|
Think about TV ads. Analyze. Ask questions. |
Consider these ideas for your own compositions. |
||
 |
 |
||
| SHOULD
THERE BE DISCLOSURES?
|
WHAT
SHOULD YOU DISCLOSE?
|
||
|
Political and legal issues are involved in "disclosure laws," used here as a general term, covering a variety of government regulations such as ingredient labels, hazard and safety warnings, simplification laws, "Truth in Lending," standardization laws (weights and measures, unit pricing), various audits and reports, and "source" and "access" laws designed to make certain information public knowledge. Conservatives generally oppose government regulations, arguing that buyers and sellers should have the responsibility and "free choice" to buy and sell whatever they want. Unnecessary regulations burden the seller with "red tape" and ultimately increase the cost to the consumer. Liberals generally favor government regulations, arguing that the individual consumers need the government to act as their agent to counterbalance the power of the large corporations. Liberals argue that the omission of relevant items (harmful consequences) influences the decision-making process. Free choice must be "informed choice": that is, buyers must have both truthful and adequate knowledge of both the good and the bad. In simple transactions (such as buying vegetables) in which flaws are obvious, buyers don't need much government protection. But, in complex transactions (today, most manufactured goods), buyers need some warnings and disclosures about hidden hazards involving the ingredients, design, and process. Every "warning" label you see has a history of politics and bitter legal conflict behind it. For example, see Thomas Whiteside's book (Selling Death) about cigarette warning labels. Borderline cases and controversies about potentially harmful omissions are plentiful, especially relating to human nutrition and environmental pollution.
|
Writing is a social act whenever it involves
consequences to others. If you were to lie, to make a deliberate false statement, you would be very conscious of what you were doing. Less obvious, however, is the deception and harm caused by omission. Omission of potential problems and dangers, or of harmful consequences, is deceptive. Omission of relevant information can cause the receiver to misunderstand or misinterpret a situation. (Sissela Bok discusses such ethical issues in Lying). Intellectual honesty is expected in research and in arguments. You should not suppress contrary or contradictory evidence, omit opposing viewpoints and opinions, or set up "straw man" arguments attacking the opponents' weakest points and ignoring their strengths. A "fair fight" gives the opponents credit, and seeks to identify the real issues and the specific points of difference. Yet, frequently, people involved in political, religious and social arguments will suppress evidence not favoring their cause, or omit contrary opinion. Sometimes even scientific researchers will get so emotionally involved in their project, or so financially dependent upon it, that they will ignore, suppress, or destroy contradictory evidence - a serious sin against science. Are you omitting anything that will distort the situation? That will mislead or harm your reader?
|
||
| | Welcome | Purpose | Audience | Limits | Structure | Attention | Confidence | Explicit | Implicit | Response| Omission | |
