Persuaders often omit the disadvantages, problems, and the bad effects related to their proposals. People in power in corporations and governments often seek to conceal any of their mistakes, inefficiencies, incompetencies, crimes and abuses.

Motives for omission are difficult to judge. Even without any evil motives involved, everyone is going to "put their best foot forward," or "put on their Sunday best": that is, intensify their own "good" and downplay their own "bad." Instead of worrying about what others' motives or intentions are, assume that their bad points are not going to be advertised or prominently displayed. Be more concerned with consequences: their "good" may not be your "good."

In buying products, investigation is sometimes as simple as reading a label, comparing prices, asking a former owner, using a consumer guidebook, sampling, and so on.Some situations are much more complex. Different degrees of investigation are appropriate: buying a car deserves more care than buying a trinket. Fraud, deception, misrepresentation and errors do exist and tend to thrive in the darkness. Here, repeated complaints are usually more effective than individual instances; attention-getting public displays are often more effective responses than private complaints. The squeaking wheel usually does get the oil!

Investigating downplaying in political life is usually much more difficult. Most individuals don't have the time, the talent, or opportunity to investigate complex cover-ups. But, as citizens, aware of these problems, we can support a free press, investigative reporters, disclosure laws, and the basic rights of reformers and critics. Establishments usually seek to label their critics and reformers as crackpots, spiteful cranks, disloyal malcontents, naive fanatics, opportunist rivals, and so on. Some individuals may well be in any of these dour categories. But, the role of the reformer, the very function of the progressive critic, is to attack the "bad," often to uncover that which the Establishment would prefer to keep hidden.

Omission and "Free Choice"
Omission of relevant information influences our decision-making process. Genuine "free choice" depends on our knowing all the options, the whole situation, both the advantages and disadvantages, so we can weigh and balance these various factors, good and bad. Thus, the information we receive from others (advertisers or politicians) not only must be truthful, but also must be adequate. Despite recent interest in deceptive omissions and political cover-ups (from Nixon's Watergate to Clinton's Monica to Iraq War issues), no one has made a comprehensive analysis of the techniques of omission. However, there are some useful things to be said, some useful ways to approach this difficult subject:

Omission -- something not said, or not done -- is very hard to analyze, very hard to detect. Look first for possible bad effects and their related causes. Recognize also that omissions are dynamic, not static. Omission is part of the communication process that all people use to their own advantage. Receivers, too, often omit: can "filter out" or "block out" the "bad" - - those ideas or facts that they don't want to hear; can have "selective hearing," can be close-minded, or prejudiced, can deny (or be "in denial" or be self-deluded ) by not "facing facts" or "facing reality." Consumers, in their greed for acquisitions, often ignore the potential problems such as debts or frivolous purchases. Citizens, in their partisan bias, often are blind to the weakness of their own party or policy.

Qui Bono?

The basic counter to any relevant omission is disclosure: we need to know who benefits, who profits, who will gain. Qui bono?

Therefore, it is wise to support investigative journalism, whistleblowers, and good disclosure regulations required by government agencies (FTC, FDA) acting on behalf of the common good; by check-and-balance systems within governments (such as the Congressional OMB, Inspector General, ombudsmen).

Recently, the U.S. Supreme Court in an important 5-4 decision related to whistleblowers ruled that the jobs of government employees who are whistleblowers are not protected by their First Amendment rights of free speech. (Read the immediate reaction from both sides -- quotes from AP - and follow up on later developments, using google.)