Truth:The Campaign to End Smoking

In the 1950's it was not uncommon to see smoking on tv and in every day life, Doctors even recommended smoking cigarettes. Today we know the risks associated with smoking. In fact, the CDC says that "smoking is the  leading cause for preventable diseases in the United States, accounting for more than 480,000 deaths every year..."(cdc.gov, 2016). With all of the available medical knowledge its shocking that the amount of smokers hasn't decreased dramatically. Part of this has to do with the lack of advertising. Sure, there have been some occasional intense PSA's about what smoking has done to people, but these ads were not very consistent and they typically only used one medium,TV. The Truth is a new campaign to end smoking and it is geared toward young adults. According to the CDC, 16.7% of smokers are between the ages of 18 and 24. The Truth has advertised on TV, snapchat, and they have a YouTube account which is reaching out to the younger demographic and trying to curb the habits before they start. After making progress, they post new videos and ads encouraging people to keep going and not to forget that cigarettes aren't the only thing that young people smoke. They bring up the fact that smoking Hookah is worse than smoking a pack of cigarettes, in fact it is the equivalent of smoking 100 cigarettes(TheTruth.com,2016). From the website and the YouTube videos, it appears that they are employing both sides of the Elaboration Likelihood Model to convince people to stop smoking. They give the audience facts about smoking and the repercussions and they also cater to the needs of the audience. One of the arguments presented is that smokers earn less than non smokers and considering people need money to survive in this world. One video discusses the increased likelihood that a smokers pet will get cancer over a non smokers pet. This is using the cause and effect strategy. It also causes the viewer to have more sympathy and is more motivating because they are using the risk of losing a pet . Due to Federal Regulations on the Tobacco companies, there are no opposing arguments or ads for smoking(betobaccofree.gov). Sadly just because they cannot advertise, doesn't mean they cannot tamper with the nicotine levels in cigarettes. The Truth website states that one company has genetically engineered tobacco plants to have 2 times the normal amount of nicotine. For those who don't know, nicotine is the addictive chemical in cigarettes. As if quitting smoking wasn't hard enough, now they have found a way to make it even more difficult to quit. Because of this, The Truth will have to keep campaigning in new ways and coming up with more innovative ways to reach people. Their strategy seems to be targeting  kids 18 and younger so that they can get make a preemptive strike. Their slogan is "Be the generation to end smoking" so if they never start smoking then they never have to quit. The more people know about the risks and effects of smoking, the better. The Truth campaign is finding ways to get their message out there without using fear as a motivator, instead they are inspiring youth to be proactive and informed about the dangers of smoking.

 A. Laws/Policies. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from http://betobaccofree.hhs.gov/laws/index.html 

Current Cigarette Smoking Among Adults in the United States. (2016, March 14). Retrieved November 11, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/adult_data/cig_smoking/index.htm 

 Facts. Retrieved November 11, 2016, from https://www.thetruth.com/the-facts   

Should Bathrooms be Gender Neutral?

It's no secret that there are a slew of social issues being debated in out country today. Among them is the question  : should public bathrooms be gender neutral? Just like every other issue brought to light the public, the media and Government officials everywhere cannot wait to give their opinion on the matter. When speaking on issues like this, it can be difficult to remember that the issue is not black and white and it is nearly impossible to present facts instead of opinion and emotional testimony. If you search gender neutral bathrooms into google you will find several opinion based articles on the issue, here are some that argue for and against having Gender Neutral Bathrooms. 

In the article "Gender Neutral Bathrooms Are Dangerous" by Elizabeth Vliet,M.D., it is stated that only "There are approximately 700,000 transgender people in the U.S., representing about 0.3 percent of the entire population..."(Vliet, 2016). While reading this article it became clear that Vliet was appealing to the mothers and fathers in the U.S who have daughters that could possibly be the victim of a sexually driven crime. She points out the possibility that any man can claim that he is gender fluid and go into a women's bathroom and attack vulnerable women.She is quite aggressive in her campaign to keep men and women in separate bathrooms. In her expert opinion "At the time transgender patients have undergone surgery to become their new gender, it is then appropriate to use the bathroom facilities for their gender reassignment. Until then, common sense and public safety should require those with male genitalia (regardless of self-perception) use men’s bathrooms, and those with female genitalia should use women’s bathrooms"(Vliet, 2016). Vliet is currently a physician who received training in sexual medicine consulting. In her work she has found that sexual urges are unpredictable, and it is nearly impossible to determine who will have them and when (Vliet,2016). She is using her expertise as a tactic to persuade her audience to listen to her and see her opinions more as facts. This is played off as more of a fact based and medical article but it is peppered with her personal opinions against Gender Neutral Bathrooms.

