The string of graphic ads released by CBS, as shown in the video above, summarizes the nature of anti-smoking rhetoric that does the rounds via public broadcasting channels. But here's the paradox, up front: there is enough convincing and dramatized (and correctly so) information in the general media, in terms of anti-smoking advertisements, non-profit group messages, documentaries, news columns, etc; yet, 20% of all Americans choose to smoke -- choose to dig their own graves, one cigarette packet at a time (at $7, that's top dollar).
In the quest to understand this madman mentality, it will be interesting to look at some of the present day media campaigns that have successfully created a negative narrative around smoking. What has made these campaigns so successful? Success notwithstanding, what has been the missing X factor that has prevented them from being a cent percent successful?
At the outset, the very act of labeling on cigarette packets carries powerful rhetoric force. It appeals to both logic and emotion (logos and pathos, predominantly the former). For instance, inscriptions in bold such as "Surgeon's warning: Smoking kills," or "SMOKERS DIE YOUNGER" act as tremendous repellents to potential consumers. I was at the Mumbai airport three weeks ago, and cartons of 200 Benson & Hedges cigarettes each were being sold for only $11 at the duty free store. Had it not been for the strongly worded labels, I would have probably succumbed to the temptation of smoking those cigarettes (as well as perhaps the low prices).
On another tangent, in one of the initial scenes of the 2002 New Zealand classic "The Whale Rider," a bunch of older women are shown sitting playing bridge on a dining table, smoking cigarettes. The young protagonist, barely 10 years old, walks in and reprimands her seniors for smoking. "Maori women have got to stop smoking," she fusses, "it's going to kill you all."
The references to both the "Mumbai aiport" and the "Whale Rider" have an implicit connotation. In that the anti-tobacco rhetoric is not only prevalent in places like New York State (where smoking rates are lowest in the country), Maryland, or somewhere in Europe, but is "global" in every sense. People all over the world have understood that smoking is necessarily a "bad" activity. Whether they avoid the "bad" habit is another issue, but on the whole, the level of awareness speaks volumes for the coordinated effort to reach out to people world over.
The theme of these campaigns is mostly similar: graphic visuals, horrific stories, verified facts and earnest morals. In particular, the use of disturbing imagery is common and, as is apparent from the reaction of people, effective. In fact, the director of the Center for Disease Control recently launched a nation-wide $54 million dollar ad campaign to propagate disturbingly true visuals of ex-smokers destroyed lives (which was a result of smoking), as part of an anti-smoking rhetoric. The campaigns are so disgusting that they'll probably top "jeez-i'm-grossed-out" rankings (if such indexes existed). When Children’s rights and educationists called this move a badly judged one, stressing that the visuals negatively harmed the psyche of young minds, the Director of CDC, Thomas Friedan, vehemently defended himself. “That is exactly the point,” he emphasized, “I think it is important young people below the age of fifteen be exposed to material such as this; after all, nine in ten smokers begin smoking during their teens.” Even though I was all "jeez-i'm-grossed-out" at the ads, I couldn’t agree more with Mr. Friedan. Good job, Director.
Ethos, Logos and Pathos
The success of anti-smoking campaigns depends on the
deployment of all the above rhetorical strategies in some combination or the
other. "Suffer" is perhaps the key element: emotions (who wants to
suffer?), logic (really, who wants to suffer?) and regard for reputation (when
your favorite actor tells you not to smoke because you may suffer, you might
actually fancy not smoking).
Why not completely successful?
Maybe, it is the imperfect nature of this world -- outliers and exceptions will always exist. Nothing will ever be 100% correct or 100% pure. Hoping that a product -- as destructive as cigarettes -- is eradicated completely off the face of this Earth, is rather too idealistic.
Maybe, it is the imperfect nature of this world -- outliers and exceptions will always exist. Nothing will ever be 100% correct or 100% pure. Hoping that a product -- as destructive as cigarettes -- is eradicated completely off the face of this Earth, is rather too idealistic.
I agree with you when you said that you are glad that there are some new ad campaigns out there that are slightly disturbing about the effects of smoking. People need to know the harms that smoking cigarettes can cause to themselves and to others. I know that years ago, when my grandmother and mom were growing up the effects about smoking were not as widely known- possibly the reason why those generations had many more smokers. But nowadays we do know the harmful effects smoking, after knowing what it can do to your body, I do not understand why anyone would choose to smoke. Why would you want to fill your body with those toxins? I just don’t get it. Personally I can relate to this because some of my aunts and uncles smoke. My aunt smokes so much that it is most likely the reason that all of her children have had some sort of birth defect. This is a good topic to research because all people can relate to it in one way or another.
ReplyDeleteI think it is a good thing that there are more restrictions on where people are and are not allowed to smoke. Non-smokers do not want to have to sit in the same room as smokers because of the second hand smoke and its effects. I was glad to hear in the video that in the past 10 years the general population of smokers has gone down 35%. This is huge. The video is a good example of showing the worst effects smoking can have. It was interesting that you said the emotional appeal, or in this case it isn’t an appeal, to smoking is the element of suffering. When these commercial campaigns show all these smokers suffering, no one wants that person to be them. This is to deter people from ever wanting to start smoking, and I think that a young child should see commercials like this to keep them away from it. The overall message that I got from the video and your article was, to live life the way you want to live it you should not smoke.
Anand,
ReplyDeleteYour topic is definitely solid and shouldn’t be too hard to analyze and gather information on. Since there is decades worth of history and scientific studies that have focused on smoking. Although this debate over why people still choose to smoke despite the anti-smoking campaigns has been used frequently. The angle that you’re analyzing it from is different from what it typically seen. Instead of overwhelming your audience with loads of statistical data proving why smoking is dangerous, you used real events and first hand experience. In the first couple paragraphs you described your encounter with cigarettes at the Mumbai airport and the scene at the 2002 New Zealand classic “Whale Rider.” The events at the airport aid in the ethos department for your topic. Yes, this personal experience helps but I feel as if you should’ve been more in depth in terms of considering its rhetorical value in your argument. Also in the “Whale Rider” incident, you have established a perfect scenario to analyze logos but you only describe the scene rather than evaluating its rhetorical appeal. However, you do discuss the image that adolescents associate with smoking and how they fall victim to this attempt to be “cool.” Your inclusion of the video was brilliant because it already lays a foundation foundation for your blog and the points that you intend to get across. This video displays sounds and images simultaneously making it a very effective use of media. The questions that you pose at the end of your post about ethos, logos, and pathos are very interesting. I think that it would’ve been best if you answered these questions because they would have clearly established your ideas on how pathos, ethos, and logos relate to your topic. Aside from that this is a well written blog post in terms of presenting scenarios and real events.