OK, who said Chiquita banana? Who said Dole pineapple? Did anyone go as far as POM pomegranates?
Once you've done that, scroll down. Yes, be patient with me...
The BRAND of our produce, many times, isn't expressly told to us. SO, how did you KNOW? I would venture a guess that, unlike many fresh fruits and veggies, we have seen COMMERCIALS for these few things. And it left an impression.
Now, that isn't to say all my bananas, pineapples, or even pomegranates are branded. They probably aren't. But those few commercials left their mark.
And do we argue that advertising works, or doesn't work? Better yet, who is most susceptible to that advertising? Well, has anyone ever gone into the grocery store and had their kids just BEGGING, pleading for some Cap'n Crunch or some Cookie Crisp? OK, so the kids are young. And we make our best attempt to steele them against corporate brainwashing in the form of advertising, as they learn and grow.
Can we argue with the success of QVC or HSN, which are basically retain outlets, hosting one infomercial after another just to make sales? Who is most susceptible to THESE marketing attempts?
Did you think of the elderly, who live alone and really don't have any contact with the outside World, other than the occasional family member coming to visit? Maybe they don't get out to WalMart much to see what prices are really like, or to realize that the As Seen on TV things are in fact available everywhere. Or maybe they are just bored, and react to these commercials because it's the closest thing they are going to get, to true human interaction -- when they pick up the phone to place the order.
Maybe you thought of the uneducated, who might find it difficult or even impossible, lacking a basic understanding of math or economics, to make wise buying decisions. These folks, in the absence of any other argument to the contrary, might say "Well, that sure seems like a good idea to ME..." and buy, not even knowing there is a better, cheaper alternative somewhere.
Or did you think of the slightly off-center people, who can be talked into just about anything given time. Those of infirm mind, who are less able to fend off a persistent message, even if they have had the education and social experiences that SHOULD have allowed them to politely say "No thanks.".
Well, there we have it... Advertising works. Not just on the children and elderly, the uneducated or infirm. But those groups might be more susceptible than many.
So now, go back to the part you scrolled down to, and replace the idea of advertising with political vitriol, or suggestions to "take aim at" and "take out" your opponents, or 2nd Amendment remedies, or something of that ilk. Put in with those, the idea that providing healthcare to more people or limiting the accessibility of extended clips for semi-automatic weapons, as being "tyrrany".
And then just stop to think for a second: Who would be most susceptible to THOSE messages?
I would go so far as to say that Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachmann, Sharon Angle, Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh are NOT to blame for any mass shootings. But the fact remains that they are ADVERTISING violence. And who is that message most likely to stay with and affect the most?
You get someone who is most susceptible to advertising, and you send out a barrage of this violent message, and eventually, someone's gonna buy it.
So is it their FAULT? Well, no, of course not. But to prevent this sort of idea to "take back our government from the forces of tyranny, by whatever means necessary" from being acted on, without limiting these's people's rights to free speech... We're going to have to outlaw being really young, really old, really ignorant, or really unbalanced.
As a taxpayer, what is your best solution? Do you want to pay for policing peoples ability to make good decisions and stay above the influence of public personas advocating violence? Or do you want to limit the accessibility of assault weapons. Do you want to give a test to every American, young and old, periodically to make sure they are mentally up to the challenge of preserving peaceful discussion, and not resorting to violence or the threat of it? Or do you want to make it unacceptable for ELECTED OFFICIALS to actively incite people to take up arms?
Just because someone is not at fault, doesn't mean they didn't contribute. And it doesn't mean we can't aspire, as human beings or as a Nation, to higher standards of conduct.
No comments:
Post a Comment