After finishing this podcast, I had mixed emotions towards it. When first hearing the recording of the young people in the neighborhood and their antics, I originally was upset. I felt embarrassed to be from Penn State, where apparently street signs are ripped down and girls hike up their skirts to publicly urinate. Not being much of a partier, these images baffled me. I’ve always assumed that acts like these occurred, but I never was truly confronted with them. However, as I continued to listen to the podcast, my original feelings changed. The initial shock of the drunken images went away, and I remembered that all schools party.
Where I am from, there are many universities nearby. One in particular, located in the city, is not far from my high school. I had older friends attended there, and from their stories, I can safely assume that their parties are extremely similar to Penn State parties. I can honestly say that I think the images presented are an appropriate portrayal of college parties. College does have other important aspects to it though, so I do not agree that it is a suitable portrayal of Penn State University as a whole. We have much more to offer than just good parties.
The ethos are especially weak when intoxicated students are allowed to speak. This makes sense, however, because being inebriated doesn’t allow for much credibility or reliability. For example, when the two drunken young men were asked about the stop sign, they first lied about how they acquired it. However, the interviewers seemed reliable, as they used facts and significant sources, including interviews by Graham Spanier.
Pathos were widely used throughout this podcast, but the most significant moment for me was the topic of death. Bringing up the subject was important though, because it is the most serious consequence of drinking. Describing the young man’s night and how they found him made me sad, but the most touching was having his friend speak. Listening to him talk was moving, especially because you could hear the shakiness of his voice. Imagining the pain he was going through after the death is challenging.
As for logos, the interviewers did a good job. As I previously mentioned, they used clips from Graham Spanier’s interviews, which reflect clearly how the university feels about drinking. It allowed listeners to hear how the entire university feels about it and not just hear the silly stories about the “awesome” parties. Also, by having clips from people in State College who participate in the events allowed the piece to make its case. Hearing explicit examples of people who participate in these acts makes the issue much more understandable and known.
Issues of definition are shown throughout this piece, from the small and silly definition of a “fracket,” the jacket you wear to a frat party, to the important explanation of “pre-gaming,” which is where people drink before they go out. The latter is important to explain to the listeners so they can better comprehend the podcast. As for the definition of Penn State in this piece, I don’t think it explicitly defines the university negatively. The piece offers many sides to the university, from explaining the outrageous behaviors of the drunken students to the opinions of the President and the school. After finishing this piece, I didn’t feel embarrassed or ashamed to say that I study at Penn State. We were just used as an example, out of many other universities, to present the issue of drinking and partying.
