Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'  (Read 10301 times)
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #40 on: August 01, 2011, 08:21:05 AM »
ReplyReply

I hope the American government stays out of stuff like this.  I don't want my tax dollars spent because some wrinkled woman mistakenly thinks that applying some foundation on her ugly face is going to make her pretty.  Frankly, if it makes her feel good, we should all mind our business.
I symphatize with that. But:
* If _you_ choose to buy snake-oil, audiophile cables, anti-wrinkle-cream etc, that is your choice. Me and the government should stay out of your more or less informed dealings with the seller.
* If some company blatantly lie in public, then I think it is in the publics interest that they are slapped on the wrist. Now, this might happen through one or more consumers, consumer-interest organizations or federal authorities sueing them, or there may be laws in place for the authorities to directly intervene.

Many countries have special laws protecting citizens against alternative medicine practitioners, and most western countries have laws forcing you to honour a written contract.

What constitutes a lie? I think that any claims that cannot be supported by something similar to a peer-reviewed scientific paper should be dismissed as a potential lie. If cosmetics companies cannot document positive effects of their anti-age creams, then theyll just have to market them as "making you feel good". What harm is done`?

-h
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #41 on: August 01, 2011, 08:24:07 AM »
ReplyReply

I suppose I have a lot more faith in the general intelligence level of our country's individuals.. who by the way make up our government.

It will be my undoing I'm sure..  Wink
A few are very smart, a few are idiots, and most of us are somewhere in the middle.

Demanding that any claim can be supported by peer-reviewed science should not demand too much from politicians and bureaucrats. It is still no guarantee that stuff works, but should atleast filter out the most stupid stuff.

-h
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #42 on: August 01, 2011, 08:40:14 AM »
ReplyReply

I symphatize with that. But:
* If _you_ choose to buy snake-oil, audiophile cables, anti-wrinkle-cream etc, that is your choice. Me and the government should stay out of your more or less informed dealings with the seller.
* If some company blatantly lie in public, then I think it is in the publics interest that they are slapped on the wrist. Now, this might happen through one or more consumers, consumer-interest organizations or federal authorities sueing them, or there may be laws in place for the authorities to directly intervene.

Many countries have special laws protecting citizens against alternative medicine practitioners, and most western countries have laws forcing you to honour a written contract.

What constitutes a lie? I think that any claims that cannot be supported by something similar to a peer-reviewed scientific paper should be dismissed as a potential lie. If cosmetics companies cannot document positive effects of their anti-age creams, then theyll just have to market them as "making you feel good". What harm is done`?

-h

1.  It hasn't been shown they lied.  Actually I didn't see any written promises on their advertisement at all.  It did say "“recreates the aura of perfect skin.”   Which correct me if I'm wrong.. Aura means to "create a feeling.."

2.  Contractual law doesn't seem connected unless you're trying to say a country's legal system is for the good of the public, therefore strict oversight on advertising is too.  Which I don't buy.

3.  So.. guilty until proven innocent?   And they did market the product as "creating a feeling."  Such studies are already required for medical products and greatly raise the price of pharmaceuticals and medical devices right through the roof.. do we really need to do that for every product sold?  Or just makeup?

Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #43 on: August 01, 2011, 08:42:32 AM »
ReplyReply

A few are very smart, a few are idiots, and most of us are somewhere in the middle.

Demanding that any claim can be supported by peer-reviewed science should not demand too much from politicians and bureaucrats. It is still no guarantee that stuff works, but should atleast filter out the most stupid stuff.

-h

1.  Which are the ones who think the other ones need protecting from themselves?

2.  So you're asking the competition to review their products?  Yep, I can see that working..  Roll Eyes
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 08:44:17 AM by Steve Weldon » Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #44 on: August 01, 2011, 08:44:35 AM »
ReplyReply

3.  So.. guilty until proven innocent?   And they did market the product as "creating a feeling."  Such studies are already required for medical products and greatly raise the price of pharmaceuticals and medical devices right through the roof.. do we really need to do that for every product sold?  Or just makeup?
"We" need it for every concrete marketing claim, not for every product. Cannot afford to make a study of your product? Fine, then dont claim anything about it that you cannot support. It is as easy as that.

