0:00 – 0:04
“An attempt to increase organ donations and save lives is stirring up a big controversy.”
~ The newscaster claims that this controversy is big, saying that this is a massive problem in society. While it is a problem, i would not claim it to be big when in fact i had not known about it until this video.
0:10 – 0:15
“18 people a day nationwide die waiting for an organ!”
~ What backs this claim up? Sure, the number could be right but is it always 18 people a day flat or does the number vary day by day?
0:15 – 0:19
“Theres a plan to save some of those lives but many wonder if it is the right thing to do.”
~ Do many wonder? Back to the first claim, how many people are actually aware of this plan? At least, how many outside of the bubble of waiting for themselves/someone they know waiting for a transplant?
0:34 – 0:37
“Needless to say Monique is a registered organ donor. Cindy is too.”
~ The reporter is right, it is needless to say. why does this information matter? It is only to add effect to the report and not used as any viable information.
0:45 – 0:52
“It’s their choice, but in a USA today article, a suburban New York assembly man wants to take the choice out of organ donation.”
~ False! Completely false. Later in the report, she explains how he just wants to make organ donation an opt-out policy rather than an opt-in. This still offers choice. It’s not like this assembly man is advocating everyone must donate their organs when they do not need them anymore.
1:03 – 1:15
“In Kansas, 500 people are on the waiting list for transplants. In Missouri, 1,700. But midwest transplant network CEO Rob Linderer believes the current voluntary donation system is the way to go.
~ this is laughable. I have 2 claims here. First one concerns the first 2 sentences about statistics. Why put these statistics in this report. Again, 0% relevancy. Especially since they are not even in the same area of concern. Tell me the statistics of people in New York.
~ The second claim concerns the entire section of the video. Not only does the first part have no relevancy in the video at all, but its an awful platform for the second part. Seriously, how do either of these end up in the same sentence? It would make more sense if he brought up the New York statistics with the first part, or cut to the correspondent straight from talking about the plan rather than putting a pretty irrelevant sentence in the middle, splitting them up.
1:15 – 1:23
“We would certainly save lives on the wait list, but i don’t believe presumed consent will get us to 100%.”
Did the correspondent really just openly admit that presumed consent is better but he is opposed because it will not yield 100%, just like the system we have now is doing. Not to mention 100% is a completely ludicrous standard to put that policy to.
1:23 – 1:28
“Even with her mothers life hanging in the balance waiting for a transplant, Monique agrees.” [To opt-in policy]
~ Is the news trying to create a bias towards an opt-in policy by showing how Monique of all people wants to keep the system the same, or are they trying to put her in a bad light with what i believe is the newscaster’s choice of dramatic tone?
1:39 – 1:43
“Choosing to wait [for a transplant for Monique’s mother] until someone chooses to help.”
~ Ermm.. ya.. people choose to help, but your waiting for someone who did choose to help to die, not consent to donation.
alwaystired247
AnonymousStudent
azntaco
beforeverge
BigBabyBaller
bitagaming
breakingbad1820
Caravan
cinderella1013
davidbdale
Yankeelover18
fatboy489zt
giantsfan224
glacierfreeze21
gobirds17
green0728
gymrat230
Gir
jerseymikes1106
jesusisking1738
jetsfan806
Kenneth Alex Krug
manipulator66
mercythyhealer14
McCormick Karner
mochaatrain
oni
powerranger
peanut2348
pinkcottoncandy4
princess01430
redbird1123
rubes1256
shxrkbait
sillyinternetperson
soulpond47240
spatel8267
stingingcrib5
tacotyphoon
thepersonindisguise
usmnt23
worldofjuice999
xephos1
Counterintuitive Fall 2022 
Professor, if you’re not busy, could you leave me feedback? Thanks.
~Vinny
Feedback provided. —DSH
Hey, Vinny!
0:00.
Yes, I imagine this is a bit of hype.
0:10.
Sounds like you’re joking, Vinny.
0:15
Surprisingly few can be described as many. Those few you identify (waiting for organs), certainly are not among those who wonder “if it is the right thing to do.”
0:34
It seems reasonable to me, when you’re about to ask the ladies for their position on organ donation, to divulge their own status.
0:45
You’re precisely correct and the reporter is guilty of inexcusably sloppy reporting (or worse, deliberately misleading reporting). Awful.
1:03
It is laughable. The man should lose his job immediately.
I’m not sure why you think the number of people waiting for organs is irrelevant. If there’s no waiting list, there must be enough organs available without presumed consent. The odd irrelevancy is that the Assemblyman is from New York. The reporters, I think, are broadcasting from Kansas or Missouri. The organ official represents the “Midwest Organ Bank” or something like that. The New York report only made it to Kansas because it appeared in USA Today, so the whole country saw it. The local news is trying to make it relevant locally.
1:15
Yes, he did, and that is precisely why he should not only be fired, he should be executed for his organs. (But he’s not a correspondent; he runs an organ bank!) He thinks voluntary is “the way to go” because “presumed consent” won’t “get us to 100% donations.” (But it might get us to 100% of the organs we need!)
1:23
Nobody could make Monique’s idiotic position sound good.
1:39
Unbelievable.
Nice work, Vinny.