American auto manufacturers have never been ones to face the reality of the changes required by sustainable economies. Now it seems that they are prepared to "educate" the public about the science that they like to believe. It's not that you can bring any real material evidence against what they are publishing; such an exercise would be merely academic. The point is not even whether Ford or General Motors themselves trust the actual words that are being used.
In case you can't read them, the actual words in the ad are as follows: "Autos manufactured today are virtually emission-free. And that's a dramatic improvement over models from just thirty years ago. So if you want to know what it really means to drive a clean car, look beyond your back seat. [Gosh Uncle-Science Man, you're Uncle-Science right to learn me that all chemical compounds ever in the history of ever are visible to the naked eye. Nothing invisible can ever harm us, right Mr. Federal-Budget-Is-One-Crazy-Fucking-Deficit Man? Wait, Gays can spread their homo aids with invisible perversions! And terrorism: TER-ROR-ISM!] See what's under the hood of every new car and light truck we make."
If the medium is the message, then it becomes clear that what is being sold is not the car, truck, or SUV, but rather safety itself. Car buyers need to be reminded of the assurity of their investment, in terms both financial and self-reflexive. See, I bought a good vehicle. I know what I'm doing, and all major decisions in my life are under control. I can afford this vehicle, but more importantly, I can't afford not to have and use it. The underlying ideology behind this ad -- if not advertising in general -- is that the consumer be made aware that a gesture of affirmation to the status quo is a guarantee for mutual success. Of course your kids will be safe, the Auto Alliance tells us: buy into us and we'll drive them to the future in the fast lane.
Publishers need money to do their work, and the importance of advertising revenue to this process has serious consequences for objective journalism, and by extension to the democratic process as a whole. Where can ideological justice be found in such a closed system of accountability, otherwise known as publishing driven by advertiser revenue? Maybe we should begin to hold publishers accountable for (at least some of) the lies spread by their corporate clients.
After all, defamation laws might be turned upon themselves with the following logic:
1. Company X -- let's just lay the poop on the pudding tray and say it was the Auto Alliance -- publishes an ad which tells people that their product follows certain physical laws as determined by the scientific literature.
2. An actual consultation of the scientific literature demonstrates the opposite.
3. Company X reminds the public that they never made any claims to science in their ad.
4. Public watchdogs cry out that the invocation of statistics like 99%, as well as the car-under-the-microscope animation and all of the technology demonstrations from the company website, seem to demonstrate an appeal, maybe even a dependence, to what most come to understand as "science".
5. Company X reminds the public that it is a leader in innovation, growth, and scientific research.
6. An actual consultation of the scientific literature demonstrates the opposite.
7. Public watchdogs try to get media space to share their "opinions" (a kind of news that's always a tough sell if you don't own a 24-hour news-entertainment network).
8. Company X reminds everyone that
AMERICA'S AUTOMOBILE INDUSTRY IS THE ENGINE THAT DRIVES THE ECONOMY.
-- http://autoalliance.org/economic/
by buying up ad spaces when other voices want to buy into the dabate.
9. Constitutional Ally (in some circles, known as Minuteman) gets gagged, hooded, and has his penis laughed at by yokels.
10. The general population is made stupider by the fact that they will almost never follow up on the information that they receive in a day.
Company X shouldn't really make fun of the few conscious people who somehow manage to keep their shit out of the swamp, at least in so obvious a manner as showing us all how dumb we are. It's kind of like telling Iraqis that they are free to vote in an election. Yup, Joe and Jane Iraq can say, we are, as you say in your country, free to vote in an election.
Long story short, my case of defamation rests on the fact that by appealing to intelligence and scientific knowledge, the Auto Alliance has incorrectly and quite negatively slandered the true nature of the general public. Let their lies fall like leaves from the sky.
No comments:
Post a Comment