-h
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #45 on: August 01, 2011, 08:50:15 AM »
ReplyReply

1.  Which are the ones who think the other ones need protecting from themselves?
I dont know. I think that the distribution of libertarian or anarchistic vs social/liberal is a quite flat function of intelligence. You will find smart people and idiots subscribing to both.

I never said that I wanted to refute a stupid person to buy a stupid product, only that the seller should be refuted to lie about its performance. Therefore, I am not talking about protecting anyone against themselves, but protecting them against bad people.

Do you think that it is ok to allow anyone to practice medicine, regardless of their education or track-record? Should anyone be allowed to drive a car or own a weapon? Or can rules make society "better"?
Quote
2.  So you're asking the competition to review their products?  Yep, I can see that working..  Roll Eyes
By "peer-review", I was talking about scientific people with a good standing in the respective field. Peer-review is not a flawless mechanism, but I think that it is one of the better alternatives.
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 08:52:50 AM by hjulenissen » Logged
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3960



« Reply #46 on: August 01, 2011, 11:35:59 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeremy, I heard that argument before. I still find it utterly ridiculous. There are many acts individuals commit daily that affect us all ultimately, yet we do not impose fines for it. Eating junk food and drinking sugary drinks leads to obesity which leads to many illnesses, for which we all have to pay (either  by taxation or by higher insurance rates). Alcohol consumption is known to have huge social and health consequences, yet we do not fine those who drink themselves to death or illness. The same goes with tobacco. As another poster already noted, the list can go on and on forever. Pretty soon government would tell us what to watch on TV and fine us for watching something else (hmmm... come to think of it, I would vote for a ban on all those time-wasting, utterly stupidifying reality shows and contests Wink).
That's not an attack on the argument, Slobodan: it's a concern about the response to the problem.

The argument on principle is over, certainly here in the UK and I rather suspect in the US as well. There is general agreement that the state does have a right to prevent its subjects (UK) or citizens (US) from indulging in behaviour which is likely to result in harm to themselves. The remaining debate is about the permissible extent of the interference.

Wearing seatbelts in cars is compulsory. For motorcyclists, wearing crash helmets is compulsory. Some drugs which cause harm are illegal: some (such as alcohol and tobacco) aren't, mainly for historical reasons.

I'm with you on reality TV, though.

Anyway, we're drifting off topic. The job of the ASA (which is not a government body) is to ensure that advertising is, in its slogan, "legal, decent, honest, truthful". It took the view that heavily retouched images in an advert for a cosmetic failed on at least one of the four counts. It asked the advertiser for before and after shots, the better to inform its decision, and was refused them (for, no doubt, perfectly good contractual reasons: the women concerned didn't want to be widely seen as they actually look, presumably). They therefore required the adverts no longer to be used.

Some will see that as authoritarian censorship and therefore a Bad Thing; others, as prevention of deception and therefore a Good Thing. You pays your money (or not, in this case) and you takes your choice.

Jeremy
Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #47 on: August 01, 2011, 12:13:35 PM »
ReplyReply

"We" need it for every concrete marketing claim, not for every product. Cannot afford to make a study of your product? Fine, then dont claim anything about it that you cannot support. It is as easy as that.

-h
I just don't see this as practical or even legal.  And on the product in question I don't see any claims being made other than it 'creates a feeling'.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #48 on: August 01, 2011, 01:11:00 PM »
ReplyReply

I dont know. I think that the distribution of libertarian or anarchistic vs social/liberal is a quite flat function of intelligence. You will find smart people and idiots subscribing to both.

I never said that I wanted to refute a stupid person to buy a stupid product, only that the seller should be refuted to lie about its performance. Therefore, I am not talking about protecting anyone against themselves, but protecting them against bad people.

