A radio station in Canada has advertised to give 3 in-vitro fertilization treatments to five lucky contestants to the "Win the Baby" contest. Hundreds of contestants entered the contest, all of which had to write several essays on why the deserved to win a baby. After several weeks of this, five contestants were chosen for the final drawing. These contestants were gathered into the radio station when the radio show host, Jeff Mauler, announced that they would all be winning fertility treatments. Later, Mauler said, "There was not a dry eye in the house" because of the joy the families felt. Although this may seem like an amazing opportunity, but there is a lot of controversy about the contest. The contest was criticized and was said to be false advertisement. Also, it made babies out to be objects and prizes to be won.
First off, Ontario, unlike their close neighbors in Quebec, does not have government-funded in-vitro fertilization treatments. This government policy angers a lot of the Ontario residents because in a recent poll 75% of Ontario residents support health insurance covered IVF treatments. Others say that the contest crossed a line by toying with the strong emotions women tend to have towards children. The contest is said to have false advertised because there is chance that they couples won't have a baby at all. It is also said that the contest has turned babies into a product, not a child that you should love and cherish.
Mauler and the families that won the contest disagree with this. One family openly thanked the contest for giving them a chance to have a baby.
________________________________________________________________________________________________
-Picture of advertisement to "Win a Baby" on radio's web page.
A radio station promotion that awarded five couples in vitro fertility treatments Tuesday as part of a “Win a Baby” contest has drawn the ire of Canadians on both sides of the issue.
Hundreds entered the contest held by Ottawa station Hot 89.9 for a chance to win a round of IVF treatments. After several weeks of having hopefuls campaign and write essays on why they should be chosen, the station whittled the competition down to five couples.
Hot 89.9 assembled the families in a room Tuesday, as posted on the station's website, and announced the award after a tense setup. “You’re all getting up to three fertility treatments. Congratulations!” radio host Jeff Mauler said as loud sobs from the women can be heard in the background.
“There's not a dry eye in the house,” Mauler said. "A lot of hugs and a lot of tears," he said describing the emotional scene in the room. “Once again with 'Win a Baby' all five of our finalists are getting three fertility treatments, up to three fertility treatments, and hopefully having their dreams come true.”
The contest has touched a political vein in Ontario, where residents - unlike their neighbors in Quebec - don't get government-funded IVF coverage. In July 2010, Quebec became the first jurisdiction in North America to fund IVF. Last month aCanadian survey showed that 75% of Ontario residents supported health insurance coverage for in-vitro fertilization treatments.
Despite the political sentiment, some say the contest crossed a line, playing on the emotions of women who want to have children.
“The station is clearly, clearly capitalizing on vulnerable patients that are desperate to have a family,” Beverly Hanck, executive director of the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada, told the Toronto Star newspaper.
She said the contest also should not be construed as actually giving the couples a baby, labeling it "false advertising, as IVF treatments can fail," the Star reported.
Toronto fertility counselor Jan Silverman called the contest "commodification of babies, turning babies into products," according to the Guardian newspaper.
The radio station has defended the contest. “Our goal was to help out those people who don’t have the money that really wanted a child desperately,” Mauler told the Star.
From video that the station posted on its website, Tracy Broad, who won the IVF treatment with her husband Nathan, is heard thanking the public and the radio station for the chance to be a parent.
“Words cannot describe how happy I am right now and how grateful I am for all the support and the love that we received. And it’s my 30th birthday today," she said to cheers from the other families.
I think it's very important for all of you to know that this blog comes from cnn.com, which is a very credible source. This will enable you to approach your replies to this post knowing the credentials of the author.
ReplyDeleteFor the group who has posted, good job in finding an interesting article that we can deconstruct and analyze. Let's all remember to look at this from a rhetorical point of view. What are the arguments? What do they mean? Who are they appealing to? Group 2, do you have any questions to get the discussion started?
