Case study 5-D presented by Patterson & Wilkins (2014, p.129) is concerned with the use of children’s images in a political anti-same-sex-marriage advertisement and the privacy concerns the usage brought up. The case study raises various questions surrounding framing images or video to support an agenda and how the privacy of children is affected by political advertisements. Many people could view the use of children to support a political agenda, with out of context imagery, is emotionally manipulative. The images of these children should not have been used in an anti-same-sex-marriage advertisement since the children are a vulnerable audience and the advertisement purposely used and edited images that fit their propaganda.
Micro Issues First, …show more content…
The advertisement does not reveal any private information that harms anyone and the information was available publicly, but the advertisement was still ethically questionable since it uses images and video from a happy same-sex marriage in opposing propaganda (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014, p. 114). I would also argue that children attending a same-sex wedding should not be politicized because the children are not old enough to actively reason about the politics of same-sex marriage. The children were supporting their teacher and showing her affection at the wedding, and their attendance at the wedding should not be used to push any political agenda. However, the event can’t be considered a private event because there was already a story printed about it. Information about the event was already public information and the advertisement did not invade any circles of intimacy that were not already invaded (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014, p. 116). However, the original story did not politicize the event or support any legislation, but the advertisement used the images of children to support a political stance that the children did not support at
Micro Issues First, …show more content…
The advertisement does not reveal any private information that harms anyone and the information was available publicly, but the advertisement was still ethically questionable since it uses images and video from a happy same-sex marriage in opposing propaganda (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014, p. 114). I would also argue that children attending a same-sex wedding should not be politicized because the children are not old enough to actively reason about the politics of same-sex marriage. The children were supporting their teacher and showing her affection at the wedding, and their attendance at the wedding should not be used to push any political agenda. However, the event can’t be considered a private event because there was already a story printed about it. Information about the event was already public information and the advertisement did not invade any circles of intimacy that were not already invaded (Patterson & Wilkins, 2014, p. 116). However, the original story did not politicize the event or support any legislation, but the advertisement used the images of children to support a political stance that the children did not support at