Do you think that it is ok to allow anyone to practice medicine, regardless of their education or track-record? Should anyone be allowed to drive a car or own a weapon? Or can rules make society "better"?By "peer-review", I was talking about scientific people with a good standing in the respective field. Peer-review is not a flawless mechanism, but I think that it is one of the better alternatives.

a.  I agree.  And it also touches on what I've already said to Slob that how much we want government to be involved in our lives is a fundamental question we must all ask ourselves.  Or should.  Far too many are too lazy to think about it.

b.  Well, since the "bad people" aren't forcing anyone to buy their products it is indeed protecting them from themselves.  Call it what you will, but I have faith that the individual (if not careless or negligent) has more than enough intelligence to decide if most products are right for them despite any advertising claims.  And you do know actual written claims (even used in advertising) are covered under contractual law?  They must meet specific criteria like any legal claim, but the courts are already full of such claims because there's a mechanism in place for false/wrong claims.  I don't see any claims other than "creating a feeling" being made with the advertisement in question.

It's funny, I haven't heard one person in this thread step up and say "Ya, I bought ten bottles of that stuff for my wife and she still looks like a frog and I wish someone had prevented me from wasting my money."  In fact, every person in this thread easily sees what's happening at face value without any rules or regulations or scientific reviews.  So where are these people who need protecting?

c.  Well yes, people do practice medicine with a variety of educational and vocational backgrounds.  I'm not sure I see how your question applies. 

Kinda on topic, do you think these regulations/requirements and the political influence exercised by the AMA has anything to do with the USA's skyrocketing medical costs?  Something we might want to think about before asking for "protections" we should be able to provide for ourselves. 

I've spent most of my adult life in Asia and I've been exposed to "alternative" medicines and different levels of government regulation.  For instance, in most of South East Asia you can walk into a pharmacy and purchase what would be prescription medicines in our own countries, over the country with/without the assistance of a trained pharmacists (who are trained to a much higher level than our own pharmacists).  This is seen as an area where individual responsibility is used to keep costs in check.  And it works.  For example, a months supply of blood pressure medication can be had for a buck.   In some SEA countries (Thailand for instance) drugs which can be abused must be prescribed by a doctor, while in others (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) you can buy opiates over the counter.  Sure, people end up hurting/killing themselves, but surprisingly few. 

Overall, their medical costs are extremely low compared to ours, and virtually everyone has access to basic medical care.  But no, they're not nearly as competent or well equipped as we'd find in John Hopkins.. But not everyone has the same access or the same low costs.  So in many cases, that fundamental question of government involvement directly affects not only what a product costs, but in many cases if we get it at all.  Sometimes we can't afford the level of government involvement we desire, as witnessed by the global economic issues we're currently facing. 

This really brings home the fact that we have a responsibility as citizens to only ask for what we can afford, and to not be frivolous in our demands.  When we take the big picture into account, now how much do we really need/want govt involved in a dispute over how well a makeup foundation works?  It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for.

d.  Rules 'can' make society better, they can also make it worse.  It's a fallacy to suggest that because one rule (for example what I think you tried to say by showing that medical licenses are regulated) is good for us, all rules will be good for us.  It's not logical and an obvious fallacy.

e.  Not all products have "scientific people" involved.. And I still think it wouldn't be an accurate or fair system because of lobbyists and special interests (hired by competitors).  I see it being more of a political cluster*uck and more power grabbing.  All in the name of protecting the individual.  And it would severely mess with the free market system unnecessarily raising prices past the point of feasibility.   You are familiar with the adage "the cure is often worse than the disease?"  Imperfect indeed. 

Interesting thread, and great exchange!
 
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #49 on: August 01, 2011, 01:39:20 PM »
ReplyReply

c.  Well yes, people do practice medicine with a variety of educational and vocational backgrounds.  I'm not sure I see how your question applies.  

