I do think a different standard applies to advertisements. If you are presenting an ad for a product or idea, you should have some understanding of what you're presenting. That doesn't mean a pro athlete should understand the science of a product, as he isn't expected to do so. But if - for example - someone were filming an ad about a political issue or amendment, they should at least know what the amendment says. At the very least, they should know the main theme and some important details of the amendment.
Last week, there was a hubbub over Michael J. Fox's filming an ad in Missouri. This hubbub may or may not have been warranted; likely not. What is more disturbing, however, is that Fox admitted to ABC that he doesn't know exactly what the amendment says. While he does get credit for being honest about this, this is a bit troubling. In his interview with ABC, Fox states that he is against cloning - which is the same reason Jim Talent has given for opposing the amendment. Fox doesn't believe that the amendment would actually end up allowing cloning, but admits:
"I don't think that's true. ... I have to qualify it by saying I'm not qualified to speak on the page-to-page content of the initiative. Although, I am quite sure that I'll agree with it in spirit, I don't know. On full disclosure, I haven't read it, and that's why I didn't put myself up for it distinctly," Fox said.Yet he backed the Democratic candidate based on this issue. I don't understand how that's honest advertising.
Thats why the Ad was for McKaskill and not thwe amendment. he clearly stated in the ad that she supports legistlation "expanding embryonic stem cell research"
ReplyDeleteand that was all he needed to know. the ad wasnt for the mo amendment
I understand what Fox said. But again, that's deceptive. The implication was that it was because of her support for the amendment. Talent is equally supportive of expanding the research, but NOT with this particular amendment. It should have been a non-issue if Fox (and McKaskill) are against this amendment as well. If McCaskill is for the amendment, Fox shouldn't have advertised for her.
ReplyDeleteCelebrities are often paid to endorse things that they have no expertise about. The classic example of this is an advertisement for some over the counter type of medication that had an television actor begin the apiel with, "I'm not a doctor, but I play one on TV." Among the logical fallacies I used to teach to recognize in rhetoric courses, this one is called a faulty authority.
ReplyDeleteAriella - In this case, the implication was that it *is* something the endorser has expertise about. Who better to talk about stem cell research than Michael J. Fox? He is the face of Parkinson's to most Americans, and has a huge charity dedicated to it.
ReplyDeleteYou may expect him to have an interest in it, but that doesn't make him a scientist. I don't think he even played one ;-)
ReplyDeleteI love how, being on the wrong side of the issue, the Republicans are reduced to trying to make the debate about Michael J. Fox.
ReplyDeleteYes, Ezzie. That's what really matters in this election. What Fox knows, whether he took too little or too much medication, whether it was an accident or not, etc.
Please.
Huh? You've missed the point, JA. What "wrong side" exactly? This isn't about Fox, this is about the amendment as it pertains to this election. Fox is simply the one at the forefront because of who he is, how much he affects that election as a spokesperson for stem cell research, and what his ad was about. The point of this post is not just that Fox advertised for the Democrat under false claims, but that in truth, there's no difference between the candidates on this issue.
ReplyDeleteSupposedly, this Missouri seat is going to flip one way or the other on stem cells. (I'm not sure why, but that's what the article says.) If that's the case, the debate IS about who supports what and why. That Fox claimed one candidate is "better" without knowing what the amendment they're fighting over is all about is a big problem.
Ariella - He definitely comes across on a regular basis as a spokesperson for Parkinson's and someone who has a very good understanding of it. On ABC, he did a great deal of explaining it and how stem cells may help sufferers. I don't think he's a faulty authority in this case.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about Fox... That Fox claimed one candidate is "better" without knowing what the amendment they're fighting over is all about is a big problem.
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about Fox... Fox is a big problem. Right.
The point of this post is... that in truth, there's no difference between the candidates on this issue.
One supports the Amendment and one opposes it.
This isn't about Fox... Fox is a big problem. Right.