Now lets look at the other end of the spectrum. We have explored the analytical fact based argument against G.N bathrooms, now we will look at the argument from a feminist viewpoint. In the article " The Crucial Problem We're Forgetting in The Trans Bathroom Debate" by Delia Melody, the approach is more emotional. The author opens by stating that they them-self are transgender. This article is aimed at the "cis" population who are not on board with the idea of transgender folks using the bathroom of their chosen gender. Melody  points out that one of the biggest arguments against gender neutral bathrooms is that women could be attacked by the transgender men entering the bathroom, she then states  "I’d say it’s never hurt anyone, but that wouldn’t be true. Ironically, however, every single person who has gotten hurt has been a transgender victim of transphobic violence"( Melody, 2016). There have been no cases of a trans person attacking a "cis" person before so the author feels that the fear is undeserving(Melody,2016). While reading this article, it is obvious that the author uses both logic and emotion to advocate their side. This article is a little more of a personal testimony than the article against Gender Neutral Bathrooms. 

As I mentioned earlier, this is not a black and white issue, there are so many things to consider and nothing is going to change right away. Both sides defend their beliefs with passionate conviction and are unbending. Both authors employed tactics that effectively pulled their audience in. After reading them and putting aside any previous biases,it is hard not to sympathize with both sides. 

Word Count:642

                                                                   Sources

Melody, A. D. (2016, May 28). The Crucial Problem We're Forgetting In the Trans Bathroom Debate. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://everydayfeminism.com/2016/05/trans-bathroom-debate-problem/

Vliet, E. (2016, April 12). Doc: ‘Gender neutral’ bathrooms are dangerous. Retrieved October 14, 2016, from http://www.wnd.com/2016/04/doc-gender-neutral-bathrooms-are-dangerous/

CBS Edits A Major part of Bill Clinton's Interview

No one can deny that this Presidential Elections is one of the most erratic and interesting that the world has ever witnesses. For some, myself included, this will be the very first time they vote for a Presidential Candidate. With the candidates being who they are with the reputations they carry it will be a difficult choice for many,whether they are experienced voters or rookies, because there are so many conflicting ideas and biased interviews in the media. Most voters get their information from new sources on Facebook, Twitter and TV. Obviously these sources are biased and only show their favored candidates in a certain light. As if things weren't difficult enough, CBS edited an interview with Bill Clinton about Hillary's health on Monday September 12 (Marsh, 2016). Charlie Rose interviewed Bill Clinton about the status of Hillary's health, after she collapsed at a 9/11 Memorial Ceremony. In his original statement in reguards to her fainting Bill states "frequently- well not frequently, rarely- but on more than one occasion....that same sort of thing has happened" (Marsh, 2016). When the interview aired on CBS, the clip was altered so that the use of the word frequently was taken out. This was a deliberate tactic used to downplay the severity of Hillary's health issues. Time Warner Cable is one of the biggest media corporations in American and they own Warner Bros who is in partnership with CBS(Carpenter, 2015). On top of that, they have been  donating money to Hillary Clinton since 1998.In total, they have donated $749,543 to Hillary Clinton from 1998 to 2016 ("Hillary Clinton,Top Contributors",2016). Due to their affiliation with Time Warner Cable, CBS has to sway coverage of everything Hillary in her favor. Of course this is no excuse and is ethically wrong. Americans have to decide who is going to run the country and if we do not have access to unbiased facts about our candidates then it is not fair. It may not seem like editing one word out of an interview isn't a big deal, but it is because it doesn't stop there.Who is to say that CBS or any other news company hasn't totally changed around what the candidates have said in interviews. Yes this was only one word, but it was a big word to change. There is a major difference between fainting frequently and fainting rarely. American voters have every right to know the health conditions of the candidate they are voting for because it could possibly change their mind. I realize that there is Freedom of Speech and the companies have a right to their opinions,but it is not right to force their ideals on their viewers. It is morally wrong and takes away the choice of the viewers. News is becoming less about reporting current events and more about telling the people only what they want to tell them.One could even argue that media has become a source of propaganda because instead of stating facts and letting the viewers make up their mind, they are shifting and tweaking the facts. This most recent interview on CBS is just proof of that and that is just outright terrifying.

; Campaign Finance/Money - Top Donors - 2016. OpenSecrets. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https;//www.opensecrets.org/politicians/contrib.php?cid=N00000019

Carpenter, J. W. (2015). Top 3 Companies Owned By Time Warner (TWX). Retrieved September 15, 2016, from http://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/102215/top-3-companies-owned-time-warner.asp

Marsh, K. (2016). CBS Edits Out Revealing Verbal Slip From Bill Clinton on Hillary's Health. Retrieved September 15, 2016, from https;//www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/kristine-marsh/2016/09/13/cbs-edits-out-revealing-verbal-slip-bill-clinton-hillarys-health