It's one thing to look at all those techniques in the lab, so to speak, but how do you identify them when they're flying past you in a commercial? So I thought I'd take two commercials, one from each party, and break them down.
You'll notice that they use some additional types of arguments that I didn't discuss in my previous post. But I think you'll be able to understand them in context. If not, you can always consult the links to my sources at the bottom of this entry, which includes pages that define logical fallacies.
So I'm going to post two commercials, one from each party. I'll provide you with a transcript of what the voice-over says, and then break down the voice-over along with any particular images afterward.
First, here's a commercial from the Republicans, weighing in on a race for House of Representatives in Pennsylvania:
Americans said no to government-run health care,
but Congress and Liberals like Mark Critz didn't listen.
Democrats and Liberals rammed through a bad health care bill [which]
Pennsylvianians didn't want and can't afford
(on screen: 58% of Pennsylvanians Oppose Health Care Bill).
Our economy is struggling,
but now costs will rise and workers could lose jobs
(on screen: "State's jobless rate rises to 8.9%" "US Steel to record $27M charge for health care law").
And with $500 billion in Medicare cuts,
Pennsylvania seniors' care will suffer.
Mark Critz. He'll put the Liberal agenda before Pennsylvania.
The National Republican Congressional Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
OK, here's my breakdown of the ad:
Americans said no to government-run health care,
- Suppressed Evidence or Half-Truths: Which Americans? How many of them? When? The photo seems to be from the Tea Party movement's rally in Washington, but the text implies that this group was speaking for Americans in general. Further, how is "government-run health care" being defined? Does this include Medicare?
but Congress and Liberals like Mark Critz didn't listen.
- Suppressed evidence: When did the failure to listen occur? To what specifically was candidate Critz supposed to respond, and how did he fail to do so?
- Spurious similarity and Ad Hominem: Mark Critz is being conflated with all "Liberals" and all of Congress. Putting all three of these proper nouns together suggests that they are all the same or equally responsible. But of course they are all different: Congress is a group of elected officials from two or more parties who vote various ways on various bills, Liberals may be anyone of that political persuasion whether elected or otherwise, and this particular candidate is one Representative. This is also suggesting that "liberal" is something inherently and always bad.
Democrats and Liberals rammed through a bad health care bill [which]
Pennsylvanians didn't want
(on screen: 58% of Pennsylvanians Oppose Health Care Bill, with reference to Rasmussen 3/15/10).
- Emotive language: "rammed through" "bad bill."
- Spurious similarity and Ad Hominem: Democrats (elected) and Liberals (not necessarily). Again, suggesting that being "liberal" is always bad.
- There is actually some factual accuracy here. The 58% refers to a Rasmussen Reports poll of 1,000 Pennsylvanians likely to vote, conducted a week prior to the passage of the health care reform bill. Of the 1,000 surveyed, 58% said they opposed the plan proposed as of that date.
. . . and can't afford. Our economy is struggling,
but now costs will rise and workers could lose jobs
(on screen: "State's jobless rate rises to 8.9%" "US Steel to record $27M charge for health care law").
- Suppressed Evidence: the claim is made that Pennsylvania can't afford the health care reform bill, but no facts are provided to substantiate how much the bill would specifically cost the state and what percent of the cost the state would be unable to pay.
- Incidentally, the $27 million is a tax on a subsidy which the government has been providing to keep some of the company's retirees off of Medicare. The tax on the subsidy effectively reduces the amount of the subsidy the company is to receive. After other subsidies the company will receive related to Medicare later in the year, the company expects its tax increase for the year to total less than $10 million.
- Slippery slope: the passage of the health care bill inevitably will result in costs going up, and people could lose their jobs. To their credit, they don't say that workers "will" but only "could" lose their jobs. Still, they've traveled along a chain of progressively more dire events without stating exactly how one will lead to the other.
- Correlation implies causation: putting the headline about the jobless rate next to the headline about the $27 million charge next to each other is meant to imply that the first has occurred because of the other, when that is at the very least unproven or an exaggeration.
And with $500 billion in Medicare cuts,
Pennsylvania seniors' care will suffer.
(on screen: older man looking worried next to a doctor with his head in his hands)
- Begging the question: didn't the outset of this commercial oppose funding government-run health care? Wouldn't this commercial also be in favor of reducing the amount of money that funds Medicare, which is a government-run health care program?
- Slippery slope: the $500 billion in cuts will be made at the national level, not at the state level, but the statement implies by proximity that Pennsylvania's health care will be cut by a similarly large amount, and that health care provided at the state level will therefore be insufficient to meet the need.
- Appeal to pity: if we feel sorry for the people on screen, we should not vote for someone or something that has caused their plight.
Mark Critz. He'll put the Liberal agenda before Pennsylvania.
