Posts by ThoughtSpur
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Russell, I think Josie expressed her sense that the interview with Paul Homes felt vile to her. I felt the same way (in part that I was disgusted with my self for being drawn in as a voyeur - in the past I would rather have watched Geordie Shore for insights into the human condition over anything fronted by Mr Holmes).
You're quite right to say that, if Holmes felt the need to cling to the hope of a paradise as real life slipped away, then that was entirely his affair (and instructive if part of the purpose of the interview was for us to understand him as a subject). After all, he was Paul Holmes not Christopher Hitchens (whose book Mortality is well worth the reading because, unlike the interview in question, it is thought provoking and not maudlin in the least).
Like so much of what happens on TV a lot of the uncomfortable moments came not from Holmes' words, but from the editing and the line of questioning and the feeling that 'reality' is whatever we are led by the nose to believe.
-
Russell, your argument is circular, you cite your own argument to 'prove' your own point. It also assumes that prosecutions are the desired outcome, not prevention of the violence in the first place. Prevention saves victimisation, rather than creating prisoners.
If, as you say, the purpose of the campaign is to increase reporting of domestic violence, rather than to reduce its incidence then the message is disingenuous. It would be more useful to express the purpose of the message clearly, without ambiguity: "If you experience violence from a family member or person in your home you should report it. If you witness it, or have genuine concern that it is occurring to someone you know and care about, then report it. Here is the confidential number, call now to find out what you should do next."
I don't want to be critical of the cast of the ad, whoever they were - all celebrity worthies, carefully selected to represent various communities I am sure, but if the message is as urgent as you say, the under-reporting of abuse, then pussy footing around using brand image style advertising fiddles while Rome burns (apparently). PSAs need to stop being party political broadcasts in drag. Who cares about 'production values'?
I have no issue with the objective of reducing violence in our society but the communication strategy is flawed, coloured by ideology and monumentally wasteful. It's not ok to squander taxpayers money without exploring the most effective ways of accomplishing the objectives. Measuring advertising awareness is utterly pointless, the result is usually reinforcement for increasing the ad budget the following year. Awareness is to advertising as good intentions, are to smoothing the journey to Hell.
As to my delicate constitution? It's correct that you didn't use any rude words. But bullying and aggression can be concealed in a velvet glove. What words in the New Zealand vernacular contain more menace than "Get the man some eggs..."?
-
"And Ralston's declaration that the campaign was "a waste of money" appears to be as idle as the rest of his blathering. According to the last monitoring research on the campaign, 95% of New Zealanders were aware of it, and more than two thirds of those interviewed said that, as a result of the campaign they had spoken to family of friends about family violence. And, of course, the reporting of family violence to police jumped 29%."
All good, though awareness of advertising is meaningless unless it translates to action. The job of advertising is to alter behaviour. In the case of this campaign one would assume that the most desirable behaviour is to have all people (regardless of gender) think twice before behaving violently (in any of its manifestations). A decline in the incidence of domestic violence would indicate success, not simply an increase in reporting - which, at first blush, suggests an increase in the acts themselves. The data just becomes more data to debate - 'torture statistics long enough and they will confess to anything'.
As someone who works in marketing communications it irritates me to see such large amounts of money being spent in mass media when more effective solutions to the problem should be and could be found.
Advertising messages constructed like Moses coming down from Mt Sinai with: 'Thou Shalt Not's' just don't work. They are not persuasive. That is why such murky results emerge in this case and others, like the LTSA campaigns - if prosecutions increase then the campaign can only be judged a failure - to alter behaviour and not just awareness or attitude.
Whatever your ideology is it isn't ok to behave violently. But the spat between you and Ralston is hardly a beacon of pacific manners.
-
Rogerd said:
"Someone, somewhere will defend a terrorist as a freedom fighter. I'd rather be called a terrorist than a pedophile."
To the first point I agree. I quoted the excellent book Unspeak on my blog recently
'Asymmetric warfare' is the term employed by the US Military for fighting people who don't line up properly to be shot at: on one side you have battalions of American infantry, marines, tanks and aircraft; and on the other you have terrorist, or guerrillas, or militants, or insurgents. But the more revealing asymmetry lies in the giving of names in the 'war on terror'. We are soldiers; you are terrorists. Asymmetric warfare means: we are fighting a war; but you are not. And so when we capture you, do not expect to be a prisoner of war. You will be a terrorist suspect, an illegal combatant, a ghost detainee. And so the deliberate blurring of categories in the phrase 'war on terror' led straight to Abu Ghraib.
To the second point I'd rather not be wrongfully named as either a terrorist or a pedophile. And if I was I would want there to be a consequence for my accuser. The truth, if such a thing exists, is that mud sticks and most of us don't have access to 'perfect knowledge'.
Depending on your bias you will believe the most convenient truth for your world-view.BTW I intensely dislike the Tuhoe tactics etc but I hardly think it warrants going to 'war' with them - even a phony war waged in the media.
-
I've been to plenty of dull presentations. Come to think of it some were worse than dull. Often presented by grey people in cheap suits - politicians and worthies. Not only did they rarely have anything particularly interesting to say but they also said it in a dull way.
Having a drag entertainer deliver a serious message is a brilliant mash up. Especially if the audience would otherwise reject a message delivered by a worthy in a worthy monotone - or as part of a political spin.
If the message has impact and gets through an audience's mental barriers then it is money well spent.