John Oliver Application Assignment PDF

Preview

Summary

Summer 2018 mandatory assignment for Cassandra Bird's Argumentation and Advocacy class...

Description

Maggie Lanham 14204910 [email protected] Part One (1) Statistics: (a) Traditional banner ads are so ineffective. One study found that we only intentionally click on them less than 2/10th’s of 1% of the time. (b) Less than half of visitors to a new site could distinguish native advertising from actual news. (2) Reports and Descriptions: (a) Times advertising executive vigorously refuting the notion that native advertising has to erode consumer trust, or compromise the wall that exists between editorial and advertising. Good native advertising is just not meant to be trickery, it’s sharing storytelling tools. (b) Ever since papers moved online they have struggled financially. News is like porn. People don’t want to pay for it on the internet, even though someone somewhere worked hard to make it. (3) Artifacts: (a) John Oliver pulls out a can of Mountain Dew: Code Red, tells the audience that it has a refreshing taste and takes a sip. (b) The New York times featuring native advertising - recent feature on their website about women in prison. It looked like a serious piece of journalism, but was actually a paid post promoting season two of Orange is the New Black. Part Two ● Times advertising executive vigorously refuting the notion that native advertising has to erode consumer trust, or compromise the wall that exists between editorial and advertising. Good native advertising is just not meant to be trickery, it’s sharing storytelling tools. ○ Reliability: This is not a reliable source because it is just some executive from Times advertising defending the type of advertisement that they use. ○ Expertise: I would say that this advertising executive has some expertise on the topic of advertising. ○ Objectivity: This piece of advertisement is definitely a little objective because it is a defensive point coming from an executive of advertising, about advertising. ○ Consistency: This piece of evidence is not consistent, externally at least, with other sources, especially John Oliver’s clip, about native advertising. ○ Recency: This piece of evidence is recent. ○ Access: The person giving this piece of evidence definitely has access to the matter that is being discussed, but you wonder if maybe this is causing them to be bias on the matter. ● This piece of evidence violates many of the tests of evidence, therefore we can assume that it is not a very strong piece of evidence.

●

●

Traditional banner ads are so ineffective. One study found that we only intentionally click on them less than 2/10th’s of 1% of the time. ○ Pseudostatistics: It seems that it would be kind of difficult to determine how many times a person intentionally clicked on a banner ad, considering there is no way that banner ads usually document the intention of a person clicking on their ad or not. ○ Non-Comparable items: Here they are not so much comparing items, but rather defending one item, native advertising, so it does not violate this piece of evidence test. ○ Unrepresentative sample: The sample size is all internet users, and the study is whether or not they intentionally click on banner ads. This piece of evidence does not violate this test. ○ Poor Methodology: The piece of evidence is acquired through poor methodology because it just gathering information on the click rate of all internet users. There is no way to measure intentionality by this method. This piece of evidence can be considered as not strong because it violates two of the four tests of statistical evidence....