Are public service announcements ethical?

[wuushew]

I assume most of us do not object to messages about drunk driving or literacy, but what about ideas that are no where near universal?

If anti-drug commercials target children and we are of the opinion that minors are impressionable and incapable of legally determined freedom of action, then is not the government through the sin of advertising/proselytizing perpetuating its own self-view instead of being independently respondent to the views of the population?

[Taverner]

1. I would take it a step further

Studies show that the "Partnership for A Drug Free America" (paid for by the tobacco and liquor industry btw) PSA's actually do the opposite

This data has been available to them since the 90's, yet they persist with their ads.

What does that tell you?

[ThomCat]

2. Exactly. Their ads are so bad

that they make drug and alcohol seem cool, which I would guess is part of thier marketting strategy. x(

[originalpckelly]

5. They have to do that because of a settlement...

bad settlement I guess.

[unpossibles]

3. I've often wondered if part of the problem is that when people realize

how unrealistic and wrong those ads are, they start to wonder what else they've been lied to about.

Not to mention that they are just plain stupid. Like the one with the kids and the gun - if anything, that is more an ad to not leave a loaded gun in a desk drawer... duh.

[Ellis Wyatt]

4. PSAs

But isn't the purpose of PSAs that they are universal?

Like you said, literacy, drunk driving, domestic abuse, kids not doing drugs, those to me are universal ideas.

What are the ones you feel aren't universal that are played?

I can see your point of not using ads to condition people in general, but isn't it the lesser of two evils to get them not to do something that's bad for them? Or do you think that the ads actually have a contra effect and ENCOURAGE the bad behavior (I'd be interested to see the data to support that argument)

I guess the only PSAs that I have a problem with are the anti-tobacco ones (not to start another smoking fight here), which force the tobacco industry (and I'd imagine government funds as well, but I'm not sure) to pay for ads which are targeted at convincing adults that they shouldn't buy a legal product from a legal industry. Just doesn't seem right.

[wuushew]

6. I don't believe marijuana use to be negative

it is non-addictive, has numerous beneficial medicinal properties, reduces stress, angers conservatives, etc.

Making marijuana and its associated products illegal harms races relations, deepens class divisions and retards the development of new pharmaceutical and industrial products.


If the government is intent to promote the idea that pot is bad with the next generation of voters, then how is this view to ever be changed via democratic process? How can a government be independently representative and simultaneously have an non-objective opinion by which it shapes policy?

[Ellis Wyatt]

9. fair point

I agree. Can't debate any part of your argument. Excellent point. I hadn't really thought of the PSAs in that way.

Pot (and mushrooms) should be completely legal immediately.

[ashling]

8. And what about those ads

against offensive jokes, and bullying.

the Founding Fathers knew that those rights were self evident. We have got to do something about thse activist PSAs that would undermine our freedoms!

:sarcasm:thingie

[wuushew]

7. kick

:kick:

[Bridget Burke]

10. No. Some of them may be silly.

But some of us have been watching TV ads for a long time. Surely we can tune out the irrelevant? Or change the channel.

In MY day, you Whippersnappers, there were no remotes! And only 4 channels. (Besides the Big 3, Houston's KUHT is the country's first educational TV station.)