Luminous Landscape Forum

Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: tom b on July 27, 2011, 01:04:58 am

Title: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 27, 2011, 01:04:58 am
A series of L'Oreal advertisements featuring Hollywood star Julia Roberts and supermodel Christy Turlington have been banned in Britain for being overly airbrushed.

Read more here (http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/beauty/pictures--dont-reflect-reality-julia-roberts-ad-given-the-brush-off-by-watchdog-20110727-1hz9s.html).

Cheers,
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 27, 2011, 01:31:16 am
Good to hear.

I wish there would be something similar, providing oversight for "truth in advertising" for politicians ;-) Their grasp of reality is often far more damaging than Photoshop.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 27, 2011, 02:44:21 am
Geez.. it's a make up company.. someone expected reality?  Really?   :'(
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Abdullin on July 27, 2011, 06:12:44 am
*lol*

Are they gonna ban other retouched pictures, and show every single blemish?
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: kaelaria on July 27, 2011, 06:54:53 am
I think it's a damn good start.  I wish the industry was regulated like the FDA.  Right now it's no different than the turn of the 19th century where every snake-oil was sold to cure everything.

Print ads right now take advantage of young moldable minds and turn them in to the older stupid minds that expect the unobtainable results shown as normal.  Stopping the brainwashing and actually educating young women (mostly) this way will really go a long way to improving things IMO.

My wish is in a couple generations kids will look back on history and think - what kind of morons watched Jerseylicious and thought it was entertaining?  LOL
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: feppe on July 27, 2011, 12:07:47 pm
My wish is in a couple generations kids will look back on history and think - what kind of morons watched Jerseylicious and thought it was entertaining?  LOL

I'm afraid all signs point to a future more like an Idiocracy (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0387808/). Then again, that has been a common lament since (at least) Socrates (http://www.bartleby.com/73/195.html).
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Chairman Bill on July 27, 2011, 12:40:15 pm
Geez.. it's a make up company.. someone expected reality?  Really?   :'(

The point is UK advertising has to conform to certain standards, and presenting heavily touched up photos alongside claims to the efficacy of the products, are somewhat misleading. It's as if the photos are saying, 'Look at this; you could look like this too if you use this product', and that is misleading.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 27, 2011, 01:27:00 pm
The point is UK advertising has to conform to certain standards, and presenting heavily touched up photos alongside claims to the efficacy of the products, are somewhat misleading. It's as if the photos are saying, 'Look at this; you could look like this too if you use this product', and that is misleading.
I get the point, I just can't take them seriously when they do this with a makeup company.  What's the difference between makeup removing blemishes or Photoshop removing them?  Isn't that one of the major features of makeup, to remove/hide/blend/touchup blemishes?  It's like they're trying to make us laugh.. who expects reality with makeup?

If they're truly trying to get rid of "you could look like this too" advertising, then they'd better put fat people on the treadmills and exercise machines, in the latest fashions, and stop hiring attractive people.. because 99% of society will never come close to looking like that.

Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: wolfnowl on July 27, 2011, 02:37:20 pm
I think it's great.  Things like Michael stating 'full disclosure' at the beginning of an article about a new piece of equipment he's tested doen't undermine his knowledge or experience for example and I don't expect him to be 'bought'.  I've noticed the 'Dove' dish soap commercial on TV now has a note saying that they didn't douse animals with oil to show how effectively they're being cleaned with this soap, and there's another commercial for ___ where there's a subtitle that states the woman is an actor and not a professional photographer (as she claims in the ad).  A little truth never hurt.

Mike.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: feppe on July 27, 2011, 03:35:33 pm
I think it's great.  Things like Michael stating 'full disclosure' at the beginning of an article about a new piece of equipment he's tested doen't undermine his knowledge or experience for example and I don't expect him to be 'bought'.  I've noticed the 'Dove' dish soap commercial on TV now has a note saying that they didn't douse animals with oil to show how effectively they're being cleaned with this soap, and there's another commercial for ___ where there's a subtitle that states the woman is an actor and not a professional photographer (as she claims in the ad).  A little truth never hurt.