I found this article very controversial. I was astonished to see that a radio station could actually give away something so precious like a baby. As I continued to read the article I found out it wasn’t exactly a baby but in-vitro fertilization treatments, which does not always work as CNN explained. I believe that the radio station was trying to reach out to an older audience and held this contest to get more viewers to listen in. I think both sides of the argument have legitimate points. I think giving away a “baby” can be offensive to people trying to have kids and toying with emotions. Also, the radio station has no control if the in-vitro fertilization treatment would even work. However, the other side of the argument is they are giving the chance to 5 couples to have a family. CNN is a legitimate source and I think they analyzed both sides very well. Even though they made families happy, the radio station in my eyes went to far and used a child as a chip to get more viewers.
ReplyDeleteThis article, discussing the recent radio contest in Canada titled, “Win a Baby,” is from a credible source CNN.com. With that said, I think that is fair to say that the author must be an experienced journalist and, in my opinion, does a great job at addressing both sides of the argument, whether or not advertising for “winning a baby,” and providing families with free IVF treatments is ethical or not. By being able to address both sides and provide information and supporting facts for both sides, the author makes this article as unbiased as possible. As a result to this, the audience of readers increases because it does not limit the conclusions one can draw from this article to one perspective. Most who choose to utilize in vitro fertilization (IVF) to have children do so because they have struggled being able to become pregnant either due to infertility or older age. Therefore, I can conclude that the radio contest was directed towards infertile women who are trying to conceive a baby, and/or those of older age who want children, but have been unsuccessful at conceiving. I agree with Carly that the radio station may have possibly created this contest to increase the span of listeners or add diversity to their normal group of listeners. I’d be interested to know the type of music this radio station normally plays and what type of audience they normally attract. I’d also be interested in knowing other contest that this radio station has held. I think that if the station was holding this contest with good intentions, it is great that they are concerned and taking an interest in their listeners wants. However, I get a gut feeling that the way this contest was advertised, “Win a baby,” makes it not as ethical as it would have sounded if they would have revised the contest name. The current title suggests that a baby is a prize/object as opposed to a precious human, considered to be a gift from God by most. This could then lead to the idea that the radio station is trying to “play God,” an argument often associated with cloning and other new scientific discoveries regarding births, and other life altering experiments. I agree with Beverly Hanck, executive director of the Infertility Awareness Association of Canada, as reported by the Toronto Star Newspaper, that this title was false advertisement. According to attainfertility.attainivf.com, 75% of IVF patients actually have a baby. Therefore, winning this specific contest does not exactly result in winning a baby if one of the three IVF treatments each finalist was awarded with does not work. Overall, I personally do not agree with the idea of this radio contest given that most that are not able to conceive and turning to options such as IVF, are in a very fragile state already and this contest could lead to depression and other psychological problems on top of not being able to conceive.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the author of the blog did a good job at presenting both sides of the argument. I always feel that both sides of the argument are presented strongly when I am unable to decide how I feel about the issue. In this case I definitely do not know which side of the argument I am on because I can understand the issue from both angles. On the one hand there is the issue of presenting a baby as a product to be won. I do not agree with the argument that false advertising was used because any of the contestants should understand what IVF is and the fact that a baby is not guaranteed. The other side of the argument is that the radio station was doing a positive thing in giving five couples the opportunity to become parents. I think the radio station was trying to engage a wide audience because whether listeners supported the contest or not, they would easily get sucked in to the drama and emotions of the contest. I think the radio station was also probably trying to attract listeners with the controversy surrounding their contest. Americans would not even know about this Canadian radio station unless they did something controversial, like sponsoring a "Win a Baby" contest, that merited an article on CNN.