a cereal. One could even argue that they are trying to say its the Captain Planet of cereals. Maybe even the Jack Bauer of cereals. They build up this idea that buying this cereal that buying the cereal is just like "having respect for the cereal". The fact of the matter is that it is just cereal. While some may buy it so they can show off their caring side for the world, they aren't really doing all that much. There are bigger moves that can be made by the average family to become more environmentally conscious then buying an organic cereal. In fact, it is probably better for the world if the family doesn't even drive to the local store to buy the cereal. Well maybe that's not totally true. I guess it depends on where the family lives and where the store is and if you use a car and... off topic again. Sorry.
As you can tell by the tone of my little rant here, you can see I find this ad to be quite poor. Its pathetic appeals are quite pathetic in their attempts to convince consumers that this cereal is the end all be all of the world. Look, if people want to eat healthy, they will. There is this little thing called the Internet in which people can search for tips on how to eat healthy. i personally don't need or don't care for an ad like this to tell me how I can help the environment.
Ah, I am now absolved. I can return to my happy self.
Tuesday, February 3, 2009
Ethos...
When Aristotle argues that ethos "should result from the speech, not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person" (1.2.42), I feel he is proposing a worthwhile idea as it would eliminate much bias, though to some degree, I feel it is rather unrealistic. In a perfect world, people would be able to forget their previous judgements and assumptions, but we all know that is rather difficult to do. For both public figures and those not in the spotlight alike, once they have gained a reputation, it is difficult to change it in others’ eyes. It especially difficult to change a negative view because many tend to focus on what went wrong versus what went right. This fact is disheartening because we are human and make mistakes, so if we do something wrong, that may be out of character, many will not view it that way. They will just assume it is a characteristic of us, even if we have been nothing but the opposite otherwise. It also does not help that people do not like uncertainty and will make up false assumptions in order to make themselves feel more certain and secure in whom they are dealing with. Not to mention, people are often rather stubborn and are not quick to give up or forget any judgements that they have made, even if they are false.
When I first meet someone, I try to judge ethos based on current speech, but am sometimes guilty of judging based on past reputation. I prefer to give most the benefit the doubt and often make a conscious effort not to be judgmental, even if I had a poor impression earlier. I feel the way in which to arrive at a proper ethos is to be aware of the judgements that you tend to make or have already made. Also, you should do your best to make an attempt at providing the orator with a clean slate while speaking. I have noticed though, that the closer and more knowledgeable I am of a person, the more I make judgements based on their reputation. For example, one of my friends often says things that come out wrong and to an outsider may seem hurtful. Since I am aware she often does this, I know that her intentions are not bad, that she is not trying to hurt me, and my positive impression of her does not change.
As much as people would like to discount someone’s reputation, it is difficult to decipher to what degree. People are human and often make mistakes, should we hold it against them forever? I mean, people do have the potential to learn from their mistakes and change into a better self. Although, they also have the potential to keep making the same mistakes and change for the worse. Seeing the glass half full, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but should probably be careful as to not be made a fool. For example, Paris Hilton is a person that many refuse to take seriously. I myself sometimes struggle to do so too. Her past is not perfect, but what if in the future, she grows up and changes for the better. If she attempts to do anything meaningful, who is going to take her seriously? What if she tries to rally for an important cause or attempts to give an influential speech? People who listen to her speech may feel that it was unintelligent and fake, due to their former judgements on her past actions. Also, there is the potential that many would not even bother to listen to the speech based on their present views of her. But what if they same speech was given by someone who was credible and well liked by the public? The speech may be interpreted completely differently. For example, when Obama gives a speech, it is generally well received and judged as credible due to his reputation as a good orator. I feel that is rather unfair to Paris because she does have the potential to be an influential human being, everyone does, but many will not be able to discount her reputation, so she will be put on the back burner in the grand scheme of credible public figures. I also feel that we must use some sort of judgement when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt. I feel like we should be slightly hesitant, especially when it comes to those who are repeat offenders. For example, when determining a proper ethos for Ed Gein, many would and should struggle to forget his reputation, even if he had told us that he had changed and would like to be freed, he still had killed on multiple occasions, which is kind of a big deal.
