![[trees] ←(･_･┐) [forrest]](https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhOLUBBv_2fh5CSi5x5hiEt_DmNUfV0a_mVPKtZVuxu5vkbtoGWbnbFXgnwVJH_VkQcxo_mclVo8txUP1zwTw7msOI2svwNj_YCHH96pMfKk2Zdlovka8oNTbKq9arBKPWvjyEe9hY8HO0/s1600/123.png)
everybody knows anti-smoking ads work at reducing smoking rates. motherfuckin' fact yo
proof of this can be found in that even in the (fairly) recent debate sparked by the introduction of plain packaging: the argument against the reform was rarely about the effectiveness of such a measure, and rather was framed around the rights of the tobacco companies.
but the best evidence for how effective anti-smoking ads are is in the figures; less people smoke over time when public awareness campaigns about the dangers of smoking are run.
here is probably the 'best ever' anti-smoking ad i've ever seen:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gugjMmXQrDo
chilling, right?
now as i see it there are two possible ways to explain the effectiveness of anti-smoking campaigns:
the first is that the public at large, after a rational assessment of the heretofore unknown dangers of smoking, decides that smoking is indeed too risky of a pursuit for it to be worthwhile and gives it up (or never takes it up at all)
the other way you could explain the success of anti-smoking campaigns is that the saturation of horrifying ads featuring premature death by cancer or tar-filled organs slowly has an effect on people. over time seeing the same message repeated again and again begins to, consciously or not, affect people's behavior
now you could of course argue things like the price of smokes or changes in personal circumstance (or being allowed to smoke inside) determine the likelihood of someone giving up smoking, and of course that's true, but largely only on an individual level. (maybe not the smoking indoors point so much)
however at a societal level it seems like one, or some combination of both, of those things must be occurring. how else can the results be explained?
anyway, call me a skeptic but i think a rational assessment of facts followed by a concrete course of action gives too much credit to people at large. smoking was widely known to be dangerous for decades before anti-smoking legislation was brought in and smoking rates finally began to drop.
so the lesson to be taken away from anti-smoking campaigns is, perhaps, that if you repeat a message to the public often enough it's going to have a discernible effect. an individual smoker may not give a damn about a single ad during the sports showing a charred lung, but 3 million smokers watching 15-20 ads a week undeniably do.
now, as we all know, people smoking less is a good thing. more years to live, less healthcare costs yadayada..
but what if, say, it wasn't information regarding the harm caused by smoking that was being peddled?
what if day after day a different message was forced down the throat of the public? perhaps something along the lines of a (theoretically) left-leaning government being hopeless?
for instance do you remember these?
these very excellent, very reasoned and very impartial front page stories came from two very excellent newspapers coincidentally both owned by an american billionaire
even more of an amazing coincidence: this particular american billionaire owns over 70% of the entire media landscape in this country.
just to repeat: over 70% of all media in this country is owned by a single american billionaire (one described by the british house of commons as a crook and unfit to run an international business)
this billionaire right here actually:
media in australia is the most concentrated in the world, that's a fact just like anti-smoking ads reduce smoking is a fact.
every day millions of australians are not only exposed to murdoch's ideas, they are exposed to only his ideas.
with such a massive share of the marketplace murdoch can do more than just get his view across: he can set the entire debate. it is hard to understate the importance of this.
and just in case you found those above examples too old or too impartial, here is a recent one news corp ran with for the announcement of the election date:
now the most common explanation for why it's okay that the overwhelming majority of media in australia is absurdly biased is that murdoch has a freedom to expression and as owner of those newspapers he is entitled to have them print anything he wants.
people dont have to read it! defenders of this laughable system say. and people dont believe everything they read!
now ive riled against the gigantic-businesses-should-share-the-same-rights-as-an-individual argument before so i shan't do it again.
but i will point out how stupid it is to claim that the american criminal billionaire is entitled to use his implied freedom of speech (we don't have a bill of rights here remember) to totally dominate political discourse in this country.
most people aren't interested enough in politics to read blogs and analyses online. they basically glance at the newspaper for their information, as they were taught to do in school where no doubt they were told that newspapers are an impartial provider of information. LOL
i also wonder why nobody seems to have a problem with a foreign criminal (not an exaggeration) having arguably a larger say over the future of this country than many of our elected leaders?
