Final answer:
The ethics of ad companies using emotional manipulation and potential restrictions is a complex subject entwined with advertising ethics, regulation, and free speech. While advertising can be persuasive and pervasive, current regulations demand truthfulness in factual claims. Congress has debated limitations, considering the balance between free speech and the potential for deception.
Step-by-step explanation:
The question of whether ad companies should be restricted in their use of emotional manipulation, such as pathos, is one that touches upon ethics in advertising and the role of government regulations. Naomi Klein's 1999 book No Logo points out the corporate branding practices and their societal effects, highlighting the possibility of anti-consumerist responses to such corporate power. In our current era, advertising is indeed pervasive, creating a synergistic environment where consumers receive the same brand message across multiple platforms.
Emotional appeals in advertising can target a wide range of emotions and are designed to influence consumer behavior. However, the relevance of these appeals to the actual qualities of a product or a service is often questionable. Media reliant on advertising revenue may steer clear from negative contexts, possibly affecting the diversity of views presented to the public.
Congress has considered various restrictions on ads, balancing the need to curb misleading practices against the right to free speech. While current Federal Trade Commission (FTC) regulations allow for a certain degree of exaggeration in advertising, they also mandate that factual claims must be true. Thus, there is a fine line between permissible puffery and deceptive advertising.