Dove has been using that slant in their advertising for at least 5 years (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iYhCn0jf46U).
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: BernardLanguillier on July 27, 2011, 05:16:54 pm
Educate kids with values other than greed and all the rest will follow! :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 27, 2011, 05:33:05 pm
Here's another classic (http://www.google.com.au/search?pq=sbs&hl=en&cp=14&gs_id=1m&xhr=t&q=mcdonalds+big+mac&client=firefox-a&hs=xwr&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&gs_sm=&gs_upl=&bav=on.2,or.r_gc.r_pw.&biw=1062&bih=1055&um=1&ie=UTF-8&tbm=isch&source=og&sa=N&tab=wi).

Cheers,
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Chairman Bill on July 27, 2011, 06:06:32 pm
I get the point, I just can't take them seriously when they do this with a makeup company.  What's the difference between makeup removing blemishes or Photoshop removing them? 

The products weren't make-up as such, but so-called 'rejuvenating' lotions & potions, claimed to make skin younger looking & so on.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 27, 2011, 09:14:47 pm
The products weren't make-up as such, but so-called 'rejuvenating' lotions & potions, claimed to make skin younger looking & so on.
I was reading more on this story.. very interesting.  The ASA wanted them to submit 'before/after' images which Julia Roberts contract (and most other professional models) prohibits.. so the ASA probably didn't like that.   The photographer supposedly used lighting designed to reduce the apparent wrinkles.  Sure, this is why flat lighting is most often used for this sort of photography (and why god invented 8 foot octoboxes)

So.. the ASA wanted to see the before/after.  What good would this do?  Will they then want before/after from when the MUA's do their work?  Is so much "wrinkle removal" acceptable from MUA's, but not retouching?  Isn't this an artistic choice the government is trying to get involved in? 

I really think the ASA stuck their foot in it and could have picked much better examples to exercise their power.  I wouldn't be surprised if it turns out there's some juicy backstory to all this..
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: JakeD on July 28, 2011, 01:11:56 am
Maybe the advertising standards people took the view that this was wrong in as much that the product that they were selling to make you look better wasn't the product that was actually used to make the improvement in the ad. That's quite misleading.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: EduPerez on July 28, 2011, 01:33:04 am
Some time ago there was a campaign running around here, about a cosmetics product that could do miracles after a seven-day treatment; such ads showed the typical "before & after" pictures, to prove the efficacy of the product. Admirably, for the second photograph they managed to place each hair in the model's head in the same exact location that it was during the first photograph... that, or both images where different retouchings of the same photograph.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 28, 2011, 02:56:57 am
Video on the subject here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ucoJR8aUG7U).

Cheers,
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tq-g on July 28, 2011, 08:16:35 am
A job well done.

By the ad agency.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: felix5616 on July 28, 2011, 08:47:10 am
I was told this long ago, "Belive half of what you see and nothing that you hear "
Truth and honesty are fading fast, perpetuated by people/societies/organizations that truely believe the percertion is reality.
I assume that everything we hear and see today is manipulated by the media, to present to the public their own view of the world, a severly distorted and unrealistic view.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Dward on July 28, 2011, 11:10:31 pm
Pictures....don't reflect reality.

I wonder if we should ban Botticelli's Birth of Venus?   Have you ever seen a woman with a neck like that?  Or such a shoulder, or arms quite that long?   Speaking of indoctrinating girls with a distorted image of the female body....

Damned artists, always abstracting instead of just reflecting.

David V. Ward, Ph. D.
www.dvward.com
David V. Ward Fine Art Photography
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 31, 2011, 12:00:51 am
The products weren't make-up as such, but so-called 'rejuvenating' lotions & potions, claimed to make skin younger looking & so on.
Sure, all true.  But it's a makeup company who sells makeup designed to cover blemishes, hide wrinkles, etc.  Is it unreasonable for them to combine the effects of their products when advertising just one?  And if so, how strange would it be to see a lady without any makeup at all, but with just lipstick, or mascara, or eyeliner.. They never do that.  If you see an eyeliner commercial then you also see eye shadow, foundation, lipstick, and all their other products together to create the desired image.. as women normally use them.  A woman wouldn't only use a lotion.  A woman has an arsenal of products to choose from and they almost always use several to many of them together.  IMO way too many of them way too often, but I digress.  

I just don't see what L'Oreal did as unusual or dishonest.  Everyone wants to be the idealist and blame the greed of the corporations.  But what about the greed of the vain consumer who is so concerned with knocking off 20 years of age, that they don't stop to think that the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?  Consumers, imo, have more responsibility to exercise their vote through their purchasing power.  They don't need some clueless agency messing without our art to protect them.  It's politics.

