This arrived in our postbox today:
Wow, that’s a lot of people coloured in red, the colour of danger! Better not vote for them…
But if you do the maths: 30 people, 6 not coloured in, 24 coloured in => 80% coloured in
The visual cue of ‘how many Labor people are dangerous unionists’ does not match that big number there on the left. People respond pretty easily to visual cues, but maths is scary, so I reckon this flyer will result in the following thought pattern in most people:
“Seventy percent doesn’t sound that much, but that looks like a pretty high proportion of unionists!” possibly followed by “Oh dear, maybe I’d better not vote for them…”
I’m sure that the person/people behind this flyer have been careful to match the ‘unionist’ label to real unionists, so as not to be accused of deceptive advertising. Very subtle, very sneaky. Nicely done, Mark Neeham of West Perth (no political affilation mentioned).
Oh, and the back of the flyer doesn’t have any small print excusing the 80% trick on the front, just in case you were wondering - just some more details about the scary people pictured on the front. Did you know, Peter Garrett may not be a unionist (see 3rd from left, 2nd row), but he is a “lifelong anti-American activist”. Ohnoes! We can’t be having with that… Interesting that they don’t mention that he’s an environmentalist - maybe that’s turning into a “vote-for” label?
Comments 3
*grins* nice rant. Misleading indeed. God I hate election years. Especially the ‘campaigning’ that goes on. It’s sickening. The name is just an excuse for many politicians to kiss public ass in an attempt to secure their jobs for another three years, when throughout the rest of their term they don’t appear to give a shit about the ‘community’ they are supposed to be serving.
What’s worse is when, as in this example, they resort to trying to convince you to vote for them because of all the ‘evil’ things the other candidates are doing/have done. They’re like children! Kids often try to minimise their own punishment by ‘dobbing’ another kid in, especially if that kid has been naughty too but only the first one is getting the punishment.
Bah. Pathetic. And they wonder why Australian youth are apathetic about politics.
Posted 10 Nov 2007 at 2:55 pm ¶I see… 24/30 = 0.7. In the timeless words of one US president, is our children learning?
Actually, you might notice the disparity between “Unionist” and “Union Official” (on other versions it was “Union Boss”). You might also notice that three of the red-shaded figures are not even “Unionists” but rather “Party Officials”. Julia Gillard’s red tarnish apparently comes from being a lawyer, which is what most of the Libs are.
Posted 11 Nov 2007 at 10:04 pm ¶ah, but Julia Gillard is a lawyer for a union! Makes me wonder what that says about people who lawyer for murderers or granny-bashers :p
Posted 12 Nov 2007 at 9:19 am ¶Post a Comment