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, that such a credible source would make this kind of news report is both shocking and confusing to me.I would think that such a reliable source wouldn't support a story so outrageous, because, something such as that could potentially damage their credibility. On the topic of the baby though, it is indeed controversial, but at the same time, there are valid points for each side of the argument, you just need to be open-minded to each. I've noticed that the other people who've commented, their first reactions were ideas such as, how could they treat such a precious baby like an icon? Well...also consider the side of the people receiving the baby. The people of this radio show, their intentions, may have only been just to improve people's lives, one family at a time, their intentions weren't to idealize babies as a toy or materialistic item that people can purchase. Perhaps this radio show could have advertised better, but just because of their slogans and the words that they use to get their message across, doesn't mean that their intentions couldn't have been for the good. The standards for being in this contest are also seemingly involved. The contestants are required to write numerous essays, which could therefore, possibly, rule out the people who may not be as dedicated to making a baby and having a family has other people. Also, in the article it was stated that there were "no dry eyes" in the room, which shows how passionate these couples were about receiving a baby. On the other side, yes, I do agree that babies or any human being, no matter the age, should not be portrayed as an object for purchase. And IVF does NOT guarantee the couples having a baby, but it may give them greater chances. So while people should understand this, not everybody does, so if one couple went into this contest with high hopes of having a baby, won in invetro, but then still didn't produce a baby, then that could damage the contestants emotionally. Therefore, the constants should be made aware that they are NOT winning a baby, they're winning a greater chance at making one. A bit of false advertising, but then again, what advertisers don't stretch their boundaries? There are both pros and cons to this story, and while most people will initially be outraged by the idea of essentially selling an infant, you need to look deeper into the story to find out what its really all about. The slogan "Win a Baby" plants the image of perhaps an auction with people just handing out babies, when really this is just an opportunity to increase happiness among couples who aren't fortunate enough to reproduce on their own. There's many ways to perceive this article, and it all depends on the words you choose to pay attention to.
ReplyDeleteI personally am against the "Win a Baby" idea that this radio station had. As CNN stated, babies is a soft topic for many adults, and is an idea that people can become attached to very quickly. Over a hundred women signed up for this contest, with each passing day , i can only assume, get more and more connected to the idea of becoming a mother. The families that won said they didn't think the babies were being turned into products, but I would be more curious to hear what the families that lost thought about it. And oncemore, if it doesn't work out for one or more of the families, will their thoughts of the matter change?
ReplyDeleteThe credibility of the source is apparent by CNN's reputation as one of the best in the world. Thehe journalist's reputation follows as a corollary. I disagree with Molly in that I am shocked that they would report something like this. Every newspaper has some sort of humanizing sidebar-like intriguing story. They expect readers to know there are more important things to talk about, but this is intriguing nonetheless. The article presented both sides quite fairly, but it's sources are hardly qualified. What business does a fertility counselor have discussing the implied commodifying nature of a radio advertisement. Are they implying that a fertility counselors understands the importance of a child more than any normal mother? Regardless, I, as a male, wholeheartedly agree with the commodifying overtones of the title. I wonder if the article author is aware of the baby black market in Nigeria. The radio advertisement is forwarding these ideas to boost their ratings. Therefore they have every reason to imply 'All you mothers out there, we're essentially handing these little things (babies) out, come grab one.' There is a strong counter argument, one rooted in the prototypical 'scientific explanation': that IVF is an inherently probabilistic treatment. Scientists play probabilities, therefore no scientific-based argument exists for: 'You will get a baby' or 'Win a Baby', even if they took the treatment three times. The radio is thus clearly pushing pathos. 'Win A Baby' has no roots in science, but has its roots in the hearts of every woman trying to have a child but can't. The title also strongly implies the idea that it is attainable for every woman. The article also mentions a woman, named Tracy Broad, who won the treatment. This single 'almost success' story is likely to fuel the radio hosts future advertisements: 'Local woman Tracy Broad wins IVF' will likely be the first few words. I strongly agree with Molly, this is a textbook example of needing to read further and carefully.