Kinda on topic, do you think these regulations/requirements and the political influence exercised by the AMA has anything to do with the USA's skyrocketing medical costs?  Something we might want to think about before asking for "protections" we should be able to provide for ourselves.  
Well, I live in Scandinavia and here it is illegal to "treat" e.g. cancer without the right background, and we spend significantly less on medical costs than the US (I am not sure how the treatment you get for the money differs, but tend to believe that it is somewhat similar on average. The wealthiest people living close to the biggest US cities probably get a better treatment than me, but so far I have had only good experiences.). I tend to think that the main cost driver in the US is the privatization of the insurance part.
Quote
I've spent most of my adult life in Asia and I've been exposed to "alternative" medicines and different levels of government regulation.  For instance, in most of South East Asia you can walk into a pharmacy and purchase what would be prescription medicines in our own countries, over the country with/without the assistance of a trained pharmacists (who are trained to a much higher level than our own pharmacists).  This is seen as an area where individual responsibility is used to keep costs in check.  And it works.  For example, a months supply of blood pressure medication can be had for a buck.   In some SEA countries (Thailand for instance) drugs which can be abused must be prescribed by a doctor, while in others (Cambodia, Laos, Myanmar) you can buy opiates over the counter.  Sure, people end up hurting/killing themselves, but surprisingly few.  
In many of those countries, you can get antibiotics over the counter. In that case, the widespread use of those medicines tends to foster strains of bacteria that are resistant. Clearly a case where the exercise of individual rights clash with other peoples health.
Quote
This really brings home the fact that we have a responsibility as citizens to only ask for what we can afford, and to not be frivolous in our demands.  When we take the big picture into account, now how much do we really need/want govt involved in a dispute over how well a makeup foundation works?  It's a classic case of being careful what you wish for.
I agree. The amount of government involvement is a difficult one. Since there are no black and whites, we are left to debating and forming the policy dynamically over time. Life as a semi-sceptical pragmatic is a whole lot less exciting than being a fully fledged fanatic :-)
Quote
d.  Rules 'can' make society better, they can also make it worse.  It's a fallacy to suggest that because one rule (for example what I think you tried to say by showing that medical licenses are regulated) is good for us, all rules will be good for us.  It's not logical and an obvious fallacy.
What I tried to say was that claiming that everyone knows their own best clearly is not a golden rule that we are following to day anywhere. So it seems that most governments (and their voters) think that people should (to some degree) be protected from themselves. The question then is to what degree, and with what means.
Quote
e.  Not all products have "scientific people" involved.. And I still think it wouldn't be an accurate or fair system because of lobbyists and special interests (hired by competitors).  I see it being more of a political cluster*uck and more power grabbing.  All in the name of protecting the individual.  And it would severely mess with the free market system unnecessarily raising prices past the point of feasibility.   You are familiar with the adage "the cure is often worse than the disease?"  Imperfect indeed.  
It seems that you are argueing for the right to sell any product. I am all for it. What I am saying is that you should only make claims that you are able to support. Ok, maybe you are an uneducated farmer selling "natural" potatoes. Then explain what you have done to them and how many customers like them. Why does the future of the free market rely upon you making claims that it will make you more virile, when you have done no investigation to figure out if this is the case? Does the free market rely upon producers telling lies?

-h
« Last Edit: August 01, 2011, 01:46:25 PM by hjulenissen » Logged
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #50 on: August 02, 2011, 02:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply

. I tend to think that the main cost driver in the US is the privatization of the insurance part.

In many of those countries, you can get antibiotics over the counter. In that case, the widespread use of those medicines tends to foster strains of bacteria that are resistant. Clearly a case where the exercise of individual rights clash with other peoples health.

I agree. The amount of government involvement is a difficult one. Since there are no black and whites, we are left to debating and forming the policy dynamically over time. Life as a semi-sceptical pragmatic is a whole lot less exciting than being a fully fledged fanatic :-)

What I tried to say was that claiming that everyone knows their own best clearly is not a golden rule that we are following to day anywhere. So it seems that most governments (and their voters) think that people should (to some degree) be protected from themselves. The question then is to what degree, and with what means.It seems that you are argueing for the right to sell any product. I am all for it. What I am saying is that you should only make claims that you are able to support. Ok, maybe you are an uneducated farmer selling "natural" potatoes. Then explain what you have done to them and how many customers like them. Why does the future of the free market rely upon you making claims that it will make you more virile, when you have done no investigation to figure out if this is the case? Does the free market rely upon producers telling lies?

