NYC Soda ban response

                The video is basically an exposition on the NYC soda ban, and also the general idea of America’s obesity. For the majority of the video, the speaker and presentation takes no “sides” or expresses no opinion on the topic. It simply helps present and explain the subject to the viewer. It does a good job of this by using statistics, interviews, and physical representations. Doing things such as comparing different size drinks next to each other, interviewing Bloomberg, and explaining some of the 62 pages of the actual bill give the viewer direct visuals and explanations of the topic at hand. This explanation allows the viewer to develop his or her own opinion on the topic.

                The tone of the video is somewhat critical, but also understanding. I think it is difficult to create a video like this without sounding critical. When people have something they feel is a personal “choice” or “right” taken away, their first reaction is to be defensive and skeptical. The video’s use of literally “x’ing” off the drinks that are too big and displaying the high sugar levels of non-banned beverages supports this reaction. The video does a good job of countering this reaction by explaining the ways around the law. It shows how a person could buy multiple 16 oz drinks, a 2 liter bottle from the store, or even buy a “big gulp” from the privately owned restaurants. By posing this counter perspective, the tone then moves to understanding and reasonable. Again, this difference in tone helps the viewer to develop his or her own opinion on the law.

                The American public faces a constant struggle with obesity, and therefore the video wants its audience to be all of America. Whether the issues range from banning soda sizes to limiting calories, the overall topic at hand is personal health. I think the ending of the video does a good job of explaining this. The speaker refers to the law as “ridiculous”, but also says the law has forced people to think about the overall issue of health, which is a “good thing.” The end of the video somewhat exposes the speaker’s opinion on the law, but also shows that the speaker believes in the effort that is being made. I think this is very important for the success of the video because it still enables the viewer to not feel pressured into thinking negatively about the law while learning about the overall topic of health in America.

                My personal opinion on the law is mixed. But who doesn’t have mixed opinions when it comes to the government structuring your life? The trouble of creating legislature is trying to make everyone happy while still having to make sacrifices. Overall, I think the law is quite fair and does a good job of confronting the overall issue of health. Taking away the larger drinks in most restaurants may seem like a removal of personal rights, but the ability to buy several drinks, buy larger drinks in other places, etc helps balance this. Ultimately, I think the law allows people to exercise their personal rights if they really want to while doing a great job of establishing a common awareness of health. I think the law is a small cost for a larger, good cause.