Emily Briselli
CAS 137H
Section 002
It Can Wait
“No text is worth a life.” This sentiment, echoed so often in commercials featuring permanently disabled victims or parents who have been rendered childless because of car accidents, is poignant, and not one taken lightly by the general public. The choice to text and drive is so easy to condemn when sitting in front of a television, yet it seems to slip the mind of those same viewers who once thought they’d never do such an irresponsible thing as soon as they slide into the driver’s seat of a car. It’s easy to succumb to the mentality that one quick glance at the easily accessible, brightly lit screen won’t do any damage, and both AT&T and the Western Cape Government aim to discredit the idea that any form of distracted driving, especially texting, is ever acceptable under any circumstance. AT&T, through their “#ItCanWait” campaign ad, focuses the audience on the potential harm brought to others, while the Western Cape Government, through their “Safely Home” campaign ad, calls the viewers to examine the harm distracted driving may bring upon themselves. Despite a difference in approach, both AT&T and the Western Cape Government utilize constraints, intrinsic proofs and challenges to a dominant ideology to call the public to do one thing: fulfill their civic duty to drive responsibly.
At the center of both organizations’ arguments is the necessity to call attention to and prevent distracted driving, specifically texting. This issue has come to the forefront in part because of the high increase in number of accidents caused by distracted driving. In the United States alone, “approximately 9 people are killed and more than 1,000 are injured in crashes that are reported to involved a distracted driver (CDC).” With that in mind, both AT&T and the Western Cape Government decided it was time to take action against these entirely preventable tragedies, and each created their own ad campaigns. AT&T’s campaign, entitled “#ItCanWait” focuses on the idea that “we may be heading to different destinations, but we are all on this road together (AT&T)” and centers its advertising on a series of commercials portraying fictional scenarios that result in death or serious injury to innocent victims at the hands of a distracted driver. The Western Cape Government’s “Safely Home” campaign encompasses multiple causes of vehicular fatalities, including driving under the influence, speeding, and driving without headlights and brake lights. This particular ad highlights the potential detriment to the driver if they text and drive using a depiction of a car accident from the angle of the front seat.
In the AT&T advertisement, the final scene stating that “You’re never alone on the road. Distracted driving is never ok” intends to point the finger at the lack of responsibility of the audience as the major constraint on mitigating the number of distracted driving accidents. That is, telling the audience that their refusal to acknowledge the part they play in distracted driving accidents only aggravates the issue, and that the only way to prevent further tragedies is for the audience to accept that they play a role in the issue and try to readjust that role as one of positive change. Essentially, the biggest constraint on the issue that the viewer has a sudden urge to try and solve after watching the gripping advertisement is the viewer themself.
In comparison, the Western Cape Government takes a different approach to defining and stating the constraint, by placing the blame on the viewer’s’ inability to successfully complete two tasks at once rather than just being inconsiderate of the lives of those around them. The ad poses the question to the viewers of “if you can’t even text and walk… why do you think you can text and drive?” By phrasing the question this way, it isn’t blaming the viewers for not thinking about the consequences of their actions, but rather forces them to question why they think that they are capable of doing something as complex as driving while texting if they can’t even do something as simple as walking while texting.
Despite different approaches to presenting the constraints as a way to further the rhetoric, both AT&T and the Western Cape Government centralize the constraints around the idea that the viewer is responsible for creating a safe driving environment. Whether that be by acknowledging they are responsible even if they don’t want to admit it, or recognizing their own inability to complete another task while driving, both constraints can only be alleviated by the viewers owning up to the part they play in the issue.
Both commercials also employ intrinsic proofs to further their rhetoric and call to the civic to drive responsibly, however each takes advantage of a different proof. The AT&T video begins by cultivating the viewer’s admiration of the father’s responsibility as they watch him repeatedly ignore his phone with the best interest of the kids in mind. We then see him pull over to use his phone, making the viewers feel comfortable that he is, in fact, a responsible driver that does not allow himself to be distracted. Then comes the viewer’s experience with confusion as the young boy appears in the car, which soon settles into an uneasiness about the entire situation. The boy is out of place, and both confuses and concerns viewers for the father and the boy himself. Finally, the shock, sadness, and anger following the crash conclude the commercial. Viewers are shocked when the child disappears from the car and is, presumably right after the cut off, hit by the father. The thought of the boy who, seconds before discussed his position on the soccer team and friendship with the father’s daughter, became an innocent victim serves to evoke sadness, as well as anger within viewers at the father. They question how someone that seemed so responsible through the entire clip could make such an irresponsible decision. This roller coaster of emotions, an effective appeal to pathos, encourages viewers to ask themselves if, like the father, they would ever have a momentary lapse in judgement that could potentially have fatal consequences as well. The fear of recognizing they very well may, or already have, thought that just one time won’t hurt anyone is enough for them to give greater thought to where their focus lies when they are behind the wheel.