And let's take it a step in an adjacent direction.  When shooting advertising photos/videos.. do we want an agency looking over our work and dictating what visual components we can use?  Is it reality when a Nissan Maxima is driving through the muddy ruts and driving rain.. yet the car remains spotless?  Does food carefully prepared for a product food shoot always have the same care when dropped in front of you at the restaurant?  Does Allstate really have a giant pair of hands holding you during emergencies?  Advertising photography almost always puts forth the best case scenario and often impossible scenarios.  BMW's advertisement for the M1 on top of a 100 story officer towers heliport 'drifting' from edge to edge with machine like precision.. can the car really do that?  Can a driver really drive that well?  Or was it a spliced together chromakey production like most every movie we watch on the big screen?

We shouldn't let our idealism strip us of our rights by allowing such powerful oversight in our work.  Idealism is great.  But it's not reality either.  Maybe less so than a wrinkle-free Julia Roberts.  Don't ban the advertisement.  But instead make them put some captions or notice on the add saying they were combined effects or something to that effect.. and if we did that, then get used to seeing that notice to the point we just totally ignore it.. because it will be on every commercial we watch and we'll be so used to seeing it, we won't see it anymore.  And make the damn consumers step up and take responsibility for having a brain.  They don't protecting.  They need to get over their vanity and consumer greed.

Okay.. stepping down now..   :-X

Btw -  The advertised product, Teint Miracle, is a foundation.  At least according to the ASA..
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 31, 2011, 02:16:04 am
For a lighter look at beauty industry try the Gruen Transfer (http://www.smh.com.au/tv/show/the-gruen-transfer/skincare-20100902-14rbi.html) video. The panel looks at the marketing of tubs of anti-ageing, anti-wrinkle, oxygen-filled white goo, two agencies pitch for Buy Nothing Day and Ad of the Week.

Contains advertising and nudity, 27 minutes long, Australian content, I don't know if it can be accessed OS.

Cheers,



Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on July 31, 2011, 02:54:13 am
For a lighter look at beauty industry try the Gruen Transfer (http://www.smh.com.au/tv/show/the-gruen-transfer/skincare-20100902-14rbi.html) video. The panel looks at the marketing of tubs of anti-ageing, anti-wrinkle, oxygen-filled white goo, two agencies pitch for Buy Nothing Day and Ad of the Week.

Contains advertising and nudity, 27 minutes long, Australian content, I don't know if it can be accessed OS.
It can't. Not from England, anyway.

Jeremy
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 31, 2011, 03:16:46 am
Sorry you can't get it. Some from You Tube; Gruen Transfer on Skin Care (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrT7lJaiCKc),  Dove (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BaSRWnv_KLo) and Cosmetic Surgery for Children (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AfLr0BtbaO0).

Cheers,

Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Eric Kellerman on July 31, 2011, 04:02:35 am
Let's not forget that naughty French painter Ingres with the extra vertebrae on his Grande Odalisque (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grande_Odalisque) of 1814 ...
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: daws on July 31, 2011, 05:47:37 am
...I just don't see what L'Oreal did as unusual or dishonest.  Everyone wants to be the idealist and blame the greed of the corporations.  But what about the greed of the vain consumer who is so concerned with knocking off 20 years of age, that they don't stop to think that the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?  Consumers, imo, have more responsibility to exercise their vote through their purchasing power.  They don't need some clueless agency messing without our art to protect them.  It's politics.

And let's take it a step in an adjacent direction.  When shooting advertising photos/videos.. do we want an agency looking over our work and dictating what visual components we can use?  Is it reality when a Nissan Maxima is driving through the muddy ruts and driving rain.. yet the car remains spotless?  Does food carefully prepared for a product food shoot always have the same care when dropped in front of you at the restaurant?  Does Allstate really have a giant pair of hands holding you during emergencies?  Advertising photography almost always puts forth the best case scenario and often impossible scenarios.  BMW's advertisement for the M1 on top of a 100 story officer towers heliport 'drifting' from edge to edge with machine like precision.. can the car really do that?  Can a driver really drive that well?  Or was it a spliced together chromakey production like most every movie we watch on the big screen?