What are you thoughts and feelings on the subject? I hope my ideas sparked some thoughts. Until next time…
~Courtney
When I first meet someone, I try to judge ethos based on current speech, but am sometimes guilty of judging based on past reputation. I prefer to give most the benefit the doubt and often make a conscious effort not to be judgmental, even if I had a poor impression earlier. I feel the way in which to arrive at a proper ethos is to be aware of the judgements that you tend to make or have already made. Also, you should do your best to make an attempt at providing the orator with a clean slate while speaking. I have noticed though, that the closer and more knowledgeable I am of a person, the more I make judgements based on their reputation. For example, one of my friends often says things that come out wrong and to an outsider may seem hurtful. Since I am aware she often does this, I know that her intentions are not bad, that she is not trying to hurt me, and my positive impression of her does not change.
As much as people would like to discount someone’s reputation, it is difficult to decipher to what degree. People are human and often make mistakes, should we hold it against them forever? I mean, people do have the potential to learn from their mistakes and change into a better self. Although, they also have the potential to keep making the same mistakes and change for the worse. Seeing the glass half full, I would like to give them the benefit of the doubt, but should probably be careful as to not be made a fool. For example, Paris Hilton is a person that many refuse to take seriously. I myself sometimes struggle to do so too. Her past is not perfect, but what if in the future, she grows up and changes for the better. If she attempts to do anything meaningful, who is going to take her seriously? What if she tries to rally for an important cause or attempts to give an influential speech? People who listen to her speech may feel that it was unintelligent and fake, due to their former judgements on her past actions. Also, there is the potential that many would not even bother to listen to the speech based on their present views of her. But what if they same speech was given by someone who was credible and well liked by the public? The speech may be interpreted completely differently. For example, when Obama gives a speech, it is generally well received and judged as credible due to his reputation as a good orator. I feel that is rather unfair to Paris because she does have the potential to be an influential human being, everyone does, but many will not be able to discount her reputation, so she will be put on the back burner in the grand scheme of credible public figures. I also feel that we must use some sort of judgement when it comes to giving the benefit of the doubt. I feel like we should be slightly hesitant, especially when it comes to those who are repeat offenders. For example, when determining a proper ethos for Ed Gein, many would and should struggle to forget his reputation, even if he had told us that he had changed and would like to be freed, he still had killed on multiple occasions, which is kind of a big deal.
What are you thoughts and feelings on the subject? I hope my ideas sparked some thoughts. Until next time…
~Courtney
Aristotle did not play hockey!!
Greek philosopher Aristotle believed that a person’s reputation should have no bearing on one’s evaluation of that person’s rhetoric. He believed an opinion should be formed on what was said and “not from a previous opinion that the speaker is a certain kind of person” (1.2.42). It is clear that NHL commissioner Gary Betmman and his chief disciplinarian, Colin Campbell have not read Aristotle. Their treatment of Sean Avery has violated both Aristotle’s ethos and the ethical belief that people in power have the responsibility to avoid using cruel and unusual punishment on their subordinates.
Sean Avery’s main transgression occurred the morning December 2 in 2008. In front of the media, Avery poked fun at Flames star Defenseman Dion Phaneuf who is dating his ex-girlfriend:
While Avery’s exercised bad judgment in his not so subtle jab at Jarret Stoll and Dion Phaneuf, both of whom are dating people who have been romantically involved with Sean Avery, the response of the hockey community was disgraceful. Instead of being reprimanded for inappropriate remarks, the league castigated Sean Avery because of his controversial career as a hockey player.
Sean Avery has made a career out of being the most hated player in the NHL. He relishes in being the games dirtiest player, a claim backed by an ESPN player poll that overwhelmingly verified that claim. For years the hockey community, most notably Barry Melrose, has seethed at every “injustice” perpetrated by Avery. He has been chastised for violating the “code” or unwritten rules that NHL players abide by. Despite his antics, two things can be said about Sean Avery. Firstly, he wants to win at all costs. His overly competitive nature is the engine behind all of his comments and actions. He’d rather the opposing team focus on beating him rather than his opponents beating his team. Time and time again Avery has sacrificed his body so his team may win. Avery’s other attribute is that despite all his questionable behavior, prior to December second the league never ever suspended him. Although never suspended, Sean has a reputation for causing trouble and speaking in a passionate and candid manner.
