Ethically, an author should be responsible for using facts as well as appeal to ethos and pathos. Without the facts, the argument becomes no more than propaganda. Arguments that are soley pursuasive can be extremely dangerous.
The media does not adhere to these ethics. Whenever you see an ad for a car, you also see an ad for a beauttful woman. The ad either says, "If you buy this car, this beautiful woman will want to ride in it with you," or, "If you buy this car, you will look like this beautiful woman." Although the ad itself may contain factual reasons to buy the car, psychologists have done studies that say if you show people ads of two comparable cars, one with a pretty woman in it, people will always say that the woman car is superior, regardless of gender or sexual orientation. This implicit pursuasive argument could be considered unethical.
The government is also guilty of this. Campaign ads will often highlight a negative personal aspect of a candidate, rather than a flaw in his policy, and will flash unflattering photos of the target while the voice speaks. By pointing out personal flaws instead of holes in the candidate's policy, the person who wrote the ad targets the typical at-home voter who is more likely to be swayed by drawings of the characterists of a person. Someone running for office who looks good on stage will attract higher audiences. By putting picture of the person mid-yawn or sneezing, you show their human side, which puts light on the fact that they are not a god who can solve everybody's problems. The government also uses unethical pursuasion in ads to recruit for the military. When you see those ads with the great noble music in the backround, you think brotherhood and honor. The ads never show fresh-out-of-college boys dying.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment