In the US, an increasing number of medical and public agents are advocating for movies smoking scenes to be adult- rated (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). This advocacy is confronted with four arguments (i.e. two are methodological, one is practical and last one is on principle) which are shown below:-
• First argument – Research studies claim to observe a relationship between movie smoking exposure and smoking uptake in youths. But the proposal do not control for large-scale confounding of the independent variables (i.e. smoking in movies). Therefore, a teenager at risk of smoking will self-select to watch particular kind of movies which may well contain more smoking scenes. To an extend this may influence the teenager uptake smoking habit (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). However, this is highly dependable on factors that are associated with social lifestyle, parental factor, and psychological factors such as self-assessment (“rebellious or not”) and risk-taking (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011).
• Second argument – This argument claims for attributable uptake of smoking said to be caused by movie exposure and that not all of the teenagers are likely to fall prey to smoking habit. This is because teenagers have varying attributes (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). Those teenagers, who possess traits such as rebelliousness, care-free attitude and so on, are likely to be more attracted to watching movies with smoking scenes and subsequently influencing them to smoking (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011).
• Third argument – The policy advocacy that assumes that film classification will actually prevent the youth from accessing movies with smoking scene is naïve since the youth have frequent access to adult-rated movies via friends and internet (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). For instance, in US 2008, an estimated 10.397 million children aged between 12-17 watched a movie on the internet of which others were pornography. This nullifies the workable solution restricting cinemas viewing of smoking to adults due to the exponential changes to technology and internet (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). From the argument, it is clear that this policy advocacy is neither effective nor efficient.
• Fourth argument – It arises from the concern about the assumption that advocates for any cause should feel it reasonable that the state should regulate cultural products like movies, books, art and theatre in the service of their issue. If this were to take effect then the society would feel deprived of their freedom and free-will and of which it may retaliate. In open societies, the role of movies involves far more than being simply a means of mass communicate healthy role models. It is also be a means of depicting the social problems and bad behaviors and smoking in movies mirrors the prevalence of smoking in population. Thus, movies touch on the core issues of the society and portray them in a creative and entertaining manner. (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011)
Analysis of the arguments
These arguments can be analyzed by the following considerations as shown below: –
Logos (Logic)
• First Argument
This argument is logically sound since its claim of not controlling the actual smoking in movies is paramount against this policy advocacy as it nullifies the effect of the policy if it (policy) was to be adopted.
• Second Argument
It is also sounds logical because its claim of smoking uptake to be attributable can be supported through research methods and psychological studies. Furthermore, its underlying assumption that teenagers of rebellious in nature are at risk to smoking can be tested true.
• Third Argument
This is as well logical as the above two arguments because it claims that the policy advocacy assumption of preventing the youth from accessing movies with smoking scene is naïve since the youth have frequent access to adult-rated movies via friends and internet (Chapman & Farrelly, 2011). This claim can further be supported by statistics done by research bodies.
• Fourth Argument
Yet again, this argument is logical as its claim tries to drive the point home that it would unreasonable to regulate cultural products like movies, books, art and theatre in the service of their issue; if the policy would be adopted.
Ethos (Credibility)
All the arguments are credible as they offer opposing viewpoints, they touch on varying concerns connected to the issue and they are not biased. Also they are credible because the authors seem to be well-informed illustrated through making references to research studies.
Pathos (passion)
The arguments are passionate in a manner in which the reader feels engaged and connected to the issue i.e. the reader feels that he/she is being “talk at”. But the authors have not clearly brought out how the issue has affected them and more so there are no emotions attached.
References
Chapman, S., & Farrelly, C. M. (2011). Four arguments against the adult-rated movie with smoking scenes. PLoS Medicine, 8(8), 1-3.
