The INTENSIFY / DOWNPLAY Schema
TECHNIQUES

Omission Omission
Downplaying by omission is common since the basic selection/ omission process necessarily omits more than can be presented. All communication is limited, slanted, or biased to include and exclude items. But, omission can also be used as a deliberate way of concealing. Quotes out of context and half-truths and are very hard to detect. Political examples of omission include cover-ups, censorship, book-burning, and managed news. Receivers, too, can omit: can "filter out" or be closed minded or prejudiced. Omissions affect our free choice. Most ads are true, but incomplete.
Applied to ADVERTISING, you can ask these questions:

What "bad" aspects, disadvantages, drawbacks, hazards about the product have been omitted from the ad?
Are there some unspoken assumptions? An unsaid story?
Are some things implied or suggested, but not explicitly stated?
In the ad, what gets less time, less attention, smaller print?
Are there concealed problems concerning the maker, the materials, the design, or the purpose of the product?
Are there any unwanted or harmful side-effects: unsafe, unhealthy, uneconomical, inefficient, unneeded?
Are there any "false choices"? (Omissions of other choices, options, possibilities)
Does any "disclosure law" exist requiring public warning about a concealed hazard? (Usually, the "small print" in ads is the legally required disclosure.) Are there any loopholes in consumer protection laws? How to spot concealed omissions

Commercial ads are expected to be one-sided: obviously, the sellers are not going to emphasize anything bad about their products. Sometimes heath and safety disclosures are required by law, but generally speaking, expect omissions. Omissions are much more serious in political and social persuasion, so such omissions deserve more attention here. (Next page)
A good axiom about how to counter downplaying by advertisers or politicians is: When They Downplay, Intensify

 

 

 

Applied to POLITICAL RHETORIC, you can ask these questions:

What disadvantages, drawbacks, hazards have been omitted?
Are there any unwanted, harmful side-effects: unsafe, unhealthy, uneconomical, inefficient, unneeded?
Are there any relevant omissions about the people involved, concealing: intentional illegality (crimes, scandals), or unintentional incompetence (mistakes, failures, ignorance)?
Are there any relevant omissions about proposed plans, programs, or policies?
Any coverups hiding past errors, carelessness, neglect, cost overruns, options ignored, criticism suppressed; or future risks, unsound estimates, potential dangers?
If any "bad" is uncovered, is the response a dynamic sequence to deny it, minimize it, or divert attention away from it?
Is there any "source" omission, when the relevant authorship or ownership is omitted: e.g. an anonymous rumor, an unsigned letter; or a fake name (common on the Internet when vulgar or predatory intent is concealed); or a "front organization" (in politics, a partisan group concealed behind a neutral, bland, inoffensive name); in business, corporations hidden behind obscure acronyms or names. People (and corporations) have a right to advocate or to support their side financially, but not a right to conceal their support
Any omissions about intended purpose? Any ulterior motives, "hidden agendas"? Any illegal or immoral covert actions?
Are there any "false choices"? (Omissions of other choices, options, possibilities)
Any concealed "conflicts of interest"? Any hidden agendas, favoritism, nepotism? Any concealed benefits, payoffs, which will go to supporters now. or later? Any "revolving door" payoffs-- hidden and delayed -- in which ex-politicians or retired generals will become high-paid lobbyists or executives with companies they favored while in power? Quid pro quo? Any secret agreements, "back room deals," sub rosa, under the table bribes, kickbacks, commissions, favors? "Follow the dollar" is the first rule for investigative journalists who, by carefully analyzing the budget or financial records, can often expose relevant omissions.
What issues get less degree of time or attention, or are totally ignored?
Are there any restrictions, bans, or censorship of contrary views, or of basic information? Any obstruction, any delaying or stalling ("the round around") of investigations?
Any suppression of contradictory evidence? Any silencing or "disappearing" of opponents? Any blackmail?
Any euphemisms used to hide, or to lessen a "bad"? (e.g. a "donation" for a bribe; an "incident" for a disaster.)
Are "half-truths," "stacking the deck," or quotes-out-of-context used to distort, or to conceal?
Are there any whistleblowers -- insiders who reveal hidden information?

Expect people to downplay by means of omission, diversion, and confusion.
A good axiom about how to counter downplaying by advertisers or politicians is: When They Downplay, Intensify
Intensify/Downplay Schema | Techniques | Home | Top