Weekly Blog Posting 5

I didn’t want to go anywhere near the oil spill with these blogs. It’s just not an issue that I wanted to touch here; and on its own, it’s not really relevant either. However, I didn’t find much this week, and this article was really the only one that caught my eye. It’s not really about the spill though; it’s about a piece of advertising. It sort of got me thinking about how much freedom advertisers should have in what they say.

The article here is talking about an advertisement for New Orleans tourism that has been pulled because it was deemed “anti-British.” The ad was to let tourist know that the entertainment area is still “open for business.” This is a quote from the article: “‘This isn’t the first time New Orleans has survived the British,’ it read alongside a photo of Jackson Square in the French Quarter.” Representatives said that the ad was not meant to be offensive, but rather humorous. Should they have let the ad stand? They say it was meant to be humorous, but is that effective or is the oil spill too serious an issue to be making jokes about?

We all know about “false advertising,” but is it okay to “bend the truth” in advertising? I’ve heard things like when ads or labels say “Fat Free!” that the food may not really contain no fat, but that the company is not charging you for whatever fat content it has. These are only a couple of examples, but you get the idea. Should advertisers have freedom to say whatever they like, as long as it’s not an outright lie?

Weekly Blog Posting 4

The First Amendment, of course, protects the freedom of the press; sometimes I wonder, however, if members of the press abuse this right. For that matter, can it be abused? Is freedom simply freedom, without having to be responsible for one’s actions? I just came across this article, which got me thinking about this subject again. This is about a congressman in North Carolina who was questioned on the street by some unidentified students. They seemed to come from nowhere, from his perspective. The congressman asked them repeatedly who they were, but they never identified themselves; they only said they were students working on a project. The news story is of the congressman apologizing for his behavior. He physically restrained one of the students after the student started asking him questions (although, he was clearly not hurting the student). They were not exactly “the press” (and maybe not exactly “paparazzi”), but it is pretty much the same idea.

This could have been much worse (watch the videos). The older students here will remember incidents like Sean Penn attacking a member of the paparazzi years ago (late 1980s?), and many other such incidents involving celebrities have occurred over the years. So, how far does “freedom of the press” stretch? When does it become harassment? No matter your age, I am certain you are familiar with the events which led to the death of Princess Diana. “Freedom of the press” is one thing, but should they really have the freedom to accost celebrities and politicians on the street? The reactions of certain celebrities and the above congressman may be questioned, but are they not understandable?

Weekly Blog Posting 3

This week I came across an article which discussed a proposed television program being opposed by a conservative religious group. The Comedy Central network has a show (actually, it is an animated cartoon) in development which features Jesus Christ as an average person that moves to New York City to, as the network states, “escape his father’s enormous shadow.” The group somehow caught wind of the show, which is in the very early stages of development, and has already begun protesting it. The network has said that if the group is going to protest, they may be better off waiting to see if the show actually even goes into production. The group is saying that the show “would be offensive” (note the future tense), and has already contacted advertisers and gained nearly 100,000 signatures on a petition. This is all over a show which has not even gotten past the development stage.

If the creators of the show, and the network, choose to go forward, they have every right to do so under the First Amendment. This is television, of course, so there is the Federal Communications Commission to consider; some things are simply not allowed on network television. However, this is the network which airs South Park, and that show at times seems bent on trying to offend anyone and everyone. As long as they are not breaking any FCC rules, and the network is willing to show it, the creators of the show have the Constitution on their side. Do you think the group is overreacting, or are they justified in beginning protests this early?

Quotes are taken from this article: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100603/ap_en_tv/us_tv_jesus_cartoon