Irresponsible Publicity

Publicity that encourages people to do stupid, harmful, dangerous things. We have a notion that people should be allowed, past an arbitary age limit, to make self-harmful choices freely if they so wish. But this goes one step beyond Thank You For Smoking. This is about encouraging giving cola to infants (not that giving it to slightly older children and teens is much better anyway). Are there any laws about this kind of thing? Too many brands go way too far fighting for bucks. So what should society's stance on this be? Should there be a law?

edited 18th Feb '12 5:20:28 PM by MarkThis

Hey, if all they harm is themselves, I'm okay with that. Even up to the point where they kill themselves. Social Darwinism and all that.

Assuming you can get infants to drink cola (I'd think they'd scream bloody murder the instant they felt the carbonation), I don't really see the problem.

I think that we should focus more on educating people and less on regulating what can be marketed to whom.

Poor parents will be poor parents regardless. Even if they don't let them give their kids cola, odds are there are worse things going on.

I don't know how you could regulate stupidity. You can't just ban all ads or promotions that might cause "harm" without opening up a billion loopholes and unfair practices.

I don't see any means to regulate such matters that would be worth the time and effort.

What my lady said. Teach people to spot harmful advertising, rather than regulating the advertising. It might be just as hard but it's probably more effective in the long run.

Problem is, teaching people to notice when they're being manipulated makes them very cynical when it comes to, say, being interrogated by a cop, ordered around by a boss, sermoned by a priest, or drilled by a sargeant instructor. Not all manipulation is bad. People have tried such educational projects in the past, and were shut down.

@Everyone: do you mean to tell me that, were this publicity to be responsible for the suffering and perhaps long-term damaging of one or more infants, the well-meaning, naïve parents who believed in the "scientific research" supporting the paper and only wanted the best for their children (to fit in) are fully responsible, while those who devised such an inane piece of work should be free of all resp-

Hm.

A thought occurs to me. What about lawsuits? Are they intended to replace a-priori legislation? Do they work better than the Obvious Rule Patch, by terrorizing companies into caution in a way the government couldn't?

What, does cola have some sort of bad effect on infants that I'm unaware of?

Very high concentration of sugar, and there's the carbon. I'm no pediatrist, but that can't be good, especially as a habitual consumption as the ad seems to encourage.

And which one of those is good manipulation?

edited 19th Feb '12 2:07:33 AM by Qeise

Presumably, when the police are trying to find out from a witness the exact situation of a crime, they would prefer said witness not to be automatically hostile and second-guessing them all the time.

And the police can't find out the truth without manupulation?

I dunno, ask the policy makers who implement them, and those who vote for them and/or pay for them with their tax money.

I don't think the issue is exactly that they need to manipulate people to get it. Just that, if people are cynical and constantly thinking "Somebody is out to manipulate me! I must be suspicious of everything!" they don't trust people.

Society needs some amount of trust to function correctly, you have to agree with that.

This is especially true when dealing with kids and teens. If they don't trust you, training them becomes very hard.

What would make that worse for an infant than it would be for anyone else?

An infant's biology. They're... in a sense... half-formed. Therefore, the effects of a certain substance on them is amplified.

I think actually harmful ads can be banned... Also those that states outright lies (I think there was a problem with yogurts or water claiming superior health or something recently)

In Britain at least, ads are already heavily restricted. You can't advertise for sweets during children's programmes, for example, all gambling ads (which have only been allowed at all recently) are banned from directly referencing gambling as being enjoyable, all alcohol ads are banned from associating sex appeal with alcohol or its effects, etc.

Indeed. They even have to suggest "do X responsibly" incredibly openly. Of course, there's the issue of "light" foods actually technically being "heavier" than thier standard counterparts. e.g. some "light" foods have less fat than their standard version but more sugars. Sometimes people can be easily swindled by the vocab used by corporations.

And the NHS health ads... well, lets say watching some of them at the age of 12 means you definitely won't be stupid with your health.

Misleading ads are actively monitored; since public complaints are welcomed, they lead to genuine results. Even if the regulators themselves miss something, a problematic ad is certain to be brought to their attention by someone. Hell they reject a lot of complaints, which means people if anything overreport rather than underreport.

Also, it's not just alcohol ads that have to say "please consume responsibly"; a lot of food ads are required to point out that any implications of health benefits from consuming the food will only come when it's eaten as part of a balanced diet (so, they're not allowed to imply that binging on large quantities of that product won't undermine any benefits).

Regulations will only ever get tighter in this area.

Of course, I can't speak for outside Britain and the OP may not be from here.

edited 19th Feb '12 6:36:30 AM by CaissasDeathAngel

Indeed. I think it's due to the governmental culture here; we favour some state intervention in return for protection of society, whereas in America, the state is seen as an evil meddler in people's affairs.

Sorry, but isn't that, like, a really really old ad in the OP? I'm pretty sure advertising regulations forbid ads like that nowadays.

Well, you've seen the Americans who were the first to reply to the thread. According to them, people should be free to make their own mistakes and then be held fully responsible for them. Honestly, if there's such a weak regulation on publicity content as they seem to suggest, I'd rather have it banned outrisght, than having to go through the effort of critically evaluating every single potentially lying/harmful ad I see, especially if they are frequent.

I for one don't think media basing their revenue on publicity is healthy or responsible in any way, from a social and economical standpoint.

edited 19th Feb '12 9:31:10 AM by MarkThis