Wednesday, September 19, 2012

               

In this political cartoon, a woman is sitting in a room at the doctor’s office with a doctor who tells her some pretty depressing news. The doctor breaks the news to her that she has an illness that has no cure, and that since he can’t distribute medical marijuana, she basically just has to suffer. In the cartoon the doctor seems to be kind of sarcastic when he is telling her that there is nothing he can really do for her. I think this piece of communication was successful. I don’t think the author was simply trying to get people to think about medical marijuana in a different way. Not only seeing this as legalizing pot, but more of the aspect that medical marijuana could help people with their pain. Instead of having patients do unnecessary things like taking medicine that won’t really help their pain, and continuing to go to the doctor all the time.  This text was mainly based on the text of the picture rather than the picture itself. I think there was no other way to get this message across to the audience. I can’t think of a way to just have an image that represents what the author is trying to say. He needed to have the doctor talk in order to make it be known what was going on.
                There is clearly oppressive language in this political cartoon. The doctor is telling his patient that basically there is nothing he can do about her pain. He mentions how he could help her pain, then immediately took it back and gave her some highly generic way to “deal” with the pain. So the doctor tells her bad news, then some “good” news, then turns that good news into more bad news. I think this sarcastic, oppressive language helped the author portray the message they were trying to send. It puts emphasis on the fact that the government won’t make up their minds about legalizing medical marijuana. It shows that there are some situations where the usage of medical marijuana would actually help people, but because of the huge controversy on the matter, the patient just has to continue to suffer.  The author used this kind of oppressive language to put emphasis on thinking about medical marijuana from this point of view. In my opinion, using this language completely worked. If the author would have sugar coated the issue and made it all nice and innocent nobody would have been able to see the message that was trying to be made. 

Andra W.
(word count 430)

http://www.google.com/imgres?hl=en&client=firefox-a&hs=DBu&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&biw=1252&bih=585&tbm=isch&tbnid=F32d6K4pWTZ8iM:&imgrefurl=http://garyhoff.com/cartoon.html&docid=hSYg4o0WidygDM&imgurl=http://garyhoff.com/images/cartoons/cartoonmedmarij.jpg&w=475&h=394&ei=dplaUI7lNYrC0QGT-4CQCg&zoom=1&iact=hc&vpx=210&vpy=138&dur=202&hovh=204&hovw=247&tx=108&ty=84&sig=102074260102623801568&page=1&tbnh=118&tbnw=142&start=0&ndsp=23&ved=1t:429,r:1,s:0,i:73

2 comments:

  1. The political cartoon you picked has an interesting topic that it deals with. I agree with you that there was really no other way to convey the message rather than by doing so rather oppressively. Not only do I think the cartoon was meant to change people’s views on medical marijuana and its medicinal benefits it could have for some people, I think you could also argue about how doctors prescribe medications that don’t always help the patient, especially if there is a better alternative out there. There really was no way that an image itself could deliver the same message as it does with the dialogue. It is easy to follow and I think it is successful in trying to get people to look at this topic from a different perspective. The sarcastic tone of the cartoon grabs your attention and leaves you asking questions. Why is it that if there are cures for things, or at least better treatment options, why is it that it isn’t being given to people? There are many things stem cells could treat too. But, for the same reason that marijuana isn’t being legalized it stays illegal because of the controversy surrounding the topic. (201 words)

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think the political cartoon you picked out was one of the one's that stuck out to me the most. It was a good example of political rhetoric and also had oppresive language in it. The whole legalizing medical marijuana topic causes way to much outrage in the government and congress, yet most of them don't even know the benefits it can have among people, especially terminally ill patients. There has been tons of studies and research that have proven that medical marijuana can treat symptoms for some life threatening diseases, but yet it is still illegal. It was definitely a good idea for the author to do this as a picture rather than text because the message is presented in a more powerful manner. Even with the doctor's tone, saying how he could be arrested if he prescripes the patient medical marijuana can grab your attention and make you think. I also agreed with what you said about how it was a good thing that the author did not sugar coat anything in his message because no one would have be able to fully understand the issue and what some doctors/patients have had to go through for the access of medical marijuana. (204 words)

    ReplyDelete