The above poster is being used by the Bristol, England, city council to get dog owners to pick up after their pets.
My reaction:
Yecccch! Ack!!! Gag!
Also this: What a lazy, inconsiderate, unfair and unethical assault on the majority in order to make an impact on a minority. Given the choice between wiping dog poop off my shoe or having my stomach turned by the image of a child eating it, I’m not sure which I’d take, or who I hate more, the inconsiderate dog owner, or the jerk who is willing to sicken me to get at him.
Good, noble, arrogant, self-righteous advocates for responsible behavior increasingly behave as if any collateral damage is acceptable, while their dubiously effective advocacy gets more shrill and ugly. Every time that current TV ad featuring the croaking, hideously disfigured ex-smoker talking while a photo of her lovely pre-cancer visage shows us the ravages of tobacco, I literally dive for the remote, just as I do when the animal cruelty spots begin bombarding me with images of sad-eyed, neglected and abused cats and dogs.
(I also do this when Piers Morgan, Nancy Grace, Donald Trump, Sean Hannity or Al Sharpton flash on the screen, but I digress.)
I don’t smoke. I do pick up after my dog. I do contribute to animal rescue groups, and I don’t do any of those things because I was shocked, sickened, nauseated or revolted into it. In the rare, quiet moments that I get a chance to relax in front of my television, I don’t care to have horrible images unexpectedly shoved in my face, and I don’t care how noble the cause. I’m not the target, the ads are rude assaults, I don’t deserve the assault,s I get no benefit from them, and I didn’t consent to them. If I represented a sponsor on any of the channels that showed these things, I’d cancel the contracts immediately. After I exit a channel that forces me to watch one of them, I don’t come back that day, and I’m considering not coming back at all. I serve notice that the next recipient of my animal rescue contributions who makes me look at an ad or an envelope showing a dog with its face rotting off has lost me as a supporter, and I just might send them a picture of me in a Speedo.
Meanwhile, it is not up to some non-profit organization to decide that young kids need to be given nightmares so the smoking rates decrease. Such ads are the visual equivalents to punches in the gut, and nobody has a right to punch your children. The FCC rightly believes that we shouldn’t have to worry about Janet Jackson’s breast being paraded before our eyes at the Superbowl, or that our ears should be scorched by spontaneous obscenities uttered by boorish celebrities, but it still tolerates shotgun blasts of visual atrocities because they are well-intentioned, regardless of the innocent victims, like me, who are sent out of the room, retching. This is typical, creeping government paternalism, deciding that it can allow us to be ambushed by visual horrors not even for our own good, but for the good of others.
Hurting innocent bystanders to reach the targets of a virtuous appeal is unethical, and “It’s for a good cause” is a rationalization, “The Saint’s Excuse.” I’m not giving a pass to these drive-by nauseaters any more; I don’t care what their justification is. If you ambush me with sick animals, starving children, desiccated cancer victims, aborted fetuses, or kids eating dog poop, you’ve made an enemy, and so has anyone who helped you get your horrible images into my dreams.
_______________________________________
Pointer: Fark
Source and Graphic: Metro UK
Ethics Alarms 
I totally agree.
But Jack!
Change your perspective a little…. Read the poster in a calm British accent…
Doesn’t it sound way more intelligent and insightful now?
By George! I do believe you’re…no, really, it doesn’t help a bit.
I thought everything sounded more intelligent and insightful in a British accent…
Lol! “By George! I do believe you’re…no, really, it doesn’t help a bit.”
I’m realizing that those on the receiving end of graphic imagery often aren’t inclined to be sympathetic to the one who posts it. Quite the contrary,while they are repulsed you really can’t shame those who are indeed guilty. And Like you,Jack,you turn the responsible people off as well. So,it’s a no win situation.
While we are on the subject, can we also nix the big pharma commercials with their endless side effects 🙂
The animal commercials are the worst — especially when they are paired with some sad ballad. I know that they make animal lovers like me turn off the TV. I wonder if they have any positive effect — do they raise money, stop animal abusers, etc.?
I know our two Labrador Retrievers watch those commercials and learn from them.
