I stumbled across an interesting post at random blog "The Phydeaux Speaks Experience" (which hasn't been updated in about two years) during my Georgia-Russia research this weekend. It raised some points I can't help but wonder about myself, and I thought you three CU readers might do the same.
For instance, why do we have ads about the dangers of drug use but not the dangers of rape or murder or other violent crimes?
The author of the "Phydeaux" blog gets down to business, suggesting we either start seeing ads telling us not to rape people, or stop seeing ads telling us not to use illegal drugs. He chalks it up, and rightly, I'd say, to government hypocrisy that we're seeing one kind of ad and not the other -- and he again rightly points out that the people most affected/incarcerated by the War on Drugs are disproportionately people of color, and that putting nonviolent drug offenders in jail means releasing more violent criminals to make room.
Good points, and I'd like to add to them.
I think part of the reason we don't see anti-rape ads is that the public doesn't want to hear about rape while watching reruns of Friends. It's distasteful to think about violent crimes during dinner, or primetime, when we're supposed to be thinking about consuming the goods that advertisers have paid TV stations to make us want. We're supposed to be thinking about the real commercials.
And maybe that's part of it, too -- drugs are seen as a product, something to be purchased and consumed (or, if you have a bathtub in the basement and no fear of fiery death, produced), while rape and murder are actions you take.
But I think the main difference here is that we already know murder and rape are wrong, in our hearts. We don't need ads telling us not to do these things, because they make us feel bad, and they make the people around us feel bad. Drugs often make people feel good (until they don't anymore -- I'm not advocating drug use, here), and it's not natural law telling us not to do them. It's the government.
What this means for legislation is beyond my expertise. But what do you think?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, since you asked, I believe you're right in your asessment. It would be strange to see a commercial or print ad asking you not to commit these acts. REALLY think about it using your favorite show, SYD, as a launch point:
Coming up next on SYD, the contestants try to Tango...and...please don't kill or rape anyone. These heinous acts are morally and ethically reprehensible.
SO disturbing and weird. Remember the old, "This is your brain on drugs commerical?" The one where they crack the eggs in the frying pan? Imagine what would certainly be a troubling metaphor used to depict a murder or rape. No thank you.
It has to do with audience. Though I think we can agree that the "brain on drugs" ad series was really more of a cultural reference point than an actual drug use deterent, I think these ads probably did more to reach their audiences than an anti-rape or anti-murder ad would. The murderer and the rapist are unlikely to ever be affected by such ads - in many cases, they do not consider their acts "morally and ethically reprehensible." Now, the unintentional accessories to the crime or those people who have information and don't help police are easier to target in ads, because they do have that sense of right and wrong and are more likely to be impacted by the advertising. I have in fact heard an ad on the radio about straw purchases, reminding listeners that purchasing a firearm for someone else is illegal and that these buyers will be found and prosecuted. That's the closest I've seen to an anti-murder ad.
I think you could put anti-domestic violence ads (like this one with Keira Knightley, http://www.cnn.com/2009/SHOWBIZ/Movies/04/02/knightley.violence.ad/index.html?eref=rss_latest) in the anti-rape ad category, since many of these women are abused sexually as well as physically in their relationships.
Post a Comment