We shouldn't let our idealism strip us of our rights by allowing such powerful oversight in our work.  Idealism is great.  But it's not reality either.  Maybe less so than a wrinkle-free Julia Roberts.  Don't ban the advertisement.  But instead make them put some captions or notice on the add saying they were combined effects or something to that effect.. and if we did that, then get used to seeing that notice to the point we just totally ignore it.. because it will be on every commercial we watch and we'll be so used to seeing it, we won't see it anymore.  And make the damn consumers step up and take responsibility for having a brain.  They don't protecting.  They need to get over their vanity and consumer greed.

This.

Well said.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 31, 2011, 12:57:47 pm
... Is it unreasonable for them to combine the effects of their products when advertising just one?... the picture they're seeing isn't all about lotions.. but rather a total product line?...

Steve, it seems to me that you are saying that the government agency was against using other make-up tools to advertise just one particular (a lotion)? If so, I think you are missing the point. The agency, and those who side with it, are against using Photoshop to alter reality WAY beyond what a make-up alone could do. We, photoshopographers™, of all people, know perfectly well how you can make someone 10, 20, even 50 years younger using just Photoshop and no make-up.

As for who is greedier, the vain consumer or the corporation feeding off it, seems to me this would be yet another of those chicken-or-egg riddles. In all fairness, human vanity predates by far the birth of corporations, although snake-oil salesmen existed probably the moment our predecessors discovered their image reflecting in water. The issue today is, however, are those corporations just satisfying existing needs, or are they actively creating and peddling new ones? Ever thiner, younger, more perfect? And, as in the case of tobacco and junk-food advertising, aren't they praying on the most vulnerable, impressionable and gullible among consumers, the kids and teens? Yes, it is parents' role to educate, but it is a tall order and an uphill battle against the billions those corporations spend.

Granted, it is a complex issue, with a lot of logical inconsistencies.  Why are we against altered reality in make-up advertising, and do not complain when colored sugar water with gas bubbles or gum that bubbles are advertised?

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not? If a government agency acts today with the best interests of the public in mind, and the most honorable of intentions, are we certain that will continue to be the case tomorrow, once they have unrestricted power to do so?
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: schrodingerscat on July 31, 2011, 01:17:19 pm
It's just marketing, which works mostly on the subliminal level anyway. As previously stated, what's the difference from makeup and retouching. This British thing sounds more like politicians posturing for soundbites(more marketing). And maybe trying to get the public's mind off the Murdoch mess. Hmmm...wonder how this is going to effect the Page 3 girls.

Marketing has mostly been snake oil, and has rarely been about so-called reality. Those doctors, lawyers, mechanics, housewives, students, etc, in commercials and print ads are all out of the SAG and talent agency catalogs. In the 70s Levis came up with the 'lifestyle' ad, which morphed into the first ad campaign that didn't even show the product for six months. In fact, the product wasn't even on the market yet. When the first Infinity commercial aired that actually showed a car, they sold them by the boatload. Most people had no idea why they were willing to pay $5k more for a rebadged Datsun/Nissan.

As far as the 'pictures reflecting reality', they're no worse than a lot of HDR images used in editorial publication.

Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 31, 2011, 01:34:32 pm
The agency, and those who side with it, are against using Photoshop to alter reality WAY beyond what a make-up alone could do. We, photoshopographers™, of all people, know perfectly well how you can make someone 10, 20, even 50 years younger using just Photoshop and no make-up.

 The issue today is, however, are those corporations just satisfying existing needs, or are they actively creating and peddling new ones? Ever thiner, younger, more perfect?

Granted, it is a complex issue, with a lot of logical inconsistencies.  Why are we against altered reality in make-up advertising, and do not complain when colored sugar water with gas bubbles or gum that bubbles are advertised?

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not? If a government agency acts today with the best interests of the public in mind, and the most honorable of intentions, are we certain that will continue to be the case tomorrow, once they have unrestricted power to do so?

1.  It's a foundation according to the ASA.. foundations are expressly formulated to hide blems, wrinkles, etc.   The ASA is trying to say Photoshop altered beyond reality (what a foundation would do), but this just can't be proven.  Makeup can change someone into a Klingon.. so I'm sure it can get rid of a few wrinkles.  

Now, the question on whether or not we should be using Photoshop vs. makeup, or what mix of each, in our work.. do you want a governmental agency who is probably untrained in both making those decisions based only on what they perceive as untrained critics making those decisions for us who do know?  I sure don't.  I don't want anyone telling me how I should complete my art, much less untrained govt agencies.