Around dinner time they put on the sad face and I swear I can hear Sarah MacLachlan singing in the back ground.
If we ever have to put them in their crates, they put on the sad commercial faces and if anyone were to video tape them we’d be posters for abusers on an SPCA commercial.
It’s all emotional manipulation.
Yes. It’s definitely emotional manipulation–but has it ever stopped one abuser? Probably not.
I doubt the commercials stop abusers. But then again, the commercials never claim to try to stop abusers. Only to fleece money from people to supposedly help pay for abused animals.
A testiment to the material success of our culture when entire industries are financed to save neglected animals. Never mind all the children armies running around the world. And starving people.
I swear, no dog can do a sad face as good as a Lab.
Yeah, but they overuse it. My Lab’s face of concern that he might not get a stray Cheeto was right up there with the faces of the beaten and starved ones in the commercials. I blame their sad eyebrows.
You wouldn’t be having this discussion if you had ever lived with a mastiff.
Do Mastiff’s wait for stray Cheetos? Or do Mastiffs simply impose themselves on whatever Cheetos may be near, stray or not?
My Lab waits for nothing and no one.
Mastiffs whine like no other dog in my experience, all the more funny because of their size. They wimper, moan, beg, plead, mourn. I got to where I was afraid to meet the eye of Patience when we had to leave her alone–she was that pathetic.
Jack I just knew we had a connection . . . and you are right, Mastiffs are a breed that epitomize the ‘pathetic’ look. If these charities were smart they would just send a mastiff (or any one of the many breeds that have perfected the “look”) door to door with a sign around their neck asking for donations – I mean really, who could turn down ‘that look’ in person? And no sane person would attempt to take the money from them; my first bullmastiff had a 32″ neck, weighed over 150 lbs. and a bigger chest than his vet! Of course in his mind he was just a little lap dog, which is exactly where he laid every night.
On the serious side, I also either change channels or put my fingers in my ears, turn away from the TV and hum loudly when those ads come on. I’ve wondered, as apparently quite a few people here have – who are those ads targeted for? Most responsible middle age or older adults already give to the charities of their choice and they probably also feel assaulted by the commercials – so no extra money from that group and they risk alienating them, as they do you.
Are the targets the people doing the abuse (for example purposes I am using the abused/abandoned animal commercials), is there data out there showing the abusers behavior is changed by these ads? If that is the case, which I highly doubt, then the court system should use that information to their advantage. When penalizing anybody for this type crime they guilty should be made to watch those type commercials repeatedly through their sentence – be it behind bars or community service.
The only other target I see left are the young twenty-somethings that pull out their smart phones to send $10 by text, etc. but are there really large enough numbers in that group to justify assaulting all?
Either way it is for the good of a few at the expense of many . . .
Not even a beagle or Basset Hound? Must ask, even as a Lab owner.
Beagles vacillate constantly between whine and bay, and rather than sending waves of “I am sad/needy” they end up telegraphing “Hey did you know I can be loud? Because I totally can be loud! Check it out!”
OK, here is what I would call typical mastiff behavior when being confronted with personal responsibility. (I just grabbed mine by the paws and pulled her off the bed, as she wimpered.)
That is hilarious. My Lab claims territories like beds and sofas, but other than a “ha-RUMPH!” kind of exhale when immediately obeying the command to get down, he never complains or argues or resists (or even plays) like that, thank God. Luke, I have to say, for the couple of beagles I have known, you are right. I can’t remember seeing a beagle suffering in silence, on second thought.
I spent years working at a summer camp run by a gruff man with a heart of melty ice cream who took in every stray or abandoned dog that wandered onto the property. The year we had a hound mix and two beagles was… interesting.
Jack, when did you get another mastiff?????!?!?!?!?!?!? And why wasn’t I told?????!!!!!???
No, alas, that one isn’t mine. We still are in the JACK RUSSELL ZONE!!!!