-h

a.  I was having this discussion earlier with a friend who lives in Austria and comparing/contrasting our systems, care, costs, etc.. and we decided that it was just too dam* complicated for our little heads, so went and had an Orange Julius instead.. ;o)   Seriously, the insurance certain is a big factor, but I tend to think it's where we restrict the insurance companies (for example, you can't live and be treated in California and buy insurance in any state other than California) more than that we allow them at all.  The alternative to private insurance is govt insurance.  Truthfully, we're pretty good at sending Tomahawk missiles into other peoples countries, but I wouldn't want to count on any government managing my health care.  Which actually they do, as a military retiree and 100% disabled vet I'm stuck in their Veterans Administration Hospitals.. and while they have their advantages.. it's not the first place I go when I need anything serious done.

b.  Yes, there will be 'some' people who use too much antibiotics.. and they are extremely cheap and sold over the counter, but when you compare the number of people who have access to antibiotics who need them and get them, who otherwise (if they were more controlled and more expensive) wouldn't get them, to the people hurting themselves by using them when they shouldn't.. and I'd guess the former far outweighs the latter. 

So yes, there are always bad points about any system, so do we look at the overall aggregate care, or do we target specific areas?   Most often smaller 'targeted' goals are made political to the detriment of the overall aggregate. 

c.  I agree, and sometimes it's just fun to play the fanatic for a thread or so just to keep it interesting.. Smiley

d.  We both agree you should be allowed to sell any product (I'm sure with the exceptions of items prohibited by our current laws such as different types of weapons, medicines, etc).. but no, I don't think lying is relied upon, but I do think this falls into the "business ethics" part of the free market which is essential.. Ethics, good or bad, are one of the controls which guide consumers to one company or the other, insuring their success of failure.  You could say, without a steady stream of companies with bad ethics to keep consumers on their toes, the really bad companies might go unnoticed and get away with murder.. ;o)
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #51 on: August 02, 2011, 02:33:46 PM »
ReplyReply

b.  Yes, there will be 'some' people who use too much antibiotics.. and they are extremely cheap and sold over the counter, but when you compare the number of people who have access to antibiotics who need them and get them, who otherwise (if they were more controlled and more expensive) wouldn't get them, to the people hurting themselves by using them when they shouldn't.. and I'd guess the former far outweighs the latter. 

So yes, there are always bad points about any system, so do we look at the overall aggregate care, or do we target specific areas?   Most often smaller 'targeted' goals are made political to the detriment of the overall aggregate. 
My point about antibiotics was that if _you_ use too much of it, your body may foster germs that cause _my_ death. The "pool" of antibiotics is reportedly small and slowly increasing, while the "pool" of resistant bacteriae is growing a lot faster. The unlimited use of antibiotics could mean that the easy life of the last few generations could end, and we'd all be liable to die of pneumonia or any other seemingly harmless disease, just like people did 100 or so years ago.

How do you trade the rights of the individual to purchase antibiotics over the counter against viruses (which it has no effect against, but people tend to do it if allowed) against the health of current and future generations? My answer is that you should only be able to buy antibiotics after a consultation with a state-approved, educated medical doctor. Of course, the overhead in doing so should be minimized.

-h
Logged
hjulenissen
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1677


« Reply #52 on: August 02, 2011, 02:41:50 PM »
ReplyReply

d.  We both agree you should be allowed to sell any product (I'm sure with the exceptions of items prohibited by our current laws such as different types of weapons, medicines, etc).. but no, I don't think lying is relied upon, but I do think this falls into the "business ethics" part of the free market which is essential.. Ethics, good or bad, are one of the controls which guide consumers to one company or the other, insuring their success of failure.  You could say, without a steady stream of companies with bad ethics to keep consumers on their toes, the really bad companies might go unnoticed and get away with murder.. ;o)
I think that what you are saying can be summarized with my understanding of how things worked out for the people of eastern and western germany after they were united (I am sorry if I am stepping on any toes here, this is only vague recollection of some article I read years ago). Supposedly, the eastern germans were so used to the state fixing everything, that when they were thrown into a state dominated by western-german culture, many fell behind the western germans. Some kind of "pink bubble" creating some kind of self-preservation numbness? At least in some ways, I am not suggesting that living with Stasi was a walk in the part...