After being spending his first year and a half with the Detroit Red Wings, Sean Avery was part of a multi-player deal that sent him to the Los Angles Kings. While a member of the Kings, Avery quickly established himself as an offensively gifted forward who had a knack getting under peoples skin. His reputation started to build during the lockout of the 2004-2005 season. Sean Avery accused the NHL Players Association of lying to its players about work stoppage.
Sean Avery started to grab headlines when hockey resumed the following season. After his teammate Jeremy Roenick suffered a concussion at the hands of Coyotes defender Denis Gauthier, Avery irked many French-Canadians by saying "I think it was typical of most French guys in our league with a visor on, running around and playing tough and not back anything up." His narrow-minded rebuke of Gauthier’s caused quite a stir. Later that season Avery found himself in the center of another French-Canadian controversy. This time, Avery found himself in the middle of an argument with Montreal Canadian great Brian Hayward after Hayward mentioned Avery’s perceived hesitation to fight enforcer Todd Fedoruk. Although the validity of Hayward’s remarks is a source of debate, publicly questioning player’s manhood in the machismo world of hockey is considered a disgraceful act. After a similar incident involving Georges Laraque, one that lead to a public spat with disciplinarian Colin Campbell, Avery had worn out his welcome in Los Angles.
It was under these circumstances the Avery was brought to the New York Rangers. The offensively gifted Avery provided an instant spark to a lethargic Rangers team. He sparked a 17-4-9 run that lead to Rangers to the playoffs. Sean Avery’s edgy style immediately endeared him amongst the Ranger faithful, an amazing feat for anyone who follows New York sports. The following year, Avery excelled in his two best facets of the game: winning and turmoil. Avery led the rangers to the playoffs against the archrival New Jersey Devils. It was during this series Sean Avery became a household name. During a two-man advantage, Sean Avery placed himself at the top of the crease facing Goalie Martin Broudeur. Avery remained at the top of the crease waving his stick and distracting Marty. The play (which can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw) immediately became a talk radio sensation. Although legal, no rule existed prohibiting it, the screening tactic was viewed by the hockey elite as a violation of hockey’s unwritten code of ethics. After the play, the National Hockey League hastily banned the maneuver. After the playoffs, the Dallas Stars offered Sean Avery a four year $15.5 million dollar deal.
As a member of the Stars, Avery could not replicate his earlier success. The Stars, like Avery, struggled in the early part of the season. It was under these conditions, Sean Avery stepped up to the microphone. Searching to motivate a languid Dallas Stars team, Sean Avery made fun of star defenseman Dion Phaneuf. After his remarks, the National Hockey League promptly suspended Sean Avery six games and the Dallas Stars suspended Sean Avery indefinitely.
While legitimate debate can occur over if Avery deserved to be suspended by the league; In our modern hypersensitive world of a minor suspension would not have been without merit. The appalling part was length. Mattias Ohlund’s Barry Bonds impression on the back of Mikko Koivu’s leg ( seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3jGBUIwBs) earned him a lengthy two game suspension. Star forward Alexi Kovalev was not reprimanded at all after his vicious elbow on forward Ryan Hollweg (seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1JyfSQzalg). With these two previous precedents in mind, one cannot help but question whether Sean Avery’s comments was the main reason he was suspended. I cannot help but believe Avery’s previous public spats with Colin Campbell and constant strife with opposing players and not his chauvinistic comments lead to his suspension. As a student of Aristotle, I cannot help but lament the fact the former has clearly influenced the latter. That one man’s career has been ruined and his reputation tarnished because of another mans personal vendetta. These injustices must stop and I cannot help but side with Sean Avery in the grievance filed by the NHL Players Union on his behalf.
Sean Avery’s main transgression occurred the morning December 2 in 2008. In front of the media, Avery poked fun at Flames star Defenseman Dion Phaneuf who is dating his ex-girlfriend:
While Avery’s exercised bad judgment in his not so subtle jab at Jarret Stoll and Dion Phaneuf, both of whom are dating people who have been romantically involved with Sean Avery, the response of the hockey community was disgraceful. Instead of being reprimanded for inappropriate remarks, the league castigated Sean Avery because of his controversial career as a hockey player.