Similarly, the Western Cape Government takes advantage of intrinsic proofs, however they appeal to the audience’s sense of logic rather than their emotions. The opening of the video, while funny, serves a much greater purpose than just humor. It lays the groundwork and evidence for the assertion that texting and driving is dangerous, because it provides actual evidence that something much simpler, walking, is dangerous while texting. The advertisement provides a very clear cut argument: you can’t do something as simple as walking while distracted, so what makes you think you could do something as complex as driving while distracted? The logical conclusion is that you can’t. Yet people still attempt to do so, causing the audience to question why they would do something so logically unsound. The audience is faced with the illogical actions of others as a vehicle to expose their own mistakes and the unsound logic they are founded on, which the Western Cape Government uses as a technique for promoting their message of responsibility and civic responsibility.
Though different in the intrinsic proofs they use, both AT&T and the Western Cape Government make use of proofs to raise awareness of the dangers associated with texting and driving in an effort to end the dangerous practice. AT&T plays on the emotions of their viewers through heart wrenching and painful to watch scenes, while the Western Cape Government asks the viewers to consider the logic behind their decisions, both in the name of making the roads a safer place for everyone.
Finally, each artifact challenges dominant ideologies held by the general viewership of the advertisement. Take the AT&T ad, which repeatedly shows the father ignoring his phone when children are present in the vehicle, but once he believes he is alone, he doesn’t hesitate to check it. The father, like many of the viewers, hold the belief that their decisions have the greatest effect on themselves, and therefore less likely to cause harm to others when the decisions are poor. Why doesn’t the father check when the kids are in the car? Because if something happens when he has passengers, he is cautious of any potential harm that he could bring upon both himself and his passengers. When he is alone, however, he only thinks of the potential harm he could bring upon himself. Like many people, the father isn’t thinking of the bigger picture when the immediate effects seem only to resonate with him. However, when viewers see him accidently hurt the child even though he was alone in the vehicle, and therefore only aware of the consequences he could bring upon himself, they realize the magnitude of his decision on someone besides himself. The ideology that your decisions solely or primarily affect only you is shattered as soon as the father’s decision made when he is alone has irreversible consequences on another person. Now the boy suffers, as do his family, friends, parents, peers, and many other who may be connected to him. With that scene, the “#ItCanWait” effectively shows the audience that their long held ideology is not correct, that their decisions have a profound effect on many others than just themselves, and that the choice to drive distracted could put someone besides them in harm’s way, even if they don’t realize it.
While AT&T focuses on the ideology behind who your decisions affect, the Western Cape Government shifts their focus to the ideology behind why your make certain decisions. Most people are likely to say that they don’t intentionally put themselves at risk of danger, however the “Safely Home” challenges that idea. By first showing people doing a simple, mindless task (walking) and being harmed, not severely but still harmed, because they are texting, then showing a girl texting while behind the wheel, they indicate to the audience that the audience knows texting and driving puts them at risk, yet the continue to do it. This focus on the negative consequences on the individual viewer resonates with the audience as a whole, because they realize that, at least in this scenario, they are responsible for their own safety and there is no one to blame but themselves for accidents caused when they drive distracted. While they may believe that they don’t put themselves at risk intentionally in any part of their lives, the Western Cape Government shows the audience that texting a driving is a dangerous action that they know is dangerous, making them responsible for their failure to remain safe from harm.
Though the “#ItCanWait” campaign and the “Safely Home” campaign challenge different ideologies, both use these ideological challenges as a way to ingrain in viewers that they are responsible for safe driving practices. Be it a negative effect on themselves or on another person, it is up to them to maintain focus while driving in order to keep everyone safe.
Though different in approach, both AT&T and the Western Cape Government advocate for a change in the current driving practices of people across the world. Revealing constraints, employing intrinsic proofs, and challenging ideologies are all tools they use in the call the the greater public to be responsible and not allow distracted driving. Each campaign asks for very little of their viewers. They simply ask them to be safe, for the good of themselves and everyone around them. Each scene, sentence, and image in the two videos is different, but the message is the same: you are responsible for driving safely, no exceptions.
Works Cited
“DriveMode App.” AT&T It Can Wait. Distracted Driving Is Never OK., AT&T,
www.itcanwait.com/pledge.
“Motor Vehicle Safety.” Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention, 9 June 2017
“Safely Home.” Western Cape Government, Western Cape Government,
safelyhome.westerncape.gov.za/.
