Shawna Bruins - Essay draft - Chapters 1&2
In the world of Unspun: finding facts in world of disinformation, Jackson and Jamieson talk about how spin pervades both commerce and politics. Any number of products with household names are marketed with false or deceptive advertising. Whole companies have been built on such deceptions. Elections have been decided by voters who believed false ideas fed to them by manipulative television ads and expressed in “talking points”.
Deceptive product promotion is a minor problem compared with political spin. But in extreme cases, commercial deception can cost lives. For example, In May 2004, the Federal Trade Commission sued Discreet, supposedly a home test for HIV. Seville claimed its product was 99.4 percent accurate, but the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that 59.3 percent tested kits provided inaccurate results. These included both false HIV-positive results and false HIV-negative results. (Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson) Politicians however, deliver even bigger doses of prescription-strength deception, deliberately filling voters’ heads with disinformation about their opponents and about their own policies. They don’t always state their falsehoods outright; sometimes they merely imply them. But the effect can be just as bad. For example, one of the most deceptive ads of the 2004 campaign was a Bush commercial showing a pack of wolves, symbolizing terrorists about to attack. The announcer said Kerry had voted to cut intelligence spending “even after the first terrorist attack on America.” We don’t know whether that was intended to deceive, but it did. The “first attack” referred to was the truck bomb that went off in the parking garage under one of the World Trade Center towers more than a decade earlier—in 1993. But we spoke to many casual viewers who heard “first terrorist attack” and automatically thought of the first aircraft to hit the World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, a terrifying event still vivid in voters’ memories. (Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson) But political deception doesn’t stop when elections are over. Even in nonelection years, interest groups now weigh in on legislative and other policy debates with TV ad campaigns on which they spend tens of millions of dollars.
Respect for facts isn’t a major concern in the advertising industry, and is far too rare in politics. Truth-in-advertising laws give some protection from false claims in commercial advertising, but still a lot get through. Advertisers have learned to weasel-word their commercials so that their claims are literally accurate but still misleading. As for politicians, they have a legal right to lie in their TV and radio ads. There is no federal law requiring truth in political ads at all, and the few states that have attempted such laws have had them overturned or found them ineffective. For example, during the 1964 presidential election Barry Goldwater, the Republican candidate, sued FACT magazine for claiming he had a severely paranoid personality and was psychologically unfit for the high office. Goldwater won the lawsuit, but the verdict came down long after he had lost the election to Lyndon Johnson in a landslide. So for any who voted against Goldwater because they believed the magazine, the courts were no help. The attitude of the courts is that voters are grown-ups who deserve to hear all sides of an argument, even the falsehoods, and that it’s up to them to sort it out for themselves. (Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson)
Jackson and Jamieson give us a variety of warning signs. The first warning sign is “If It’s Scary, Be Wary”. Fear has been a staple tactic of advertisers and politicians for so long that you’d think that we would have become better at detecting their use of it. But fear and insecurity can still cloud our judgment. The second warning sign is “A Story That’s Too Good”. We should approach claims cautiously when they are too dramatic, especially when we want them to be true. The third warning sign is “The Dangling Comparative”. “Larger,” “Better,” “Faster,” “Better-Tasting.” Advertisers frequently employ such terms in an effort to make their product stand out from the crowd. Politicians are particularly able users of this technique. A dangling comparative occurs when any term meant to compare two things-a word such as “higher,” “better,” “faster,” “more”-is left dangling without stating what’s being compared. The fourth warning sign is “The Superlatives Swindle”. Just as comparative words such as “More” and “Higher” are warning signs, so are superlatives such as “most” and “highest” and claims such as “biggest in history” or “smallest ever.” Superlative claims can lead us to choose needlessly expensive products and make shallow political decisions. The fifth warning sign is The “Pay You Tuesday” Con. “I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.” That “pay you Tuesday” element should raise suspicions. The sixth warning sign is “The Blame Game”. Blaming often occurs reflexively, out of pure partisanship and with little regard for facts. And finally, the seventh warning sign is “Glittering Generalities”. Beware of attractive sounding but vague terms. Some other nice-sounding but vague terms to watch out for: dignity, honor, freedom, integrity, and justice (including both the “economic” and “social” varieties). It’s always good to ask, “What do you mean by that exactly?” (Brooks Jackson and Kathleen Hall Jamieson)
In conclusion, it is disturbingly appalling how deceptive and manipulative our society is. How they twist and distort facts to sell a product or to win an election. This book has really opened my eyes and I feel that reading this book would be beneficial to anyone and everyone who reads it.
