Saturday, January 30, 2010
Advertising
posted at 8:11 AM |
Permalink |
Not sure I understand the logic behind accepting the "I didn't have an abortion" ad but rejecting the "gay dating" ad. If "free speech" and "they handed us a check" are the bases for accepting the former, why isn't that the same reason for accepting the latter? It's not as if they're not both subjects that would be difficult for parents to explain to very young children, if very young children in the audience is the concern, but other than that, what's the problem? Many of us don't like all the medical ads - the endless, endless medical ads - but certainly don't expect them to be pulled even if I assembled all kinds of documentation to show that drug companies cause ill health (and plump up their bottom lines) by focusing on illness instead of wellness (not to mention the assault on our personal attempts to stay healthy). The point is that advertising is first and foremost a business transaction: you pay, you run your ad. I guess you can't espouse the overthrow of a government or anarchy or whatever, and shouldn't show truly horrible things, but otherwise, what the heck.
Labels: absurdities, modern times, tv
8 comments
Remicade has also been almost miraculous in helping my husband with his five autoimmune disorders. Now it is suggested that autoimmune disorders come about because the immune system has so little else to fight in a First World civilization where we have conquered many diseases. But I don't think people want to go back to the times when you had to worry about typhoid if you drank the wrong water, or getting polio and ending up dead or in an iron lung.
Drug companies have their faults, like everyone and everything else. I just had to point out how they have really helped, also.
< home >