Description

The advertisement states in large print across the top of the page, "Restricting choices little by little can add up to a big problem." Under the text, there is a large picture, taking up 1/2 of the page. It is a picture of a business man lying on his back with several tiny people tying him down with ropes. Each time the rope is staked to the ground, there is a picket sign posted next to it. The signs read, "NO FREE THINKING," "NO SMOKING," "BAN COFFEE," "NO RED MEAT," AND "RUB OUT LEATHER." The tiny people are being directed to tie the man down by another tiny man using a megaphone. This man is standing on the business man's foot, is dressed like an officer, and has a badge that reads "LIFE STYLE POLICE."

Underneath the picture there are 3 paragraphs of text. The first paragraph states that lifestyle police are pushing to control our daily lives and will ultimately cause us to lose our right to free choice. The second paragraph is much shorter and asks the reader to think about who the next target of the lifestyle police will be. The text attempts to make a connection between smokers' rights and all personal choices or civil liberties like free thinking. The final paragraph asks the reader to get involved in the cause by listing a toll-free number. Under the text is a logo for the National Smokers Alliance. The ad concludes with a tagline at the bottom of the page which states, "Defending smoker's rights protects everyone's.

Characterization: This ad implies that the right to smoke is equal to other personal liberties like free thinking and drinking coffee. The ad uses sarcasm to suggest that if the choice to smoke is restricted, any other personal right could be next, and by suggesting that smoking is equal to the other personal choices.. They are trying to use scare tactics to get people involved in the cause. They did this by using the term "Life Style Police," and "Big Government" (without defining who or that they are),

Reflection

After doing the exercise I noticed more of the sarcasm and use of words that were meant to stir up emotions. For example, the phrases, "restricting choices," "pushing to control," and "Most Americans want Big Government off their backs." No one wants someone to tell them they can't do something. They try to guilt the reader into becoming involved by saying, "If you care..."
There are no comments on this page.
Valid XHTML :: Valid CSS: :: Powered by WikkaWiki