ReplyDeleteI believe that the "Win a Baby" contest that the radio station had was a good idea. As the source stated, insurance does not cover IVF in Canada where this contest was being held so this was a possible once in a life time chance for a pregnancy for many of the women that entered the contest. And the fact that this was a CONTEST means that there were going to be some women who did not win and I'm sure the contestants knew this before they started writing their numerous essays to win. So sure the women who did not win would be upset, like anyone who lost a contest they entered, but they knew this wasn't a 100% guarantee they would receive the IVF treatments. Furthermore, I don't see anything wrong with the slogan "Win a Baby." It only takes a little common sense to realize that a radio station could not just give away an already born baby in a contest even though that was the picture I get in my head when I heard the slogan. Finally, after going through the essays and screenings for the contest, it's almost certain the women who won knew they were getting IVF treatment and knew that it doesn't always lead to a pregnancy. And again the women might be heartbroken if the treatment doesn't work, but that is a risk they are willing to take to have the family they always wanted.
ReplyDeleteAs stated in previous posts, I also believe that both sides of the argument were presented equally with sufficient data and examples. It is difficult for me to decide if the “Win a Baby” advertisement promotes babies as a product you can win or as a child that you should love and cherish because I am able to see both sides of the argument. I believe this was a good opportunity for the people who won this contest because it gave them a chance to have a baby. Otherwise they may have never even received the chance to have a child. I do believe that the advertisement is somewhat playing with the emotions of the women because the ad states “win a baby!” There is no guarantee that the IFV treatments will work so therefore this advertisement may send off false hope to those women.
ReplyDeleteI am astonished that such a "prize" has been competed for on a radio station. The article is definitely showing a negative argument towards what this radio station has done with the quotes of the woman from the Infertility Awareness Association, and of the fertility counselor. I think that this contest is unintentionally portraying babies as merely prizes and objects to compete for. Though their intentions were pure, this was a poor idea for a contest. This article has invoked opinions from both sides. Both sides present good arguments for whether this contest is ethical or not. Of course there is the argument that the treatments may not work but also what if they do work and these families get to raise children in an environment that cherishes them when there are so many children born in harsh living situations. I agree with Molly about how it truly is about what you choose to see in this article and I believe that the same amount of people would be opposed as the people who are for this contest.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the rest of my classmates in saying that I think this source is very credible and does a great job in portraying both sides of the argument. The author presents the facts on both sides very evenly. I personally find nothing wrong with this advertisement. I can see the point that some people are making, saying that this ad is objectifying babies and making them into objects to be handled and not loved. However, I think it is important to look at the overall picture of this advertisement. The goal of this contest was to provide a few loving families with opportunities they otherwise could not have had. Also, the radio station that held the contest did not just give babies away to anyone that asked for one, nor was there just a random raffle. There was an extensive application process therefore weeding out any unfit parents-to-be. I do not agree with the idea of false advertising either. Since there was such an intense application process, those females that filled out the essays would have done research on the IVF treatment to see what they were getting themselves into. I agree the ad might have been slightly misleading, but calling it false advertisement is a step too far in my opinion. If the claim on this ad was not so strong and controversial, it would not have gotten as much publicity as it did. When viewing ads, it becomes part of our responsibility to ‘read the fine print’. When we see an ad pop up on our computer that says we are the 1,000th visitor, and we’ve won a free ipad, we also look for the fine print to see if it’s legitimate and what we have to do to collect our gift. We would do this for any contest we enter, as did the mothers-to-be would do for this particular contest. Therefore, they would know the possibility of not conceiving and therefore not winning a baby. Overall I think this advertisement is a bit risky, but I don’t think there is anything wrong with it.