2.  New needs.  This is the crux of all inventions is it not?  We didn't know we needed airplanes until someone built one.  We didn't know we needed indoor plumbing, boxes of cereal, Liptor, medical procedures..  Anyone reading a newspaper, or a website (another invention many said we didn't need) knows we're living longer, looking younger, living more efficiently, and any number of things because someone invented a product and 'sold' it to us.  Personally I'm all for better looking women who age as gracefully as they wish.

What we 'need' are decisions best left to the individual, not our government.


3.  Are we against altered reality with makeup?  I really don't think so.  Many are against this particular case, but I don't think they're stopping to consider all the other exact same cases we're confronted with every time we access the media.  If the ASA had said.. "look at these 20 examples, but we're prosecuting just this one.."  how would we feel then? Our news anchors are made up with wigs, toupees, heavy makeup not to mention every entertainer out there.. menu's in restaurants are product photography and not reality.. there are thousands of such examples we see and gloss over in our daily lives but we're not stopping to consider them because they're not headlines.

 
4.  Yes, very complex.  But government control over our lives is a fundamental question everyone should spend time considering.  And when we realize the "government" isn't really some big all knowing "Oz" behind the curtain, and instead mostly power hungry greedy men who are merely competing with those they're trying to restrict.. then it becomes even more convoluted.    I've always said the truth is revealed by motivation.  Ask yourself, what is the true motivation of the ASA in restricting these ads?  Of course we have no way of knowing, but it's food for thought.  But I'd bet money there's at least several revealing back stories involved.  Someone at Lacome pissed off someone in govt, someone in power was turned down by a girl that looked like Julia Roberts, someones wife spends too much money on makeup.. it's small stupid stuff like this that have been known to start wars..
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Alan Klein on July 31, 2011, 05:42:42 pm
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.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on July 31, 2011, 05:56:55 pm
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 can't help but wonder if you've read anything about the matter under discussion before plunging in. The issue arises precisely because it won't work and won't make her feel good. Whether our politicians shouldn't be finding something better to do with their time is another matter, but although one publicity-seeking MP (that's member of parliament and nothing to do with the police) chose to grab some airtime, this was mainly a concern of the body which exists specifically to monitor standards in advertising.

And it gets even more complex when we start considering the role of government in shaping our lives. Should we be forced to buckle up when no one else but us would be hurt if we do not?
Sadly, Slobodan, that's not the world in which we live. In the UK, and I suspect in the USA and most other countries, we all suffer if some idiot sustains avoidable serious injury in a car crash. The NHS, for which we all pay, treats him; the local authority, which receives money from local and national taxation, provides him with accommodation, nursing care, aids and equipment; the state pays him disability benefits out of money raised by taxation; he no longer contributes to the tax take but drains it; and his family, for whom he might have been a breadwinner, now receives money from the state as well.

In medieval times, only the immediate family was affected. Things have changed. Tempora mutantur, nos et mutamur in illis.

Jeremy
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Alan Klein on July 31, 2011, 06:30:58 pm
Once you go down a slippery slope of saying that because everyone suffers when someone is injured, you'll wind up restricting all freedoms you really don't want to give up.  I could make a case for shutting down the diamond slopes as being too dangerous when skiing.  Heck, I could make the case that we should shut down the ski slopes entirely.  Why should I pay for all those things you mentioned if someone gets hurt.  Shut down mountain climbing, scuba, car racing, you name it.  I don't think we want to go there or all freedoms will eventually be lost.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 31, 2011, 06:44:12 pm
The issue arises precisely because it won't work and won't make her feel good.
Well, not really.   The issue arises because someone is 'claiming' it won't work, making her feel good isn't a factor.

How many makeup experts does the UK government employ, and are they the ones making this claim?  I know the American government employs quite a few, but they're not in a position to make such judgments.  The ones I know of worked with were often retired Hollywood (by this I mean they worked on movie sets anywhere) MUA's who were talked into working with the VA prosthetics labs to help patients who have lost ears, noses, entire fronts of faces, eyes.. one who I talked into working in my lab was amazing, he could paint a glass eye to exactly match the real one.  Ever seen a person who lost the entire front of their face due to cancer or an accident?  These guys could teach them how to apply prosthetic face/face parts and daily makeup so when they went out in public they'd escape 1st glances, often 2nd's.. (in comparison  making wrinkles disappear is child's play)  So I know the expertise is there, I just don't think your appointed politicians have such expertise.