- Straw man: The entire commercial is effectively a straw man argument. Rather than discussing specific actions taken or arguments made by the candidate, the commercial has instead taken issue with the health care reform law and the policies of "liberals" in general. After the statement "Mark Critz didn't listen," the commercial has not referred to the candidate at all. Those who made the commercial have assumed that their audience is already opposed to the health care reform law and has turned that into its punching bag (or straw man), and then linked by association the name of Mark Critz.
- Argument by fast talking: the whole commercial lasts for 32 seconds. It's very difficult to analyze and engage with these points one at a time in 32 seconds. It took me an hour and a half to break down its argument and type up its parts.
- A statement of fact.
And now for a commercial from the Democratic Party. This one is also regarding a race in Pennsylvania, but from March of 2010. One of the reasons I chose this one is because it blames nearly all the same problems on the other guy. (I had to shrink it to make it fit here)
[music]
[visual distortion of image]
Female reporter voice-over: In Pennsylvania, the unemployment rate is 8.8%.
That means about one in eleven Pennsylvanians who want to work are not working right now.
(on screen: "Pennsylvania unemployment: 1 in 11 jobless; 4,900 lost jobs; 27,000 found jobs")
Male reporter: More than one out of of thirty people living in Pennsylvania last year lost their jobs.
[visual distortion of image]
On screen text: "Toomey opposed creating jobs"
[visual distortion of image]
On screen text: "Toomey opposed middle-class tax cuts"
[visual distortion of image]
On screen text: "Pat Toomey: he doesn't support us."
The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
My breakdown of the ad follows:
[music]
[visual distortion of image]
- Emotive (wordless) language: the dire-sounding music and the frequent distortion of the visuals suggest darkness and disruption, something disturbing and unpleasant. The combination of the music and the visual distortion encourage you to make an associative link between that emotional landscape and the candidate whose picture remains on the screen throughout.
That means about one in eleven Pennsylvanians who want to work are not working right now.
(on screen: "Pennsylvania unemployment: 1 in 11 jobless; 4,900 lost jobs; 27,000 found jobs" next to photo of the candidate)
- Correlation implies causation, or, Guilt by association: there is no statement that Toomey is in any way responsible for the statistics the reporter is narrating or showing on screen. The ad is simply placing two images next to each other and again encouraging the viewer to make an associative link between the jobless rate and this candidate and to assume that he is responsible for the employment situation in the state.
- Incidentally, the commercial does not provide a date for this news broadcast and accompanying data, but it is probably from October or November of 2009, about four months prior to when this ad aired.
Male reporter: More than one out of of thirty people living in Pennsylvania last year lost their jobs.
- Correlation implies causation, or, Guilt by association: The commercial is employing the same tactic, leaving the candidate's image on screen next to that of the reporter who is commenting about the unemployment rate. The commercial never says directly that Toomey is responsible for this data, only implies it by association.
- Suppressed Evidence: The date stamp on the broadcast indicates December 21, presumably of 2009. The reported data about the jobless rate in Pennsylvania did change slightly from October of 2009 to December 2009. For reasons which remain unclear to me, articles in the fall indicated that 1 in 11 Pennsylvanians were looking for work, and articles in December and January said it was 1 in 30. However, the unemployment rate of 8.8% remained unchanged during that period. The ad chose to use the data which made it appear as though the jobless situation was worsening, when other data released at the same time would have suggested otherwise. Furthermore, while the 8.8% rate is high, it was lower than the national average, which was between 9% and 11%.
On screen text: "Toomey opposed creating jobs"
- Argument by Selective Observation: In the statement from March 11, 2010 to which the ad refers, Toomey says he would have voted against the bill on the floor because it "contains a net tax increase, does not eliminate earmarks, and employs badly designed tax incentives that will do little to create new jobs." He would have voted for a different proposal that he thought we be a more effective method of creating jobs. He never said that he opposed creating jobs, only that he was against one particular bill that was intended to create jobs. The ad has overlooked so much of the substance of the candidate's statement as to misrepresent it completely.
On screen text: "Toomey opposed middle-class tax cuts"
- Argument by Selective Observation: The commercial references only toomeyforsenate.com, not a particular page or a date, so it is not possible to determine exactly what the commercial is highlighting from the candidate's stated position on taxes. What the candidate does say there now reads as follows:
We should throw out [the current tax code] and replace it with a fairer, simpler, flatter, honest, and transparent system that would lower taxes for everyone who pays taxes. . . . We should allow taxpayers, both individuals and businesses, to choose between the current system, and a simple, flat tax system that taxes income once at one low rate, and allows a generous exemption for all taxpayers. Those who prefer the current system could use it. . . . Congress should cut the tax on capital gains to encourage businesses to grow. . . . we need to lower our tax on businesses . . . the last thing we should be doing as our economy struggles to recover is raise taxes.
