Thank You for Smoking: A reflection on what Advertising should be

    I recently got the chance to watch the movie Thank You for Smoking, a movie that I’d recommend you watch (especially considering that this article is not a review and assumes familiarity with the movie). The movie raises interesting questions regarding advertising, free speech, the system of lobbying, investigative journalism, and the morality of it all. I would like to place a particular focus on that morality, as I believe the most can be said about that particular subject, by making two moral arguments: 1) We as people must try to be better than we were yesterday, and 2) We must make that choice to be better willingly. I will elaborate further, but those two arguments are the core philosophy I have in response to this movie.

    
    The question of whether advertisements for various illicit substances should be allowed is indirectly discussed in the movie, and poses the question to us, the viewer. Should these ads be illegal? Should art be changed in order to not include these substances? What about things that are illegal in some states but not in others? The movie largely leaves it to the viewer to answer, and my answer is this: Adults must be given the opportunity to make their own choices, whether they become mistakes or triumphs. I would argue that it’s in everyone’s self interest to better themselves, to let go of their vices, to try at very least. But that choice, to be better and to better oneself has to be a choice. It cannot be forced on anyone, no matter how good for them it is. As such, I would stand against anyone who said that companies shouldn’t even be able to advertise these kinds of products at all.

    My belief of betterment goes both ways, however, and I would say that companies who sell these things BUT lie about the potential negative consequences, namely addictions, health risks, and other problems should absolutely be punished or restricted from doing so. I believe that companies have moral obligations to the market they operate in, and that lack of responsibility should disallow them from participating in that market. If an adult purchases substances and they know that they are harmful, that is their choice. In terms of changes made to artwork, there is no ethical framework that justifies censorship of artwork that doesn’t involve arbitrary decisions by the powers that be, so I will never entertain an argument to censor art for moral’s sake. At most, a warning provided beforehand about how the art contains harmful/explicit/disturbing elements can be reasonably required.

    I would also say that personally, I don’t think I could or would ever take a job like Nick’s. If it wasn’t already clear from the writing, my moral principles are something I hold in very high regard. Compromising them for something as trivial as a job is something I just don’t think I could bring myself to do. If I really wanted to, there are plenty of well paying industries that I could go into to pay the bills. Since I’m not limited, I feel comfortable not compromising. If, say, I was limited, I’m not sure what my answer would be. On the one hand, I obviously would like to keep living, and the modern world doesn’t seem to have much in the way of doing that without money. On the other hand, participating in an industry selling America poison and lying about it is something that would eat at me for all my days. I ultimately think I still wouldn’t bring myself to take the job, when push comes to shove, I’m a creative guy, who knows how to leverage the collective knowledge of the internet. I’m sure I could make something work.

Mainstream and Alternative Media 101

     In the modern day, there are by and large two schools of media: The Mainstream and the so-called "Alternative". Given these two options, it is important to understand them both, so that we as citizens can stay informed properly. Involved with this discussion, it is important to understand what is meant when the "consensus" is mentioned, especially when discussing the Mainstream. The consensus, in this context, refers to what is widely accepted at the time by the general public. Whether the topic be politics, social issues, or economic ideas, if the sentiments are popular among the public, they're within the sphere of the "consensus". As such, any ideas that are not popular are not within the consensus. This idea is crucial, because it informs what both Mainstream and Alternative are.

    Mainstream media is characterized by its adherence to the consensus, whether it be on the left or right. Mainstream outlets are popular for a reason, and that popularity comes from popular opinions. Due to this, and as a side effect of how democracy works, the opinions of popular media are usually in line with those present in government. This phenomenon is exasperated by the revolving door relationship present between the mainstream media and government, with there being a notable amount of media employees that are current or former federal employees in some capacity. It is also noteworthy the sheer amount of resources that these outlets have at their disposal, considering that large entertainment corporations have purchased the companies that run these media outlets, for one reason or another. This comes with the rather interesting effect that these outlets don't really have to try as hard, in a certain sense. They still have to pull in viewers, and keep them watching for the commercials, but, that is largely it. There aren't any incentives to look at issues through new and interesting lenses, even just for a single evening segment. In a sense, they are driving the intellectual speed limit. This would not be a problem if their sole job was reporting the news, but in the current day and age, it absolutely isn't, and the outlets don't seem keen on changing that anytime soon. As long as there are opinions that inform how they report and interpret current events, they could do us the service of making those perspectives intellectually interesting. 

    Alternative media is really the contrast to the mainstream in almost every respect. Again, when thinking of the consensus, almost all Alternative media exists outside of the political, economic, and social consensus. Most often it is just one of those categories, but it is always at least one. Alt media also tends to be the product of individual effort, made possible by anyone being able to say something on the internet. It should be noted as well, individuals have more financial incentive to provide better content. Where Mainstream outlets backed up organizations can trundle along with more of the same thing, if independents are dishonest, uninteresting, or not worth hearing, they get nothing out of the work they did to produce that media. Some will still make that piece of media anyway, but most won't. People have bills to pay and groceries to buy.