I agree with everybody here and wonder what marketing guru thought that this was a good idea. Shock/guilt marketing is an insult to many of us, but here’s another thing. I, as an animal lover, subscribe to several Facebook pages because they promote rescuing animals. Most of them do the Joe Friday thing — just the facts, ma’am — telling about this or that animal that has just been brought in needing a foster or a permanent home. But there is one — and I think I’ll unsubscribe after I finish typing here — that really lays it on thick, with narrative as though the animal were pleading for its life. The thing that bothers me, though, is that people make comments on this (and other) pages that make me think that THEY think that this tactic is good. So not everyone is offended or insulted. How can this be? Where did this idea gain traction?
Is there not a certain amount of distinction between the guilt trips to donate to non-profit causes, and this poster which is meant to back up what I assume to be a municipal ordinance (based on a fine being attached to it)?
Nope. Not as far as my objection goes—disgusting innocent people and thrusting ugly images in their faces.
Reminds me of the global warming commercial where the teacher had the button to make the kids who didn’t believe in global warming explode.
I posted on that. It was awful, but at least it was SCTV-funny.
I’ve never liked the anti-smoking ads that rely on disgust or pity to get a gut reaction. Even the ones with the old executive and the guy who’s brother was the Marlboro man was better, if still not great.
If I ever succumb to cancer, the only positive thing about it will be when I make a PSA that says something like, “Look, I got cancer. I never smoked. Sometimes you just get it. Why would you want to increase your chances? Don’t smoke, please. See? Was that so hard? I’m not showing you the scar where they took out my lymph nodes, or my thinning hair. Most of what I’m going through you can’t even see, like how all my joints are on fire for a good two days after chemo because it’s damaging my tendons, or the stool softeners that if I forget to take, oh boy.”
Yeah, the Truth movement sucks. Even if it was amazingly effective, it wouldn’t be going about it in the right way. Some people might say it’s worth anything to get kids to not smoke, but impartial education without trying to invoke emotion would be more respectful.
I don’t see any better way for charities and causes to get their message out except by describing the reality of a situation (either in images or words). I do not like it when charities exaggerate, but I’m okay with them using shocking but more or less accurate images to get their point across.
For example, here is a link to a picture of a sad-eyed and abused man (you have been warned): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BLAKE10.JPG. People wore that image on bracelets and hairpins, and it was reproduced quite a bit at the end of the 18th Century. People in England who didn’t own slaves but were not strong abolitionists probably resented having to see that image all the time, but how else could you convince people to support abolition in the colonies? There were no slaves in England at the time, so people could not see the fundamental humanity of slaves for themselves. It had to be demonstrated to them.
I also disagree that it is wrong to but people who are sick because of smoking on television commercials. Just because you are sick and people might not like your appearance doesn’t mean you should have to hide yourself or refrain from appearing on television.
I understand your concern about innocent bystanders, but how do you suggest charities and causes get their message to the intended target without also getting it to innocent bystanders?
Eric, I see that as the equivalent of saying that if an advocate doesn’t scream at the top of his lungs, nobody will listen. Any charity that can’t make it’s argument without using images that would be cut out of a prime time TV show doesn’t have an good argument to make. Other charities and causes that don’t have horrible images to fall back on do fine. This is incivility, and frankly, laziness. Any position that can be made tastelessly can also be made tastefully. “We can’t survive unless our ads are vulgar, manipulative, shocking and relay on guilt and horror to make our case”? I say”baloney.” Civility, dignity, decorum and respect for one’s audience are important too, and having a good cause doesn’t excuse ignoring them.
I think maybe our definition of “horrible images” must differ. I don’t think that pictures of sick people and sad, abused animals are particularly horrific, and I don’t think such pictures would be cut from prime time TV. I therefore think that such pictures are fair game for advertisements.
The PSA in your post is shocking and disgusting for American and Canadian audiences. The British are famous for their black comedy, so I’m not sure it would have a similar effect on British audiences. If so, then I do not think the PSA is unethical.
Man, I sounded callous there. Obviously it is horrific that people are sick and when animals are abused. What I should have said is that such images are, sadly, not shocking.
Too late. I now think you are a terrible person. We’re quick to judge around here.
I agree with you. I wish I’d never seen it. Why did I see it?
As a general rule — I hate all horrific or disgusting pictures, ads, etc. like this. That being said, I still remember Driver’s Ed class two decades later because we had to watch a film that showed one terrifying picture of a car wreck after another. I don’t know if schools are allowed to do that anymore, but those images really got to me and I think made me a more careful driver.
