Kalle Lasn is a fighter for the right to communicate. A privilege, says the founder of Adbusters magazine, that goes one step farther than the freedom of speech. “You can stand on the corner and shout at people as they are going by,” Lasn says. “But if a handful of corporations have media in their pocket, they can totally hoodwink the… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (4)Page 1 of 1 pagesThe Abuster examples shown, Assolut vodka, and Joe Chemo are fantastic - very potent. The advertisers paying the broadcasters would be very unhappy to see adds like these air. You can imagine the pressure they would exert on the broadcaters not to air Adbusters adds. I suppose that’s just common sense.
Posted by Tonykennelly on Apr 9, 2008 at 3:33 AM While i would not have a problem with anti-alcohol ads, to single out a particular product seems way over the top to me. Plus the idea that alcohol is harmful in and of itself - when used in moderation - is just silly. Perhaps we should try to bring back prohibition?
The generic postcard against milk is better, but neglects to mention soys negative effect on hormones. I guess adman are adman, even when they attempt to be “on the other side” (ala the anti-adman postcard).
All in all, the site seems pretty dumb. But dumb people should have access to the airways too, as long as they remain generically dumb (that is, attacking a product like tobacco, as opposed to attacking a particular version of same, such as Marlboro).
Posted by wolf on Apr 9, 2008 at 4:31 PM Respectfully wolf, as a subscriber to AdBusters, I have to tell you it is the opposite of dumb. I would suggest reading more deeply into their incredibly astute analysis of the effects of advertising on our thought processes.
A true media democracy would allow contested viewpoints on any topic - including advertising. And I would think that using an advertiser’s brand against them to put out the truth about their product, would be the most liberating thing that a media activist could do.
Power to the people, and use the corporations “work” against them as much as possible. It is an effective way we can take back our thoughts!
Posted by tpurplesage on May 2, 2008 at 5:16 PM The article expresses the poor situation that the public finds itself in the age of consumerism. The list of problems is huge.
Start with the fact that the media has a control over access. They decide what is good for us. They also decide what is good for them, which is money to fund their corporations. There was a time that programming was the main point of TV, now it has become reversed with advertising the main point and programming is only the lure for advertising dollars.
Examine the commercials themselves. Cars fly, actors can be superheroes, and medications can turn you into a perfect human. Products and the imagery don’t match reality anymore, plainly false advertisement but allowable as advertising is now produced as entertainment that virtually competes with the programming in the symbiotic relationship.
The part of advertising that is most offensive to me is the effort to sell us the idea that indebtedness is a virtue, a mostly successful effort. And now that the economy is turning south that virtue is becoming a chain around our necks. Yet, the effort still continues and people are simply lulled into believing it after so many years of an onslaught of fancy imagery that we need to buy this or that mundane thing on credit.
And why is it that we never see some sort of public service advertising to counter this, to advise us that reckless debt isn’t a good thing? Because TV is not going to bite the hand that feeds it.
Along these lines, the worst series of TV ads I’ve ever seen is the credit card company that portrays consumers as nothing but robots flashing their card assembly line fashion until…gasp…one consumer uses cash or writes a check thereby gumming up the smooth running debt machine. The check writer is looked down upon for slowing the process despite being the only person using fiscal prudence.
What kind of society have we been advertised into that a person that wants to actually live in the present fiscally rather than expect their future to fund their extravagance is considered a pariah?
Posted by Jon B on Jun 15, 2008 at 9:35 PM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by James H. Ewert Jr.
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1979 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
462 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
427 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2008 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
