truth in advertising

Here’s the challenge…

 

No matter the merits…

No matter the goodness…

No matter the efficiency…

No matter the cost…

 

Instead of engaging in dialogue that encourages actual, objective analysis, we instead attempt to seduce audiences into thinking all is good or all is not.  In other words, we don’t fairly evaluate the merits of an issue, policy, or proposal.  We don’t examine efficiency.  We instead spend more effort and energy into “talking people into things.”

 

This summer “Organizing for Action” — the organizational successor to Pres. Obama’s campaign arm — began advertising their perceived positives regarding Obamacare…

 

“The truth is, Americans are already seeing the benefits…

Better coverage and lower costs.  That’s what Obamacare means for them.”

 

Are the above statements true?

Maybe.  Maybe not.  But “Organizing for Action” is spending over a million dollars on their current cable television ad buy in order to appeal to us emotionally — and thus convince us such is true.

 

As one who has watched the healthcare debate closely and carefully studied the legislation, my sense is that the above claims cannot be made with certainty.  However, such misses the point of today’s post.  This is not an analysis of the merits of the newly imposed Patient Affordable Care Act.

 

The point is that many (on multiple issues) encourage little to no honest dialogue.  There are seemingly few attempts to forthrightly decipher what is good and what is not… what will work and what will not… and what works for one person but for another will absolutely not…

 

Instead of objective analysis, far too often our goal seems to manipulate the audience — bypassing any unbiased examination — bypassing total truth in advertising — and emotionally convince others that our perspective is entirely accurate and good.  In other words, once again, we stink at dialogue.  Actually, we don’t stink; we simply skip the step.

 

Let’s instead ask better questions.  Let’s work to inform, discuss, and help all affected comprehend.  Let’s understand the positives and pitfalls together — as both exist and both are relevant.

 

Let’s do that instead of spending massive money on emotional appeal.

 

True, the current ad buy is only an approximate million dollars by a political action committee.  That number, however, can be added to the federal government’s previous tens of millions of dollars — taxpayer dollars — spent hiring PR firms to promote the law.  Something tells me that such can’t be all good either.

 

Dialogue would be better.  By far.

 

Respectfully,

AR