You already know the feeling: an advert sells you a better version of life, you buy in, and something about it does not sit right. Today you put one contested advert on an honesty-to-manipulation spectrum, give your reasons, and decide whether you would complain. That written verdict goes into your Communication Portfolio.
Three words do the work today.
| Term | What it means for you | Real example |
|---|---|---|
| Misleading: a claim that leaves a reasonable person with the wrong idea, even when the wording is carefully true. | You judge the idea the ad plants, not only the dictionary meaning of each word. | A cereal box saying "helps support focus" when the only proof is a tiny staff survey. |
| Green-washing: dressing a product as kinder to the planet than the evidence supports. | Nature colours and soft words are not proof. Ask what was measured. | A plastic bottle covered in leaf graphics and the word "eco" with no numbers behind it. |
| Complaint: a formal report that an advert has broken the standards advertisers sign up to. | A complaint can get an advert changed or pulled. Your job is to say whether you would make one, and why. | Reporting a health claim on a snack that had no real evidence behind it. |
You will have met the same pattern on everyday Irish shelves: packs that lead with "natural" or "eco" while the small print carries the real ingredients or footprint story. The skill is spotting that gap, whether the brand is on a shelf or invented for class.
Worked example. A yogurt pot says: "Scientifically proven to boost your mood." Small print: "Based on a survey of 18 staff at our head office." The big line sells science. The small line shows a friendly office chat. That gap is where misleading lives. Hold that gap in mind when you open the next advert.
Open the LeafLine social post below. The full post is your evidence pack for the verdict next, so read every line, not only the headline:
Tap every zone you think is working on you. Some spots hide a technique; some do not. Collect what you find. You will cite specific lines from this same advert in your Ethics Verdict Sheet.
This is the piece for your Communication Portfolio. The main job is your written Ethics Verdict Sheet: a short formal communication that places the LeafLine advert on the honesty-to-manipulation spectrum, backs that place with two details from the post (headline, claim line, crowd line, stars/price, or small print), and states whether you would complain and why.
Sequence: spend about two minutes on the opinion line to test where you stand, then protect the rest of the time for the sheet. Finish the sheet in class if you can. If the bell goes mid-write, complete it for homework and file it in your Communication Portfolio as m3_l77_ethics_verdict_<your-initials>.
Talk this through with the person beside you, or sit with it quietly.
Where do you personally draw the line between clever advertising and a promise that has gone too far? Name one kind of claim you will now check twice before you trust it.
If you want the longer thinking, put a few lines in your Reflective Journal later: one claim like LeafLine's carbon or "eco" line that you have seen outside class, where you would place it on the honesty-to-manipulation spectrum, and what you notice about it now.
You're previewing this lesson. Get full access to this lesson and hundreds more — each one ready to teach, with interactive activities, printable resources and pupil progress tracking built in.