Quote of the week

Two members of Congress who, you might think, ought to know better — until you remember that they’re members of Congress and therefore don’t know anything, better or otherwise — have proposed Federal regulation of photo manipulation. James Lileks says they’re aiming at the wrong target:

This still doesn’t address the real problem, does it? Advertising is the problem. Advertising holds up images of some ideal we cannot achieve, and thus causes aspiration, which ends in misery. Who among us hasn’t watched TV for half an hour, studied the ads like the revelatory playlets they are, then left the house to eat fried chicken, enlist in the Marines, buy a $47,999 car, and ask our doctor whether Vilevria is right for us? It’s all I can do after seeing an Oil of Olay ad to keep from running up to my wife’s drawer of potions, slathering the stuff on my face, and shouting HURRY UP AND DEFY THE RAVAGES OF TIME at my reflection. Ads are not suggestions. These are marching orders beamed directly into our quivering id, and we’ve no defense against them.

So we need to change the entire advertising paradigm: Companies will be permitted to show a picture of the product, and a monotone voice will describe its attributes as determined by an impartial board empowered to strike out any language that suggests that the consumption of this taco has any nominal advantage over the consumption of any other taco. The company will be allowed to assert that the “Mucho Fiero Grande” sauce has a more substantial “kick” than the competitor, based on lab analysis of the capsaicin content measured in Scoville units.

If you have a poor self-image because you don’t compare favorably to what you see in print or on television, you’re wrong; yes, you should have a poor self-image, not because you don’t own this or you don’t look like that, but because you’re credulous enough to think those things matter.







3 comments

  1. McGehee »

    27 April 2014 · 8:22 am

    That’s going to take up a lot space on the sidebar if you add it to your rotation.

  2. CGHill »

    27 April 2014 · 11:46 am

    All the more reason to have it in the main text, then.

  3. fillyjonk »

    27 April 2014 · 6:28 pm

    Another way in which my dad was a good parent. From an early age, he showed my brother and me how ads lie and how they manipulate you. He used the phrase “They’re trying to get your nickels,” riffing off of a disreputable character on Sesame Street (who probably isn’t on there any more).

    My latest target for eyerolliness is that ad with Cindy Crawford (who is my age) and who looks AMAZINGLY YOUNG. Why, it’s almost like she has a portrait of aging Cindy up in the attic….

RSS feed for comments on this post