ReplyDeleteUm, methinks you skipped most of the words in the sentence. Since when are you a cherry-picker?
One supports the Amendment and one opposes it.
Both support stem-cell research, contrary to the ad's claim. And Fox claims to be against cloning, which is why Talent is against the amendment. So either Fox is supporting a candidate who doesn't believe what he does; or, she does, but she really doesn't think this amendment will cause the problems Talent does (so there is no difference of opinion); or, she's just saying she'll vote for it because it makes it sound like Talent is against the research. I'm guessing it's the middle option.
Um, methinks you skipped most of the words in the sentence.
ReplyDeleteYour contradictory statements were far apart. That's why I used ellipses. At the beginning, you said it wasn't about Fox and at the end you said what Fox did is a big problem.
Both support stem-cell research, contrary to the ad's claim.
This is something I already corrected you on. The ad claims that Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. This is, as far as I can tell, true. Talent's opponent, meanwhile, supports the Amendment. At the very least, you have to admit that McCaskill supports significantly more expansion of stem cell research than does Talent. That's pretty freaking close to what Fox said.
And Fox claims to be against cloning, which is why Talent is against the amendment.
Talk about not being an expert. From the amendment:
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
Talent is against embryonic stem cell research, which is the main thrust of the amendment. He can't say that very often, though, because it's unpopular. Therefore, he says he's against cloning, a stance most people agree with, and implies that the amendment will allow cloning, knowing that most voters will never read it.
At the beginning, you said it wasn't about Fox and at the end you said what Fox did is a big problem.
ReplyDeleteYep! And that's not contradictory.
The ad claims that Talent opposes expanding stem cell research. This is, as far as I can tell, true.
Talent has said this is not true, and that his only reason for not supporting the amendment is the cloning issue.
At the very least, you have to admit that McCaskill supports significantly more expansion of stem cell research than does Talent.
Yes - including cases that might lead to cloning.
That's pretty freaking close to what Fox said.
Except if Talent and Co are right, that's only because McCaskill is supporting something Fox is against.
(1) No person may clone or attempt to clone a human being.
"While the bill purports to oppose human cloning, critics say experimentation on human embryos necessitates the procedure. Therefore, they call the measure deliberately deceptive, designed to get voters to support with the idea of opposing human cloning – even though they are, in fact, supporting it." From here, first place I found it.
For the science, read this guy (random find).
Or this guy.
ReplyDeleteezzie:
ReplyDeleteWhile the bill purports to oppose human cloning, critics say experimentation on human embryos necessitates the procedure.
I'm not a microbiologist, but I believe this is false. Stem cells may be taken from a human blastocyst resulting from fertilization rather than cloning. The bill explicitly opposes reproductive cloning "cloning a human being," but would seem to implicitly allow "Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer," (SCNT) which is also known as therapeutic cloning, as long as that procedure remains legal at the federal level.
I'll admit that calling SCNT "cloning" is technically accurate, but it's not the kind of "cloning" that most people oppose, which is reproductive cloning. I strongly suspect that Fox supports SCNT, although I of course cannot know that for sure.
This is where it gets way beyond my expertise... :)
ReplyDeleteAs I read it, people are against all cloning, and this only restricts reproductive. I guess it's a question of what people oppose: All cloning or just reproductive as you say. Those two seem to think it's the former.
In a November 28, 2001 USA Today poll, 54% of respondents said they would approve of cloning that is not designed specifically to result in the birth of a human being but is designed to aid medical research that might find treatments for certain diseases. 41% disapproved and 5% had no opinion.
ReplyDelete(Source, the poll)
Interesting. But that's a weirdly-worded Q (I'd probably say okay too). What if it wasn't designed specifically but still could result in a human clone?
ReplyDeleteThe amendment explicitly disallows reproductive cloning, so that isn't relevant.
ReplyDeleteYou misunderstood me: My question is about human cloning not through reproductive cloning. The amendment doesn't cover it, but perhaps most people would be against it anyway.
ReplyDelete