Analyzing Print Media: Vote No on 46

On this political campaign, there is a gigantic, two letter word on the front that is made up of words like "ACLU", "PLANNED PARENTHOOD", "DEMOCRATS", and "CLINICS". That gigantic, two letter word is: no.

The people are using repetition by reusing those words that I provided above to try to try to reach out to us and vote no on prop 46. The words are being repeated over and over again to make the word no so that the message would be embedded into our heads.

At the bottom of the word no, they wrote, "Over 600 Diverse Coalition Partners Agree: Vote No on 46." Yet, who are those "diverse coalition partners"? Can they specifically name someone who works for those partners and say their ideas and opinions on prop 46? This is vague and it makes me want to do the opposite of what they are trying to make me do.

At the back of the campaign ad, they provide an opinion from their supporters. Before mentioning the part of the Monterey Herald's opinions, they wrote, "Statewide database is flawed, unreliable, and a ruse to trick voters." Then they show us Herald's opinion, "The statewide database is nowhere near complete, and the data in it are unreliable. Proponents of Proposition 46 are trying to trick voters into raising malpractice awards." How do they know that the data in the statewide database is unreliable? Have they seen the database? This is not backed up with precise evidence and it'll be difficult for someone who does not have an eye out for these vague details.

Contra Costa Times also talks about how flawed and costly prop 46 is and that it is really three proposition in one. How does this prop has actually three proposition? They don't provide the specific three proposition that prop 46 possess. They don't exaggerate on it, they briefly mention it but it is not enough to make me want to vote no.

ACLU talks about how prop 46 "violates the right to privacy by requiring physicians to submit to random, suspicionless drug testing." Now this is much more precise and we can see why some people would want to vote no. ACLU provides a specific "flaw" in the prop that may cause some problem for some people. By telling us that physicians are REQUIRED to submit a random drug test, we can give a but of our trust to this campaign ad.

Lastly, Kathy Kneer, who is the president of Planned Parenthood Affiliates of California, talks about how this prop would "drive up" the price of health care and reduce access to health care. Yet, how do they know this and how will this prop "drive up" the price of health care? This is also briefly mentioned and there's no analysis or explanation to how the price will go up and how will this reduce people's access to health care. This has no support whatsoever except the fact that these are opinions from the president of Planned Parenthood. Yet, without real proofs and real analysis to their outcome, their opinions, no matter how high up they are, will be nothing.