You will interact with this blog at least once per class to summarize the days lesson. There will be time allotted at the end of each class for this activity. Some days there will be a blog to be done at the beginning of class...I will notify you on those days when something has been posted.While individual posts will not be graded I will use them as an overall grade. I will also utilize them to check your progress.
Mr. V.
In the British PSA the tactic that they used was guilt or putting fear into their desired audience. I believe that this tactic works more effectively than the humor. The American PSA uses humor to capture the attention of the teenagers. By using humor I do believe it is more likely that the teenagers would remember the PSA but I doubt that they will pay serious attention to the message being conveyed. By scaring the teenagers and showing them the reality of what happens when you text and drive there is a possibility of a decrease in the activity. It is scary when people die. If you can convince teenagers that texting leaves you open to possibly killing those who are close to you and innocent civilians then you have broken through. The tactic that works the best is the guilt or fear tactic. The more scared you are the less likely you will text and drive.
ReplyDeleteI think the PSA from Britain was more effective. The reason I think this because when you see a true story unfold in front of you, you tend to feel more sympathetic. The PSA was so horrific and so graphic and I think it’s better to scare people into not texting and driving than to make a joke about it. The other PSA was too funny and people probably won’t take it serious. I don’t think people will care about it if they hear people joking about it. However, if they see an actual car accident resulting from texting and driving, they will be afraid to text and drive. They will think about the video every time they are about to text and drive. The first PSA was very intense and it made me not want to get in the car with people that text and drive even more than before.
ReplyDeleteTo me I think the car accident works better as a way to stop texting while driving. The car accident was more traumatic and had you really think that it to could happen. The other approach sent a message but not as strongly as the accident. I think either way they send a message and make you think that “if it is to really happen what would you do?” People don’t realize that these things do happen every day because of texting while driving and many still do it anyway. For example, I’ve seen a video about people who die while texting and driving but it has not stopped me. Although I do not text while driving much now it still has an impact on me. I know that the only way not to have this experience happen to me is to not text while driving.
ReplyDeleteI think that the graphic video will be more affective in getting kids to speak up when their friends are driving recklessly. It was scary to see that happen and to think that that could happen to anyone. The other video was funny, but most people will just laugh about that one and move on, and not really think about it after 5 minutes. The crash video was more realistic and warning-like. The crash one will definitely be more affective in getting kids to not text, or say something when they see someone texting while driving.
ReplyDeleteI believe the UK video with the female teenagers getting into a car accident is a more effective approach. The AdCouncil commercial is less effective because it is comical and may not be taken as seriously as the accident. Showing how something so little, like texting while driving, can cause something so serious, like a tragic accident, makes people realize things like this can really happen in reality. However, the AdCouncil commercial talks about the passenger haunting the driver if he dies, and this may not scare people to stop texting while driving. To make this commercial more effective would be to show how serious a distraction like texting can be.
ReplyDelete