Which came first?...Or The Evil Media is at it again!

[llynya_blue]

Not that I am really the bleeding heart type, but This article presents some interesting correlations between advertising and lifestyle/social class.  So now my question is:  Does the advertising really help to maintain socioeconomic and racial segregation or does it merely take advantage of an already present situation that is unlikely to be

Comments

Re: Who is in control

[llynya_blue]

Yeah, but the article deals primarily with billboards. You can't help but see them while driving, they're part of the environment you're supposed to pay close attention to while being a safe driver. You can close your mind to the message, but you still have to look at it. Choosing to not let it affect you helps, but even by choosing to ignore it you are still being affected by it. You saw something you didn't like and now have to devote attention to pushing it from your mind. That simple act causes you to remember it.

The media doesn't want to be ignored, especially in advertising. They are finding more and more intrusive ways to convince you to spend money all the time based on who they think will be most likely to spend money on their products. One way to express distaste in ads that promote stereotypes or unhealthy choices is to actively refuse to buy the products they advertise or speak out against them. Some of the people in the article did just that. My question is, is potentially banning certain types of ads the answer? Will it even help? Is it ethical or constitutional? What if it was a case of alcohol and tobacco ads in schools or places where children frequent? Or ads for community churches or local radicalist groups or abortion clinics all where children (as well as adults) will be exposed to them on a daily basis? Or what about alcohol ads right outside of a meeting place for AA members? Is limiting advertisers based on morality (or just pure bad taste) a good thing?