Some people like their art on their walls, some on their car, and some on their skin. After the age of 18, U.S. citizens are allowed to get tattoos without parent consent. Tattoos are known to impact not only your skin, but also your chances of getting a professional job. In the professional world, tattoos are discouraged and even frowned upon most of the time, which arouses many questions concerning fairness, freedom of expression, and tattoo profiling. Is it fair to base a decision on whether to hire someone because of a work of art on his or her body? Everyone is entitled to express him or herself however they please. Why is it that those who have tattoos are profiled as gangsters? In a video online a California police officer, pulls over a car due to suspicion and targets the driver and his passenger as, “tatted up gangsters”, which shows tattoo profiling because even the officer says they really didn’t commit a crime and are free to go but because they had tattoos and looked suspicious, she pulled them over. On the other hand, an article written by Megan Hein, Think Before You Ink: Could getting a tattoo cost you your potential job?, explains the stigma in finding a job in the professional world while having tattoos.  The two genres briefly described above will later be examined in following genre analysis.

 

Audience and Purpose

            The first piece, the video on the Los Angeles Police Officer (LAPD), intends to inform viewers on how the driver and the passenger were profiled for having tattoos and the severity of abuse of authority. The second piece, Hein’s article, Think Before You Ink: Could getting a tattoo cost you your potential job? serves the purpose to inform readers on whether or not having visible tattoos is a good idea when considering a professional job, both sides of the debate are discussed and have opinions to back them up.

            The video is geared more specifically, but not solely, to Los Angeles residents and those who have tattoos. Due to the audience as to which the video is for, it can be known that the audience either knows that tattoo profiling exists and may even have been a victim of it and wants to know what the authority is doing about it. The article, though, is most likely for college students who either have or plan on getting tattoos, specially visible tattoos, and are trying to get a job in the professional world. The readers probably already know about the controversy of tattoos in the professional world and want to know more about it. The video focuses more on the theme of profiling, while the article concentrates more on what those who are doing the hiring usually think about tattoos.

            The article although fairly short, will usually take a longer time to cover than the video. The video is only 1:23 minutes long; therefore not much time needs to be taken with it because you can see exactly what is going on. As a viewer you do not have to read a background story on it because the video gives you insight on what happened prior to getting pulled over. The article utilizes many direct quotes from individuals who the piece is intended for, because it gives their own opinion verbatim on tattoos concerning a professional job. Since the article is concise and directly to the point it takes approximately 5 to 6 minutes to fully understand.

            The video has very informal language for example; profanity is used, which is used due to the heat of the moment. The use of vocabulary shows how infuriated both parties were in this incident. Although most of the specialized vocabulary came from the officer, as a viewer one can tell that the driver was not completely unaware of what the law is to do when unreasonable searches want to be conducted. The article is much more formal, compared to the video, it calls each speaker by their name and their profession and or position. The structure of the actual article is somewhat relaxed, but gives the information in a precise and easy to read way. The article uses specialized vocabulary pertaining to each field being touched on for the purpose to reach a diverse audience when debating whether tattoos are a good idea in the professional world or not. The article also does not focus on visuals at all; it relies completely on the words and the format of it. The video, which is all about visuals and audio, relies completely on hearing and watching what is going on to understand. The video though focuses a lot on only the officer. The driver and the passenger are not visible at any point in the video.

 

Rhetorical Issues

            In almost every piece of writing and media, you will find some rhetorical issues. Ethos focuses on the credibility of a piece, pathos focuses on the emotion and passion of the piece, and logos focuses on the logic.

Ethos

            The video’s credibility is based almost completely on the fact that you are watching exactly what was happening at the time and you know the video wasn’t altered or edited to fit a certain category, but as previously said you really can’t see the other people that took part in this incident and you can’t see the actions that happened previously to get the officer to suspect of vehicle fraud. You clearly see the profiling going on and the abuse of authority, though. As for the article, the writer cited each one of the speakers and gave statistics hat show that she knows what she is writing about.

Pathos

            Many emotions are packed in both genres, differently of course. The video gives a sense of anger for the victim, the officer, and for the viewer. Whatever side is taken in this particular incident; feelings of anger and indignation are being evoked. As for the article, each one of the speakers seems to feel very strongly on their opinion on the issue. In the article, a nursing major said, “They [the company] don’t want the wrong image to be portrayed or their reputation to go down,” showing that tattoos are something that can damage a company and thus agrees with tattoos being a decision-factor when applying for a job. There are also those who feel strongly on opposing side of the issue, a TV/film major said, “I know people who have tattoos who are just normal people. And if they’re in the business world, God help the business world.”  Both sides of the issue are entitled to their opinion and appear to be very set on what they believe.

Logos

            When it comes to the logic of each of the pieces, both come from a very logical topic or event. In terms of the video, the logic is that in fact the driver made a suspicious action and thus got pulled over, but the way the officer reacted was also not the correct way to do so. The article, most of its evidence is based on what the students who had something to say stated what they believe in. Another part of logic in the article is that it doesn’t only focus on one side of the issue, but emphasizes both sides and gives reasoning behind both as well.

 

Structure and Delivery

            The video, in terms of structure is a bit lacking because not everyone involved in the video is visible through out the video and only the profiling is showcased, which is the main point of the video. In order for the video to be more structure there would need to be a glimpse of the two people inside the car. Being able to see who else is involved would either discredit the officer or would justify the officer. Being able to see how they are conducting themselves and how much in the defensive they are would give the viewer a sense of why the officer acted so rough.   The delivery of it, since most people have access to the Internet especially in the U.S., is very convenient. Being an online video, there really is no such thing as a limitation as to who can watch it. The article the structure of it makes it very easy to read and uses simple language and format. There are no visuals so the reader is not distracted seeing pictures of tattoos or other media. It is an article anything that wants to be expressed can be expressed because there is no real limitation especially lengthwise. The delivery again is pretty convenient, but can also have some doubt in terms of credibility, which is then abandoned because it is an educational site.

 

Conclusion

            Both genres emphasize on the tattoo-profiling topic, but in very different ways. The first, the video, concentrates more on the fact that a couple is being profiled as gangsters because they are tatted. The second genre focus way more on how being tatted influences your opportunity to get a job, because sometimes they speak louder than words and gives the company a less professional look. The video is more on the side of being profiled and the article gives an overlook on both sides, but nonetheless both show how tattoos can impact on people’s perception of someone.