A play on Marlboro ads: People as cattle being herded by the Marlboro man, terrified, corralled, and then addicted. Pretty good commercial, using the Marlboro font (Illegal? Isn't that copywrighted?).
Good frames have been non-specific, and haven't relied on a lot of facts. This is advertising, don't let information/facts get in the way of the message.
Skirting the issue? Pulling the wool over people's eyes?
Argument: Do we need the facts if we're telling the truth? Do we need good facts to feel good about manipulating people?
To feel good about ourselves, clearly not to manipulate people.
Props to Miriam - Paternalism in public health advertising. You are the winner.
Siegel - Not coercion to advertise, not coercion for cigarette companies to advertise, not coercion to make people do something we think is good for them? Siegel understands the ethical argument as whether or not we lie to people when we manipulate.
Question from the front: Manipulate to act how one chooses - no, sorry. Manipulate people to act how the manipulator chooses, why else would we manipulate?
Comment from the back: This is only a difference of medium. Again, no. Comparing a list of facts to an emotional video, the fundamental difference is not list/video but fact/emotion.
Comment in the middle: Manipulation not a neutral tool (destruction of society? Way to throw that in.) shouldn't we try to educate people more instead of fighting fire with fire?
Media literacy training - teach children how media works, protect them from advertising to reduce susceptibility to tv, make them more susceptible to literature or other media. So you can convince them to shop at Whole Foods with a recycled paper flier posted in Starbucks.