But you were at drivers ed class, not watching the Red Sox play the Rays, or a re-run of “Frazier,” or just walking down the street or looking through “Vanity Fair.” If someone goes to a drivers ed class, I’d say you assume the risk of seeing images of bad driving results. If they showed you a late-term abortion there, you’d have grounds for complaint.
Fair point. But where should people learn about fair treatment of animals, community property, dangers of drugs, etc.?
Some would say Mom and Dad. Others would say the government.
Or public interest groups? I don’t think government is the answer here, but usually moms and dads are the problem. Kids learn bad behavior from their parents just as much as good behavior.
I appreciate the points Beth is making (today, that is – even though they sort of seem to contradict where she was coming from in her comments yesterday). And I am closer to Eric than to Jack on this one, I believe. A culture that is as ethics-challenged and media-driven as ours should be expected to challenge efforts to instill or activate a sense of charity, or to provoke masses to something beyond apathy, hence, “if an advocate doesn’t scream at the top of his lungs, nobody will listen.” I don’t like the in-your-face shock tactics, but have come to accept them as reflections of a culture that is (in terms of historical standards of culture) deteriorating irreversibly.
Wow, E—that’s some defense.
I know, but as I continued to ponder even after I posted above, I very quickly recalled your recent, “tough luck, lady – now get outta here, ’cause you’re puttin’ me and all these kids in danger, ’cause some jerk is threatening you” post. Who is Carie’s advocate? Who should be? Where is that advocate now? Who is listening to Carie’s advocate?
Wait: Jack, maybe I am misunderstanding you, and vice-versa. What do you say I am defending? I more blurted the above, compared to my more deliberate, non-trollish comments. I meant it all more as a lament, in a mood of resignation, than as taking a position.
I’ll attempt to clear up the confusion about my posts. Like Jack, I hate these ads, and by hate I mean LOATHE. I don’t need to see starving/diseased children in other countries or abused animals or a community duck pond filled with toxic chemicals. But I already am a responsible and generous citizen – as I assume most people are on this blog – which is why I find these images upsetting in the first place. So my question is does this have any positive effect on society? If the answer is just fundraising, I’d answer no because I agree that this is pure emotional manipulation. But if these ads do educate the public and promote awareness/better behavior generally, then I guess I’d have to support these type of ads even if they are personally upsetting. I wonder though if a dog fighter is moved by shelter images of abused animals. If not, then why do the rest of us who don’t abuse animals have to see these ads? My point re Driver’s Ed was to point out a positive example of shock ads working – I do think they can scare stupid 15 and 16 year-olds into driving more safely, not drinking, not texting, etc. On the flip side, I’ll say that I remember watching one of those “This is your brain on drugs” commercials when I was young and stupid and thinking, “The girl in that ad is stunningly beautiful. Would I look like her if I did drugs?” Obviously that wasn’t the ad’s intent!
By some curse or sick instance of ironic justice, that horrible commercial with “Terry” rasping through the hole in her neck and missing jaw as she puts on her wig so she looks EXACTLY like the Crypt Keeper (juxtaposed with the snapshot of her blonde and lovely before all went horribly wrong) caught me FOUR times yesterday, on four different channels. I’m sorry for your plight, Terry, but stay the hell out of my face. You’re not invited.
Here’s the ad — to the extent anybody is interested. http://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=%22this+is+your+brain+on+drugs%22&mid=74D2110CC196364792E574D2110CC196364792E5&view=detail&FORM=VIRE7
I agree, that ad might have been more effective if the girl had not been so distractingly beautiful. We, in this blog space and in this case, are a sort of choir preaching to each other. As for what we can do to influence others positively, there probably is not much more besides doing as Jack has done – changing the channel, or otherwise unabashedly and decidedly signaling to all around us in real time that we are not going to let ourselves be ambushed and bombed with what we already know we don’t need. But even doing that can give the wrong “vibes” such that others might think us arrogant or otherwise callous, indifferent to their vulnerability to being manipulated emotionally.