Attractive (and tortured) logic

Having written a fair amount of copy over time, I can sympathize with the necessity to edit, edit, edit, and then boil it down. Sometimes that's a fair excuse and we can give a message a pass, most of CPG ads for example. But, many messages suffer not from helpless "pithifying" but willfully sloppy or even misleading thought, i.e., intellectual dishonesty.

Take for example a current major oil company commercial. There are only 3 or 4 main components, and the images are clear and simple, the spokesperson forthright and believable. But strip away the images and here's the train of thought:
- The United States has problems with the economy and with energy.
- It may come as a surprise that we have a lot of resources right here.
- In fact, one of those resources can create thousands of jobs.
- And the resource can be as "clean" as resources are now.

First car is straightforward, pose the problem and the issue. Second car is promising and offers encouraging information. Third car (the wheels are losing touch), that resource happens to be in Canada and has been providing a resource boom for that part of our northern neighbor.

So (and the derail occurs here) those thousands of jobs already exist and - at least to a large extent - they exist in Canada, not the U.S. Finally, the claim that an oil sands resource can be as "clean" as many existing sources of oil is presented as a surprising benefit, a payoff whose claim is arguable in the least.

This exercise is not about the merits of oil companies presenting corporate advertising in support of their investments and operations. Nor is it about the merits of the oil sands and the resources and jobs they create.

What is in question is the - at minimum - practiced laziness of the argument. To pose that Canadian oil sands can help the U.S. with its economic and resource problems partly by creating thousands of jobs is logically faulty, if not willfully misleading, attractive images notwithstanding.