Analyzing Credibility

The example I selected from the four different options was the one located at http://www.pedigree.com.au/home.asp .

Who paid for each example to be created? CNN paid for the Giuliani Remember 9/11 video. Meanwhile, Pedigree is a commercial company that produces the product in the advertisements.

Can you detect a slant – that is, a secondary opinion conveyed by the example’s creators? CNN is a credible news agency that typically is considered credible when providing news and information to the general public. On the other hand, Pedigree is the creating their advertisements in order to steer consumers to the opinion that their product is superior as an alternative to other products.

What does each example reflect about society at large? Is it credible? Explain your answers. The CNN example demonstrates that society maintains an interest in remembering significant events that have shaped the way we live; especially when those events are harsh or otherwise tragic. As a society, we love drama so remembering dramatic events and commemorating them is important to us, especially when we have overcome the events. The credibility of the CNN is relatively sound as CNN is a credible source and the clip was focused more on the history of events and the opinions of how those events have had an impact. The Pedigree ads appeal to our softer nature with cute puppies and high-energy antics. There is nothing in the ads to support their claims that they are a “really good fit for dogs”, but the ads do show that as a society, we also have a softer side that can be appealed to as well. Whether Pedigree as a company is credible doesn’t alter the credibility of the ads. The ads offer nothing to support their claim and as such can’t be deemed as credible on their own.

News Clip

Are you skeptical of the sources’ credibility? Why or why not? I’m not at all skeptical of the credibility of either CNN or Rudy Giuliani. Both have proven themselves to be...