ReplyDeleteThis article was very interesting to read because the author did such a good job in presenting such a controversial subject and displaying both sides of the argument with very little bias. Thus, I would consider it a credible source. With that being said, it is difficult for me to decide who I agree with. If I had to pick a side, I would say that the "Win a Baby" advertisement was portraying the babies more as a product or prize object rather than a human life. By analyzing the aesthetics of the radio station's website, one can see that the baby is portrayed more as a product. It is interesting to see that the "Win A Baby" advertisement takes up the majority of the page and has an eye-catching yellow background. The advertisement is also placed on the far left hand side which catches the viewer's attention first since readers naturally read from left to right. The baby's facial expression, with his mouth open wide, and his big, blue eyes only add to the advertisement's eye-catching effect. With all these aesthetic details in mind, it is as if the advertisement is implicitly telling the viewers to read on and follow their radio program. This sort of advertisement gives an implicit message that winning a baby is like winning a prize which can be seen as commercialization. This is also false advertising because, as mentioned in the article, it is not guaranteed that IVF will work. However, it can be seen that the people from the radio station genuinely wanted to help those families who could not have a baby, as stated in the article.
ReplyDeleteThis was an interesting article. And as others have stated, i think the author did a very good job in maintaining an unbiased point of view. That being said, I am definitely not a supporter of this "win" a baby campaign. I think that the basic idea of in vitro fertilization diminishes the relationship that must be formed between the people who create the child. But if the question is "does the advertisement promote the baby as a product?" I would say the answer is yes. On the website, the main page has a picture of a baby advertising that 5 people won babes. This does not necessarily mean that they are not promoting cherishing the baby, but it does make the baby seem like an object since prizes are typically things not people. This may be seen as a good opportunity for the people who won, since they are winning a procedure that is expensive and not funded by the government. And, yes the advertisement probably does play with the emotions of women who want a baby badly. If you want something bad enough, you'll do anything to get it, including entering a contest to win it.
ReplyDeleteThis article does an excellent job of acknowledging both claims. As a reader, my eyes are opened to each argument, and I very clearly understand both sides. Some feel blessed that they even have a shot at having a child and could care less the name of the contest. The name of the contest might be radical to simply draw attention to it. On the other hand, a baby is a precious gift for many. For a radio station to be handing out such a present in a way that a car might be given away is insulting. The audience of this contest is clearly for couples that have difficulty having children, and, depending upon their sensitivity to their troubles, might view this contest as either inspiring or revolting. Despite the feelings of both sides, this piece comes from a very credible source, from an experienced journalist for CNN, provides evidence for both sides and is not biased.
ReplyDeleteThis article is clearly credible and proves that the author is experienced. The author does a very good job of showing both arguments and supports his claims with evidence as well as background information. It seems that this article’s audience is very wide because the author addresses both sides of the argument so well. I think that the “Win a Baby” advertisement promotes baby as a product, but anything that is being given away or won is a product. However, the babies have not been born yet. Because of this, I do not think that this advertisement of selling babies is comparable to an average contest where someone one wins concert tickets or a free vacation. As peculiar as it is that a radio station is selling babies, it is as pure a gesture as any to give five families a chance to have a child. And the fact that when the families received the news that hey had won they started breaking down in tears and joy, shows that these families were not treating this contest as a product being sold but as a once in a life time opportunity to have a child to love and cherish. Of course this did get the radio station a lot of publicity and got people talking about the radio station, but they did something that would get people talking and it worked. The radio station chose to do something to help several families though who were more than appreciative of the radio contest. The idea of selling a baby is not right, but again, because the baby has not been born it justifies what the radio station did. The radio station really is not selling babies, they are just giving families an opportunity, an opportunity they more than likely would not have had, to have a child. Because of the opportunity, I do not think the radio station crossed any lines.
ReplyDeleteI disagree with this contest called " Win a Baby". This contest actually was made to promote the fertilization, however, this show seems like a completion program rather than advertising. As Jessica mentioned " I think that this contest is unintentionally portraying babies as merely prizes and objects to compete for. Though their intentions were pure, this was a poor idea for a contest." I also think think that depict baby as merely prizes and objects to compete for. It just looks like the program was intended to make money out of this comic show which takes advantage of baby.
ReplyDelete