Reality
Check: Winners and Losers
After reading the case
study, I can say that I am biased towards the side of Stanek. What he said
actually made sense: Lotteries give an equal chance of winning without regard
for one’s economic stability. After all, they all pay the same amount of money
to play. Second, it’s not like the “poor” are forced to join; they join out of
their own free will.
I honestly believe there’s
nothing wrong with the campaign. It’s true that the lottery is an “easy street”
to take in gaining riches so I do not find the campaign offending at all. Nor
does it sound like it’s targeted towards the poor; even the abled dream of
getting riches the easy way sometimes. Another thing I don’t understand is why
the protectionists thought that the lottery preyed on the unrealistic hopes of
the poor. Are they saying that the poor relies more on fast money? Are they
saying that the poor are easily fooled and manipulated? I agree with Stanek
that it seems as if the protectionists are insulting the intellect of those who
play lottery games in general.
Yes, I do think that the
campaign made the lottery a lot more enticing, but then again, all forms of
gambling are like that. I don’t see why the marketing campaign for the Illinois
State Lottery must be made an issue. The campaign was just effective, that’s
all. In the end, it’s up to the people whether they will invest $1 to try their
luck, invest more or none at all; and if they’ve used up all their life savings
on the lottery and still lost, it isn’t the fault of the lottery. It’s the
people’s responsibility to know when enough is enough.
No comments:
Post a Comment