Via Fark
New York fumes over anti-smoking ad
The kid is only alone for a few seconds. Is it really that big a deal? Beyond that it makes a salient point.
Oh noes! Someone made a child cry! Emotional terrorism doesn’t even begin to describe how evil the makers of that commercial are. They are worse than Bin Laden. In fact, they are the Hitler of anti-smoking ads! Wont SOMEONE think of the children?
Needless to say, I don’t see the BFD.
I don’t see the big deal either. It makes a valid point.
Won’t somebody think of the children?!
It’s not that bad. Now, anti-marijuana ads are so fucking stupid they make me want to go out and buy some pot and smoke it now. Dear projecttruth or whoever you are: we know you’re lying. Stop it.
- I fucking hatehatehate with a passion when people say shit like “New York fumes over anti-smoking ad.” What, all of us? Cause I haven’t even seen the ad, and some probably don’t care, and some other people probably like it. I know, it’s for headlines. Truth in the paper, my ass. This is why all newspapers should go the way of the dodo.
- It’s a kid crying, BFD. I’ll watch the ad tonight, but hey! kids cry.
- The point is very very valid. And it does get the message across.
- “It’s almost terrorism”??? Huh? So having to see an ad of a kid left alone crying is equivalant to the World Trade Center getting blown up?
Gah. I’m right with Diosa.
I think it’s a great ad, as someone whose loved one died from a smoking related illness. Hopefully some people will stop smoking if they think about how their death from smoking will hurt their families.
I was expecting this to be about one of those gruesome photos of a diseased lung that people tend to react badly to. It is a serious over-reaction to make a fuss about a few seconds of a child crying!
I think the outrage is not the ad itself, but the tactics they used to get the child crying. They really did separate that little boy from his mother.
It’s not the worst thing in the world. It probably won’t traumatize the child for life. But is it something I would volunteer my child for? Hell no.
Well, this certainly isn’t the first time a child actor has cried on film, is it?
One thing I’d criticize is that, while smoking causes a lot of health problems and deaths, it really doesn’t leave a whole lot of young orphans. Ads about smoking don’t have to be unrealistic to be horrible, so why pick on a fairly uncommon scenario? The horror is more likely to be an older or adult child watching a parent die a painful death from the consequences of smoking.
I actually thought it was going to be some scenario where she left the kid alone to run into a bar or something to buy a pack. Kinda like “if your addiction makes you do that, that’s messed up!”
At least they didn’t pretend to off his dog off-screen.
On another board I frequent, though, this is being portrayed as an incredible evil. I don’t really get it either.
Intended to tug at your heartstrings? Definitely. Tantamount to terrorism? :rolleyes:
With the use of “terrorism”, I was expecting something a lot more graphic, like throwing the kid down the stairs and a voiceover saying this is what it’s like when you’re pregnant and you smoke.
I’m bothered that the blogger had such a huge reaction. Horrified? Terrorism? Give me a break.
How and why are people in New York even seeing an Australian commercial?
Apparently I’m an evil bastard. I saw the first 3/4 of the ad and thought, “You know, the voiceover that’s coming up really should be, ‘Sorry, Billy. Your Mom’s been raptured. Good luck surviving the plagues.’”
As an anti-smoking commercial, it was a lot less annoying than anything from “Truth.”
Seems like journalistic sensationalism is alive and well. If there ain’t news, make it news!
What? Fuming? Why?
I’ll say this- that commercial’s a damn sight more effective than those stupid truth commerials. They just make me want to smoke more.
From the reactions quoted in the first post, I was expecting it to be a recreation of 9/11 with the planes replaced by cigarettes. I was underwhelmed by the actual video.
I suspect the outrage is caused by a certain amount of pre-emptive defensive anger by people who are predisposed to be defensive about anti-smoking commericals.
From what I’ve read, the anger is that a kid would be separated from its mother for x amount of time, thus making it cry. I don’t think it’s a huge deal, but a lot of people think it’s unethical or whatnot.
Well, I’m not outraged, but I certainly think it’s a stupid ad and a waste of money. People quit smoking when they decide for themselves that they want to.
For those who think this ad is good or might help, a question: if you have to see an ad 13x or whatever before you consider buying a product you otherwise wouldn’t, what do you think the stats are for smokers that reform due to such a commercial?
Why does New York care about some Australian commercial? Talk about much ado about nothing.