Sean Avery has made a career out of being the most hated player in the NHL. He relishes in being the games dirtiest player, a claim backed by an ESPN player poll that overwhelmingly verified that claim. For years the hockey community, most notably Barry Melrose, has seethed at every “injustice” perpetrated by Avery. He has been chastised for violating the “code” or unwritten rules that NHL players abide by. Despite his antics, two things can be said about Sean Avery. Firstly, he wants to win at all costs. His overly competitive nature is the engine behind all of his comments and actions. He’d rather the opposing team focus on beating him rather than his opponents beating his team. Time and time again Avery has sacrificed his body so his team may win. Avery’s other attribute is that despite all his questionable behavior, prior to December second the league never ever suspended him. Although never suspended, Sean has a reputation for causing trouble and speaking in a passionate and candid manner.
After being spending his first year and a half with the Detroit Red Wings, Sean Avery was part of a multi-player deal that sent him to the Los Angles Kings. While a member of the Kings, Avery quickly established himself as an offensively gifted forward who had a knack getting under peoples skin. His reputation started to build during the lockout of the 2004-2005 season. Sean Avery accused the NHL Players Association of lying to its players about work stoppage.
Sean Avery started to grab headlines when hockey resumed the following season. After his teammate Jeremy Roenick suffered a concussion at the hands of Coyotes defender Denis Gauthier, Avery irked many French-Canadians by saying "I think it was typical of most French guys in our league with a visor on, running around and playing tough and not back anything up." His narrow-minded rebuke of Gauthier’s caused quite a stir. Later that season Avery found himself in the center of another French-Canadian controversy. This time, Avery found himself in the middle of an argument with Montreal Canadian great Brian Hayward after Hayward mentioned Avery’s perceived hesitation to fight enforcer Todd Fedoruk. Although the validity of Hayward’s remarks is a source of debate, publicly questioning player’s manhood in the machismo world of hockey is considered a disgraceful act. After a similar incident involving Georges Laraque, one that lead to a public spat with disciplinarian Colin Campbell, Avery had worn out his welcome in Los Angles.
It was under these circumstances the Avery was brought to the New York Rangers. The offensively gifted Avery provided an instant spark to a lethargic Rangers team. He sparked a 17-4-9 run that lead to Rangers to the playoffs. Sean Avery’s edgy style immediately endeared him amongst the Ranger faithful, an amazing feat for anyone who follows New York sports. The following year, Avery excelled in his two best facets of the game: winning and turmoil. Avery led the rangers to the playoffs against the archrival New Jersey Devils. It was during this series Sean Avery became a household name. During a two-man advantage, Sean Avery placed himself at the top of the crease facing Goalie Martin Broudeur. Avery remained at the top of the crease waving his stick and distracting Marty. The play (which can be seen here http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ec_2oKWe2Gw) immediately became a talk radio sensation. Although legal, no rule existed prohibiting it, the screening tactic was viewed by the hockey elite as a violation of hockey’s unwritten code of ethics. After the play, the National Hockey League hastily banned the maneuver. After the playoffs, the Dallas Stars offered Sean Avery a four year $15.5 million dollar deal.
As a member of the Stars, Avery could not replicate his earlier success. The Stars, like Avery, struggled in the early part of the season. It was under these conditions, Sean Avery stepped up to the microphone. Searching to motivate a languid Dallas Stars team, Sean Avery made fun of star defenseman Dion Phaneuf. After his remarks, the National Hockey League promptly suspended Sean Avery six games and the Dallas Stars suspended Sean Avery indefinitely.
While legitimate debate can occur over if Avery deserved to be suspended by the league; In our modern hypersensitive world of a minor suspension would not have been without merit. The appalling part was length. Mattias Ohlund’s Barry Bonds impression on the back of Mikko Koivu’s leg ( seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xa3jGBUIwBs) earned him a lengthy two game suspension. Star forward Alexi Kovalev was not reprimanded at all after his vicious elbow on forward Ryan Hollweg (seen here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r1JyfSQzalg). With these two previous precedents in mind, one cannot help but question whether Sean Avery’s comments was the main reason he was suspended. I cannot help but believe Avery’s previous public spats with Colin Campbell and constant strife with opposing players and not his chauvinistic comments lead to his suspension. As a student of Aristotle, I cannot help but lament the fact the former has clearly influenced the latter. That one man’s career has been ruined and his reputation tarnished because of another mans personal vendetta. These injustices must stop and I cannot help but side with Sean Avery in the grievance filed by the NHL Players Union on his behalf.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)