The editor maintains that companies should not place their advertisements on online websites that contain hateful speech content.
Key Ideas: The editor praises those companies that are following good moral and inclusive principles (appeals) . They are boycotting sites (withdrawing their advertisements) from sites such as YouTube because of the hateful content that is published on such websites, often without their knowledge.
Key idea: as brands are sensitive to their public image, then it is important for companies to be aware of where their ads are placed.
Attacking techniques: The editor criticises Google’s approach which they believe does not go far enough. Whilst, as the editor points out, Google is keen to protect freedom of speech, they refuse to be accountable for the published content.
The editor criticises their principles which they believe involves some hypocrisy. As they point out, these sites are expediently (conveniently) collecting money, but refuse to introduce firm guidelines to stop offensive speech.
The editor uses real life examples as case studies to show that many companies are now talking a principled approach to the placement of the advertisements. (this affects Google’s revenue. Companies include: Telstra, Coopers Brewery, British and Australian Governments, Sleeping Giants.
Purpose: (The editor uses the evidence to praise certain companies who are holding Google to account and believes that more should follow/ to shame those companies who do place their ads in compromising positions.)
The editor recommends that big businesses boycott sites on the internet that have hateful content.
- Argument strategies: the editor appeals to values such as respect, decency and social justice, and believes that companies must prioritise these values when advertising their brand.
- Evidence: critical to the development of their views, the editor cites several real-life examples of businesses such as Telstra making ethical decisions. The editor praises their boycott of sites that vilified women such as Ita Buttrose and C Ford. They also cite the Cooper Brewery’s example to show that a “backlash” may occur if they do not place ads carefully and ethically.
- International examples: The editor also makes comparisons with the British Government, and British and American companies that are also boycotting inappropriate sites.
(Group together words) Attack: on Google which is not prepared to take responsibility for the hateful content (=lack of social accountability) ; the editor mounts an attack on their motives. They are shamelessly “raking” in money but not exercising responsibility Using cause and effect reasoning strategies the editor concludes that ads create financial capital for Google. Conversely, the absence of these ads has serious financial consequences (loss of $31 billion). (Encourage companies to recognise that they can make a real difference.)
Return to Summary of Editorial Persuasive Text Examples