The truth about the anti-tabacco TRUTH propaganda commercials
We’ve all seen them. A ridiculously-exaggerated metaphor is used to amplify the propaganda-tactics of the tobacco industry. The commercials are always heavy-handed and you can feel the self-righteousness just oozing out of the actors’ mouths as they project from their loud speakers to a group of curious New Yorkers about something a tobacco company did to (gasp!) increase profits.
The irony is that as they simultaneously pat themselves on the backs while trying to create the facade of mock outrage at tobacco company propaganda, they are using propaganda tactics of their own. As you may have noticed, they always make a reference to what “a tobacco company” did to mislead its customers. You can’t help but wonder, “Why don’t they name the company who said this?” It seems like they could really add some credence to their accusation if specific targets were named, and at first I thought that perhaps they were afraid of some kind of libel lawsuit from a tobacco company if TRUTH launched an attack directly at them. But then it occured to me that by generalizing their reference as “the tobacco industry,” they’re allowed to attribute the crime to the entire industry rather than just the company who perpetrated it. So now, instead of Camel being the company who sat around a table, trying to figure out ways to market cigarettes to kids, Marlboro and American Spirit and Newport and every other tabacco company are also included in the crime, even if they did no such thing.
This type of propaganda mirrors tactics used regularly by pundits trying to cloud the political discussion by merely attacking the opposite side with anecdotal examples which have nothing to do with the issue at hand. Watch any episode of Hannity and Colmes and you’ll see Sean Hannity set himself up for the pounce: first he affirms that the person sitting across from him is a Democrat, and then he reaches into his repertoire of out-of-context quotes and begins his attack: “Do you agree with Howard Dean when he says ‘All Republicans are evil?’ Do you agree with Murtha when he accuses American soldiers of eating babies,” etc… The anecdotal out-of-context quotes have nothing to do with the causes at hands, and merely distract from the main focus.
These are what these TRUTH commercials are: distractions from the main focus. Pointing out tobacco company propaganda certainly plays a part of that focus by disintegrating disinformation, but by using propaganda tactics of your own you shred your own credence. The goal shouldn’t be to attack the tobacco industry through smear tactics, but to attack its psuedo-science while alerting potential smokers of the dangers that are inherent with smoking. Then viewers can make an educated decision as to whether or not they want to smoke.
Trying to educate while at the same time being misleading with the information you have at hand can only lead to distrust for your own cause. So do us a favor TRUTH commercials, tell us the truth and don’t engage in hypocrisy in your plight. And tone down your self-righteousness by a factor of ten.
Related posts:Thank You for Smoking: If only lobbyists had it so good
The idea of “fight fire with fire” seems to apply here, although I agree that they have nothing to feel righteous about. As for simply alerting smokers to the risks, I think straightforward tactics like this have been used for years without much effect. Consumers ignore warning labels and Surgeon General warnings nowadays. They don’t want to be educated, so they ignore more rational messages. Maybe TRUTH just came to the conclusion that the only way to really get people’s attention on the issue was to use smear tactics and propaganda.
Mind you, I don’t necessary agree with TRUTH’s advertisements even though I’m against smoking. I’m just trying to play devil’s advocate.
Umm, actually TRUTH is funded by the tobacco industry as part of a settlement with the state’s Attorneys General. That settlement money comes from every company still in business making tobacco products. But that’s beside the point — why are you going after TRUTH for not pointing out a specific company? Does that mean if a company didn’t engage in pushing cigarettes at kids in that specific instance, that they either a.) didn’t do it in other ways or b.) make a safer product? No to both. Secondly, the brand names and manufacturer names have changed over the past 30 years, so one companies science may be being used by another, which doesn’t even exist anymore. For instance, 30 years ago a person could have said “Hey, RJR makes Marlboro” But now, the name of the company that sells those same cigs is Nabisco. Is Truth going to go after the snack-treat maker for comments made by RJR 30 years back?
Thus, TRUTH, by blurring the lines points out cigarettes, on a manufacturer-agnostic level, are bad for you…and anyone trying to sell them to you, regardless of the name of the company making them, is not looking out for your best interests. That’s the bigger picture — I feel you’re being a bit infantile in your infinitely regressive argument.
“Umm, actually TRUTH is funded by the tobacco industry as part of a settlement with the state’s Attorneys General”
Yes, I know, but I don’t see how this is related to the point that I made. The fact that the tobacco companies are forced to pay for the advertising doesn’t mean that they agree with the content within.
“Does that mean if a company didn’t engage in pushing cigarettes at kids in that specific instance, that they either a.) didn’t do it in other ways or b.) make a safer product?”
No, you’re engaging in shaky logic. You’re creating an if/then situation that isn’t always true. Is it possible that other companies have done it? Yes. Does it mean that every company has done it? No. Just because there’s a possibility that other companies have done it isn’t enough to accuse them of it. That’s why these ads are propaganda.
“For instance, 30 years ago a person could have said “Hey, RJR makes Marlboro” But now, the name of the company that sells those same cigs is Nabisco. Is Truth going to go after the snack-treat maker for comments made by RJR 30 years back?”
Very good point. Though I’m not sure that TRUTH should be using things that happened 30 years ago to smear companies today, or at the very least should say that it happened 30 years ago. Would it be fair for me to attack Bush for something Republicans did 30 years ago?
“Thus, TRUTH, by blurring the lines points out cigarettes, on a manufacturer-agnostic level, are bad for you”
I really don’t think TRUTH is doing this. They’re using smear tactics. They should try to highlight the health risks instead of being misleading. Show a picture of a lung that is cancer-ridden, something really disgusting, like a cancer patient on the throes of death or something. That’ll get people more motivated not to smoke.
“That’s the bigger picture — I feel you’re being a bit infantile in your infinitely regressive argument.”
I’m merely pointing out that the TRUTH commercials shouldn’t be hypocrites, because they’re creating a negative reaction against their campaign. A quick google search will find that there are lots of people out there who hate these ads, and several of my friends hate them as well. They’re shooting themselves in the foot.
Thanks for commenting,
–Simon
As far as I’m concerned, TRUTH is a front for the tobacco industry. After all, the tobacco industry and the alcohol industry are the biggest funders of Partnership for a Drug-Free America. Illicit drugs compete with their products, so they set up a front group which works with the federal government to criminalize the competition. And the government’s idea of drug rehab is to send drug addicts to prison. No wonder the prison population is obscenely large. I support drug rehab and drug decriminalization. There is a BIG difference between decriminalization and blanket legalization. Blanket legalization would be a catastrophe.