[to be honest i dont really wonder why: as a proud protectorate of the us empire it's a mark of pride to be so thoroughly dominated. i mean, if we had a problem with that then we probably wouldn't like foreign troops based inside our country too, right? and besides murdoch was born an australian! he only chose to spurn us is all...]
[i suppose all im saying is that i couldn't see a chinese billionaire or an oil sheikh being allowed to own the majority of all major papers in this country.]
in any case-- the funniest thing in all this is that every day people read these newspapers as though they contained trusted information. i see them doing it. i do it. perhaps you do it too. because hey, you gotta read something.
also especially funny is the argument that murdoch doesn't have a gigantic say in australian politics despite totally dominating the media. because hey, people dont have to believe everything they read! (implication: people should probably believe nothing)
this billionaire right here actually:
media in australia is the most concentrated in the world, that's a fact just like anti-smoking ads reduce smoking is a fact.
every day millions of australians are not only exposed to murdoch's ideas, they are exposed to only his ideas.
with such a massive share of the marketplace murdoch can do more than just get his view across: he can set the entire debate. it is hard to understate the importance of this.
and just in case you found those above examples too old or too impartial, here is a recent one news corp ran with for the announcement of the election date:
now the most common explanation for why it's okay that the overwhelming majority of media in australia is absurdly biased is that murdoch has a freedom to expression and as owner of those newspapers he is entitled to have them print anything he wants.
people dont have to read it! defenders of this laughable system say. and people dont believe everything they read!
now ive riled against the gigantic-businesses-should-share-the-same-rights-as-an-individual argument before so i shan't do it again.
but i will point out how stupid it is to claim that the american criminal billionaire is entitled to use his implied freedom of speech (we don't have a bill of rights here remember) to totally dominate political discourse in this country.
most people aren't interested enough in politics to read blogs and analyses online. they basically glance at the newspaper for their information, as they were taught to do in school where no doubt they were told that newspapers are an impartial provider of information. LOL
i also wonder why nobody seems to have a problem with a foreign criminal (not an exaggeration) having arguably a larger say over the future of this country than many of our elected leaders?
[to be honest i dont really wonder why: as a proud protectorate of the us empire it's a mark of pride to be so thoroughly dominated. i mean, if we had a problem with that then we probably wouldn't like foreign troops based inside our country too, right? and besides murdoch was born an australian! he only chose to spurn us is all...]
[i suppose all im saying is that i couldn't see a chinese billionaire or an oil sheikh being allowed to own the majority of all major papers in this country.]
in any case-- the funniest thing in all this is that every day people read these newspapers as though they contained trusted information. i see them doing it. i do it. perhaps you do it too. because hey, you gotta read something.
also especially funny is the argument that murdoch doesn't have a gigantic say in australian politics despite totally dominating the media. because hey, people dont have to believe everything they read! (implication: people should probably believe nothing)
saturation campaigns change behaviors. exactly in the way that anti-smoking ads work the attacks by big business (news corp is definitely big business) against the party that is ever-so-slightly willing to put people before profits (EVER so slightly) slowly changes the opinion of society at large, especially over time.
for as much as an individual might vehemently deny that the newspapers have an impact on their opinions it is all but certain the society at large is affected. otherwise how come advertisements work hmmm?
you're not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater or over a megaphone-- it's considered an abuse of the freedom to expression
but you ARE allowed to buy up every newspaper you possibly can and have them all tow the same hyper-partisan line, apparently. it's all G dude, just so long as yo makin money!
everybody knows the newspapers are bullshit anyway. im sure the majority of australians would be aware it's all owned by murdoch (or else possibly fairfax). im not presenting anything new here.
we as a country are A-okay with the total foreign domination by a reactionary criminal of the institution most essential to the proper functioning of the public sphere (in the habermas sense)
the newspapers are bullshit!
for as much as an individual might vehemently deny that the newspapers have an impact on their opinions it is all but certain the society at large is affected. otherwise how come advertisements work hmmm?
you're not allowed to yell fire in a movie theater or over a megaphone-- it's considered an abuse of the freedom to expression
but you ARE allowed to buy up every newspaper you possibly can and have them all tow the same hyper-partisan line, apparently. it's all G dude, just so long as yo makin money!
everybody knows the newspapers are bullshit anyway. im sure the majority of australians would be aware it's all owned by murdoch (or else possibly fairfax). im not presenting anything new here.
we as a country are A-okay with the total foreign domination by a reactionary criminal of the institution most essential to the proper functioning of the public sphere (in the habermas sense)
the newspapers are bullshit!