Ah, well, at least I am not living in "socialist hell Sweden" :-D

-h
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #53 on: August 02, 2011, 02:43:41 PM »
ReplyReply

To me, the revelation that it is not a government agency, but a self-imposed industry watchdog, changes the perspective on the debate radically. It just adds a certain credibility to their action. We all know (or so I hope) that most advertisements are deceptive, but it certainly means something when the industry itself says "enough is enough, time to protect whatever little credibility we still have with the public". The confusion arises from the media headlines like this: "Britain [sic] bans JR ad"
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #54 on: August 02, 2011, 06:08:36 PM »
ReplyReply

My point about antibiotics was that if _you_ use too much of it, your body may foster germs that cause _my_ death. The "pool" of antibiotics is reportedly small and slowly increasing, while the "pool" of resistant bacteriae is growing a lot faster. The unlimited use of antibiotics could mean that the easy life of the last few generations could end, and we'd all be liable to die of pneumonia or any other seemingly harmless disease, just like people did 100 or so years ago.

How do you trade the rights of the individual to purchase antibiotics over the counter against viruses (which it has no effect against, but people tend to do it if allowed) against the health of current and future generations? My answer is that you should only be able to buy antibiotics after a consultation with a state-approved, educated medical doctor. Of course, the overhead in doing so should be minimized.

-h

a.  So you buy the theory that this is a real threat.  I don't.  And you're assuming that because an individual can buy antibiotics over the counter that they'll abuse them just because they can.  Or because they don't know better.  Again, I wouldn't make this assumption.  People don't get a buzz from antibiotics so they're not abused in a traditional sense.  Plus, the available trained pharmacists are more than capable of advising the individual if their condition indicates a course of antibiotics.  Your entire premise is that individuals won't do what's best for themselves and will hurt themselves (and by their actions you) simply because no one is holding their hand making them.  I don't accept this premise.  Some will, but the majority will not.  .  And you'll have to pardon me when I say it's the state-approved educated medical doctor's who are over prescribing antibiotics in most cases anyway because they're the ones getting $150 office visit charges for encouraging their use.  Studies have shown doctors have been and will continue to prescribe antibiotics when they're not indicated because they want the office visit fees, they don't want to lose clients, and I doubt they're buying the super bug scare either.
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #55 on: August 02, 2011, 06:09:22 PM »
ReplyReply


Ah, well, at least I am not living in "socialist hell Sweden" :-D

-h
Maybe not, but it sounds like you live right next door..   Grin
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Steve Weldon
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1448



WWW
« Reply #56 on: August 02, 2011, 06:10:38 PM »
ReplyReply

To me, the revelation that it is not a government agency, but a self-imposed industry watchdog, changes the perspective on the debate radically. It just adds a certain credibility to their action. We all know (or so I hope) that most advertisements are deceptive, but it certainly means something when the industry itself says "enough is enough, time to protect whatever little credibility we still have with the public". The confusion arises from the media headlines like this: "Britain [sic] bans JR ad"
Where does this 'watchdog' get the power to ban advertisements?  If not from the government, than from whom?
Logged

----------------------------------------------
http://www.BangkokImages.com
Paul Sumi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 1217


« Reply #57 on: August 02, 2011, 06:18:04 PM »
ReplyReply

A series of L'Oreal advertisements featuring Hollywood star Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington have been banned in Britain for being overly airbrushed.

If you live in, or visit, Los Angeles, an interesting photography exhibit dealing with the nature of human (mostly female) beauty which is the other half of the discussion on the above advertisements and advertisers.

http://www.annenbergspaceforphotography.org/

Paul
Logged

Alan Klein
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 693



WWW
« Reply #58 on: August 02, 2011, 10:00:43 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we should have more Federal agencies like the SEC so they can protect us from crooks like Bernie Madoff.  Thank God for government watchdogs!
Logged
Slobodan Blagojevic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5798


When everybody thinks the same... nobody thinks.


WWW
« Reply #59 on: August 02, 2011, 11:51:29 PM »
ReplyReply

I think we should have more Federal agencies like the SEC so they can protect us from crooks like Bernie Madoff.  Thank God for government watchdogs!

Tell me that is sarcasm, please!
Logged

Slobodan

Flickr
500px
Pages: « 1 2 [3] 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad