TOW #19 – Visual: “World No Tobacco Day”

"World No Tobacco Day"

May 31, 2005

For the annual “World No Tobacco Day” on May 31, graphic designers often create online posters that advocate for banning smoking.  Anti-smoking advertisements were already greatly needed in 2005; however, the need for awareness on the permanently damaging health effects of smoking, especially second-hand smoke, is much greater in today’s China.

Although 11 years has passed with annual anti-smoking movements, smoking rates in China have continued increasing, corroborated by scientists from China and Britain, whose 2015 study revealed that China is now smoking a third of the world’s cigarettes! (The Lancet).  Increasing numbers of people are joining the ranks of smokers in China, and teenagers are smoking at younger ages, which only makes it harder to eradicate such deeply-rooted smoking.

From personal experience with my extended family in China, I have seen how difficult breaking the habit of smoking is.  When my two uncles were in college, they first tried smoking and have never stopped since then.  As a 5-year-old, I would order them to stop smoking (I did not actually understand the negatives of smoking, but since my brother said it was bad for me, I believed him), which gave my family a laugh, but that was all it effected.  When I hid their cigarette packs, my uncles could not control their addiction and would just buy more.  Fortunately, my uncles did get the message and tried to stop smoking.  Today, they smoke less often, but have not completely stopped.

This particular anti-smoking advertisement emphasizes the devastation of second-hand smoking.  It was published on a website about Chinese literature, so the audience consists of mainly Chinese bookworms.  Eventually, this image reached a wider audience through social media apps, such as WeChat (which is how I found it), so with time, the audience widened to include, in general, Chinese people who have access to social media and the internet.  What is most compelling about this advertisement is the focus on our hands.  As readers, we see our hands when holding up books or typing on a keyboard or scrolling through our phones; our hands do everything for us.  The ad’s depiction of our fingers burnt to ash is striking, and grotesque enough to catch our eyes for us to read the words, which state, “Smoking hurts yourself… and the people closest to you,” (hence the half-burned fingers beside the completely burned one).  However, not only does the hand serve as a hook, it also evokes a sense of guilt, as it is from the smoker’s own hands that harm comes to our beloved ones. 

Our scientific knowledge on the effects of smoking has evolved to include second-hand smoking, but considering the ever rising smoking rates in China, our effectiveness of communicating or acting upon that knowledge seems to be lacking.  There is an even greater need for spreading awareness, as well as for the audience to evolve with science and take real action for the good of smokers themselves, their families, and all of posterity.

TOW #18 – Article: “The Argument Economy”

The Atlantic

"The Argument Economy"

Megan Garber

April 13, 2015

Published in The Atlantic, “The Argument Economy” is culture writer, Megan Garber’s “take” on the state of journalism.  Garber reported that journalism had been under the usual pressures to provide informational reports and opinion, and good quality quickly, but was also under a new pressure to publish an attention-grabbing “piping hot take” for commercial gain.  While some “takes” stimulate conversation and change, Garber warned readers that journalism with fully formed arguments without all the facts is just well-developed propaganda, and that such journalistic propaganda is rampant in our news organizations. 

Less than a year has passed and Garber’s observations still hold true today.  The field of journalism has only gotten more competitive, and the pressures are still just as prevalent as they had been a year ago.  On the surface, news articles report trending information, but they often implant ideas beneath the surface to change readers’ perceptions.  Events become dramatized by news organizations, all for the purpose of attracting more attention, for more viewers, and greater commercial gain, but the facts are not always there.  As Garber puts it, “The argument is fully formed; it’s the facts that have some catching up to do” (11). 

However, to some extent, the need to worry about propaganda taking over the press has lessened.  Garber is not the only author to warn us of journalism becoming propaganda.  People are becoming more aware of how dangerous the effects of media can have on our lives.  As a society, we have taken steps to focus on the articles that are factually-supported, and to doubt those that are only argued with passion and faulty logic.  Online forums and public commentary boxes give people the chance to critique an article’s composition if it is unreliable.  On the other hand, if an article offers an interesting idea supported with sufficient, reliable evidence, then there are buttons to share it with the world to stimulate further conversation and change.  Schools also consistently teach children how to read critically and requirements for thought-provoking, objective pieces of writing, so that we are fostering an instinctive sense of doubt and critical reading skills that protect against the misleading perceptions of propaganda.  

TOW #17 – Article: “No, The CDC Did Not Tell Women To Stop Drinking”

 

The Huffington Post

"No, The CDC Did Not Tell Women to Stop Drinking. It could use some help on press releases, though."

Erin Schumaker

February 4, 2016

Recently, the media has been outraged by the CDC’s report that warned women not trying to get pregnant of the dangers of alcohol exposure to unborn babies.  Individuals across America responded with an equally strong and opposite reaction to the CDC’s overbearing mandate for all adult women who were not pregnant to abstain from alcohol, but Erin Schumaker uses direct sources from the CDC in order to share a different perspective in The Huffington Post that righteously qualifies with CDC critics.

Schumaker first reiterates the statistics found in the CDC’s original report to clarify the CDC’s intended audience, regarding its mandate for abstaining from alcohol.  She identifies that “more than 3.3 million women” (para. 1) are at risk for the devastating effects of an alcohol-exposed pregnancy, but even more significant are the “three out of four women” (para. 2), who continued drinking alcohol while they were attempting to get pregnant.  Schumaker counters that if a government agency had targeted all women not on birth control, then the news media would be justified in expressing outrage; however, the CDC recognized a preventable health problem stemming from lack of awareness in 75% of women, and sought to lower the number of alcohol-exposed pregnancies in the United States.

In addition, Schumaker quotes CDC’s lead scientists and directors for an inside look at the agency’s true intentions.  As part of the prevention team, Lela McKnight-Eily’s testimony reveals the agency’s belief in methods of prevention, rather than what critics accuse the CDC of having, “paternalistic undertones” (para. 17).  Schumaker also includes an outside perspective from an assistant professor of obstetrics and gynecology at the University of North Carolina, Amy Bryant, for insight into the other side of the conflict.  Providing background information on the not-entirely understood issue of drinking during pregnancy, Bryant reasons that the CDC may be backed into a corner, where it can either urge women towards or away from alcohol, so obviously the CDC chose the latter. 

Each of Schumaker’s evidence supports the conclusion that the CDC’s mandate is unrealistic and excessive, but was ordered with the best intentions, and not as the media has made it out to be, a tactic to limit of restrict women.