- I saw nothing about the middle-class and taxes on this particular page. Either there was a statement on the site earlier that is not there now, or those who made the commercial engaged in some behind-the-scenes slippery slope thinking and assumed that since the candidate wants to lower taxes on businesses and provide an alternative flat tax rate, this therefore means he would oppose reducing taxes on the middle class. Because of a lack of evidence, I can't say for sure whether that's what happened or not.
On screen text: "Pat Toomey: he doesn't support us."
- Appeal to Peer Pressure: Clearly, this statement is saying, "If you're one of us you won't vote for this candidate." Leaving aside the identity of "us" -- Pennsylvanians? Democrats? 'good guys'? -- this tactic sets up an in-group/out-group dichotomy, putting this guy whose image has been disturbing us through this entire commercial on the outside, and allying the viewer with some undefined but apparently more preferable "us."
The Democratic National Committee is responsible for the content of this advertising.
- A statement of fact.
This commercial, too, tosses out a bit of data, but so manipulates it that by the end, it bears almost no resemblance to its sources. It, too, relies heavily on innuendo, association, and suggestion.
SUMMATION
Well. Some of the tactics used in both of these commercials are so blatant they're almost laughable. I mean, come on, showing us people with their head in their hands? Telling us if we're "one of us" we won't vote for so-and-so? How playground does it get?
I know the negative ads are easier to pick apart than the ones that seem to be all happy-smiley in favor of a candidate. But I wanted to put myself through the paces of identifying these tactics to give myself the intellectual practice, and it was easier to do that with the negative ads.
Still, I was surprised to see how nearly every statement in both of these ads was some kind of logical fallacy, some kind of emotive appeal, or some manipulation of the facts to shade things in a particular light. I knew these ads engaged in this stuff, but I wouldn't have thought it was nearly every single statement. Sheesh.
WHAT TO DO?
When you break down these kinds of ads, really query each statement, it becomes obvious what a pack of lies and manipulation they are. But if these ads didn't work to some extent, neither party would spend the money on them.
The best way I can think of to counter ads such as these is to demand facts. Ask for specifics. From the candidates themselves, from their campaigns, from the people who call you asking for your vote, from media coverage of the campaigns. That includes all the opinionators, both blue and red, talking up the airwaves. Don't let them get away with appeals to fear, with vague statements about the doom and gloom of our society as we know it, with name-calling and verbal sleight of hand. Demand the facts! Dates, numbers, specifics! If these people won't give you the information, go find it yourself!
Realistically, I know, most of us do not have the time to do this. With multiple candidates running for multiple offices, each of them holding a variety of positions on a huge array of issues, most of us don't have the time to wade through all the information available about each candidate running for each office. So we wind up using these ads as a kind of shorthand, even when we know better. "I don't know how that guy voted on the issues that affect me the most--in fact, I'm not even sure which issues affect me the most--but that one commercial did make him seem untrustworthy, so I'm going to vote for somebody else."
It takes time and it takes mental effort. It took me about 3 hours to dissect these two commercials alone. You're probably not going to set down and analyze each commercial, but you get my point. It's time-consuming. It isn't always very fun. It might get your blood pressure rising. But it is important. Essential, in fact, to the continuation of a democracy.
Thomas Jefferson said it best: "An educated citizenry is a vital requisite for our survival as a free people."
Demand specifics! Then go vote!
--citizen Apple Lady
Sources
Don Lindsay, A List of Fallacious Arguments
University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, Fallacies
Karen Tumulty, "Making History: House Passes Health Care Reform," Time, March 23, 2010
Rasmussen Reports, Toplines - 2010 Pennsylvania Senate - March 15, 2010
Keystone Research Center, PA Economy Track
Associated Press via BusinessWeek, "US Steel to record $27M charge for health care law," April 7, 2010
Associated Press via Redorbit, U.S. Steel Announces Charge Related to New U.S. Health Care Legislation, April 7, 2010
Associated Press via BusinessWeek, "AK Steel Sees $31 Million Charge From New Health Law," March 23, 2010
Associated Content, Pennsylvania Unemployment Rate at 8.8% Bests the Nation's Unemployment Rate, November 29, 2009
Associated Press via BusinessWeek, More Pa. jobs lost in 2009 than initially thought, March 4, 2010
Allentown Morning Call, Toomey would not have voted for jobs bill, March 11, 2010
Toomey for Senate, Tax Reform Is Needed, as of November 2, 2010
No comments:
Post a Comment
If you're a spammer, there's no point posting a comment. It will automatically get filtered out or deleted. Comments from real people, however, are always very welcome!