- anonymous's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Sounds Good
There is a lot of good information in this essay but i think that there should more input from you and your words than from the book (it just seems like there are a lot of quotes and ideas taken directly from the book limiting your own words and ideas)
You combined the topics well in each paragraph but should be more connecting. Example would be making your first sentence of your next paragraph reflect back on the last paragraph tieing them together. (trust me its something i need to work on also)
GREAT JOB THOUGH KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK :)
Introduction: You start with
Introduction: You start with a concept and narrow it down, but you could try beginning a little broader. A thesis statement at the end of the introduction should relate to each of your body paragraphs.
Objectively Reflects Original Text: I think we were supposed to summarize objectively and in chronological order only one chapter. Maybe you could only pick one chapter and add a few more of its main points.
Response: There should be a personal response before the conclusion evaluating arenas where you have noticed similar spin.
Conclusion: You fulfilled the requirements. However, the sentence "How they twist and distort facts to sell a product or to win an election" is an incomplete sentence.
Paragraphs: You could use more transitional sentences. You could use clearer explanations tying back to your thesis.
for shawna
Shawna,
With the introduction, conclude with some point that gives your reader some reason to care, some claim that is of interest or importance. That will help guide the development of the response and give you, as the writer, more of a point to drive home in the conclusion. It's because there is no clear focus right off that the conclusion is rather thin at this point.
More important is a need to address just one of the chapters at this stage of the assignment. Presently it seems that the first half of the essay hits on chapter one and the second, on chapter two. Chapter two hits all the major details better than does chapter one, so I suggest you go with that as you get this ready to submit. With each of the major details, you have the detail named (whatever each of the warning signs has been labeled) but there is also a need for a specific example. For instance, with FUD both President Bush and his National Security Adviser Condoleza Rice said that "we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud" and Jackson and Jamieson use that example, so you might as well. Do something this specific for each of the warning signs.
When it comes to the response, find from one to three examples that appall you because of the way someone is trying to spin the situation. It's one thing to put your best food forward, but it's another to essentially lie about how good that foot is. Look for examples you have experienced or seen. Whether it's an add on the internet I've been seeing that shows a rather haggard, wrinkled face that morphs into a much more attractive and wrinkle free face (thanks to Comcast for that, which is my private email and ISP). They are, I think, telling a story about the product, whoever they (the advertiser) are, that is both too good to be true, because unless you get a face lift, tummy tuck, you can spend all day at the gym, you are going to start sagging and wrinkling. This is also an appeal to the fear of aging and perhaps dying as well, so this ad (have you seen it? Go to comcast.net and you will probably) illustrates those two warning signs. Make it clear what you think of this sort of thing and why it matters to you in that particular instance and, in the conclusion, in a broader sense.
do these things and you'll have more of a point to drive home in the conclusion and you will leave your reader with a greater sense of why it matters to you.
Bradley
Response to draft
Hi Shawna,
Introduction: I feel that your intro paragraph could use a little more information and insight into where you plan to go in the remainder of your essay. It seems to lack some quantity of information.
Essay Focus: You do a really complete coverage of the types of tactics used.
Development of Ideas and/or Experiences: There is a lot of information and you back it up with some good examples.
Organization: But within the paragraphs themselves, it sort of lacks cohesiveness. Maybe try to tie the ideas together to make them flow from one to the next. You did a real good job of it in the paragraph where you covered the warning signs. The preceeding paragraph could use a little more flow from one idea to the other.
Wording/ structure/conventions: Good.
Adequacy of Response: I am not sure if I agree with the comment that "deceptive product promotion is a minor problem compared with political spin." This may be a quote from the book, but in your essay it is followed by a supporting detail of the example of the HIV test kits that had inaccurate results. In my opinion, I would not classify that as a minor problem. I don't think I would use that example next to that statement. Maybe a better example here would be the listerine example. Inaccurate HIV test results is extreme, maybe compare the extremes with the extremes and the minors with the minors.
I like the term you used in paragraph 3 "weasel-word" nice descriptive word.
Appropriateness: Was appropriate.
Kelly Koelle
Shawna
Intro: You state the title and authors names correctly. I find the Intro really awkward for some reason the wording just does not seem to flow right(please do not take this personal). I think maybe a few transition words added and commas may spice it up and make it more smooth. As it stands now it feels choppy.
Original text reflected:I'm not really sure which chapter you are covering.You have a bit of one and two in here, but nothing really in order.
Response: I honestly can not pin-point your own personal response about the book. You put in one response, but it is one sentence in the conclusion.
Conclusion :The conclusion ties in to the theme of the intro and essay as whole, but it is a little light. You could add more of how we are deceived and how to keep our eyes open ect ect.
paragraphs: For the most part is easy to read. A few awkward wording's in the beginning.
Spelling/Grammar:
"Any number of products with household names are "
consider rewording this statement to maybe:
"A number of household product names are....."