Just because someone used Photoshop to apply makeup on a digital image doesn't mean the 'effect' can't be matched with real makeup.  And really, does the advertisement say Julia Roberts used this product?  Or did it just show a pretty picture to sell a product.. like we don't see that every time we turn a page in a magazine...
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on July 31, 2011, 06:45:11 pm
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.
+1   I wasn't even happy with them deciding if Taco Bell really uses meat..  ;D
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: john beardsworth on July 31, 2011, 07:01:06 pm
This isn't a government thing - it's advertising industry self regulation. Think of it as fellow professionals judging a member's work has fallen below professional standards.

John
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: tom b on July 31, 2011, 07:01:11 pm
One of the quotes from the Gruen Transfer that I liked was that two types of magazine covers that sell well. Those that are highly retouched and those that aren't, that is, Stars without Makeup.

I've got too much time on my hands at the present and have been watching Dr Phil. To all those people out there saying we don't want government interference to protect you from fraudulent and unscrupulous business practices I ask the question. How's that working for you?

Cheers,
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on July 31, 2011, 08:02:35 pm
... Sadly, Slobodan, that's not the world in which we live. In the UK, and I suspect in the USA and most other countries, we all suffer if some idiot sustains avoidable serious injury in a car crash...

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 ;)).
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: louoates on July 31, 2011, 09:47:15 pm
We need a new Truth Tzar in Washington empowered to convict Photoshop experts of witchcraft. Think of the governmental jobs that would create; stake woodsmen, tinder shavers, rope weavers, and, of course, match makers.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: artobest on August 01, 2011, 08:38:45 am
What we 'need' are decisions best left to the individual, not our government.


Very difficult for individuals to make rational decisions when corporations are lying to them through the medium of advertising.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 01, 2011, 09:16:42 am
Very difficult for individuals to make rational decisions when corporations are lying to them through the medium of advertising.
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..  ;)
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 01, 2011, 09:21:05 am
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 01, 2011, 09:24:07 am
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..  ;)
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 01, 2011, 09:40:14 am
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?

Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 01, 2011, 09:42:32 am
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..  ::)
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 01, 2011, 09:44:35 am
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 01, 2011, 09:50:15 am
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..  ::)
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.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Jeremy Roussak on August 01, 2011, 12:35:59 pm
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 ;)).
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 01, 2011, 01:13:35 pm
"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'.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 01, 2011, 02:11:00 pm
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!
 
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 01, 2011, 02:39:20 pm
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 02, 2011, 03:09:22 pm
. 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.. :)

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)
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 02, 2011, 03:33:46 pm
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: hjulenissen on August 02, 2011, 03:41:50 pm
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" (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1) :-D

-h
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 02, 2011, 03:43:41 pm
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"
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 02, 2011, 07:08:36 pm
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.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 02, 2011, 07:09:22 pm

Ah, well, at least I am not living in "socialist hell Sweden" (http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-21-2009/the-stockholm-syndrome-pt--1) :-D

-h
Maybe not, but it sounds like you live right next door..   ;D
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Steve Weldon on August 02, 2011, 07:10:38 pm
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?
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Paul Sumi on August 02, 2011, 07:18:04 pm
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
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Alan Klein on August 02, 2011, 11:00:43 pm
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!
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Slobodan Blagojevic on August 03, 2011, 12:51:29 am
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!
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: john beardsworth on August 03, 2011, 03:19:05 am
Where does this 'watchdog' get the power to ban advertisements?  If not from the government, than from whom?

From the fellow members of the advertising industry!
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: Alan Klein on August 03, 2011, 07:36:25 am
Hmmm.
Title: Re: 'Pictures ... don't reflect reality'
Post by: john beardsworth on August 03, 2011, 08:35:52 am
As self-regulation goes, it's more effective than many such bodies. It's not quite what you see in professions like medicine, law or accounting, but it's got a lot more teeth than the discredited Press Complaints Commission (if it had any credit) and its rulings on a member's behaviour/practice can prevent an advertiser from advertising, as here. A bit more effective than anything in the photography "profession"....