Ad and article
A lot of mass produced ads throughout the US take a negative stance on drugs, however, in places such as London, pro drug use ads are becoming more widespread. Specifically, there are new ads being posted on public buses claiming that "nice people take drugs". The justification behind this ad, from the view of its publishers, is that everyone, including US presidents and other authority figures, have used or regularly use drugs. Do you believe the creators of this ad used shock value in their statement? How do you think they want the public to respond to their ad and why do you think they chose the genre of a billboard? Do you think they chose a plain, bold ad for any specific reason? Finally, how do you believe, if at all, this ad was created to persuade the people of London?
This advertisement is incredibly interesting. I feel that it is clear that shock value was a critical part of their advertisement. In order to grasp the attention of the general public, and most likely their target audience of college-aged students, the creators felt it was necessary to throw out an intriguing statement. I think that overall, the public would try to ignore the advertisement as much as possible and disagree with it, but the message will reach some people. I feel that a billboard was chosen as the method of conveyance because it is relatively inexpensive, yet it still maintains the ability to reach a wide range of people. The plain, bold font style adds an additional genuine effect without over complicating its message. This advertisement was not created solely to affect Londoners, but reach the spans of the world. It was not created to persuade people to begin taking drugs, but merely open up to opportunity that perhaps drugs are not nearly as harmful as modern media attempts to portray them as.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrompt 6. This article is not particularly controversial. The author uses ethos to get his point across. He does not have an adversarial tone and he focuses on the facts. To some degree, as stated above, he uses shock value to show the reader just how prevalent drug use is and why the ad was displayed. He states that the last three presidents admitted to doing drugs. To support his claims, he sites a couple drug websites. He claims that people are beginning to open up about their drug use because they are tired of the artificial representation of drugs in society. That in order for a fair drug policy to be put into place, it should be focused on reality. The people that comment seem to overall agree with his claims in the article. Stating that drugs are a clear issue and they are more common than one would think.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1 regarding the interface of the website.
ReplyDeleteThis website is obviously trying to put across an image of being an authority. It's a cleanly designed page with a white background. Even without reading any of the articles, authors' names, or the name of the site, there's an impression that what is written here will be more reliable than at most places. Perhaps that's because of the similarity of this site's interface to most contemporary news websites.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePrompt 1: The website has a very clean interface which implies trustworthiness and professionalism of which you would expect from a major news source. Even with the colorful navigation bar and title "Joe Public Blog," you immediately know that the site you are reading has some prestige and is not a random person's blog. Giving off the impression of reliability is very important and makes the reader believe what they are reading is less opinionated and more objective.
ReplyDeleteIn-class assignment:
ReplyDeleteThis article has a different perspective on drug use/abuse. It claims that "the greatest risk to the majority of people who use drugs is criminalisation and stigmatisation" - that the War on Drugs is the real enemy.
The rhetoric towards this end is ineffective. It's too much, too fast - it is rejected outright by a culture that is already against drugs.
However, it does get people talking. This ad and article might start the debate that the author wants. It might not accomplish everything at once, but it is a step in the intended direction.