Smoke Screens

I'm a smoker. There, I admitted it. I try and get around admitting it with daft things like "I am a social smoker", "oh on occasion I don't mind a fag" or the classic "yeah I know it's gross, but I only smoke when I drink". I'm full of shit, I don't smoke heavily, but the reality is - I smoke. I buy a packet a week and can always be convinced to step outside for a fag during the workday when someone offers me that little white stick of skiving or when everything goes Pete Tong.

The reason for my confession comes after watching one of Australia's lousy excuses for "news" programmes, I believe it was nine, but it could have easily been seven or ten, all of which can be equally accused of keeping the Australian population stupid, but that is another story. The ‘groundbreaking’ news item centred on the American objection to an Australian anti smoking add. So here is where my confession comes into play, I am a smoker, anything that will force me to quit is a welcome addition to my on screen viewing pleasure. Is my continuation to smoke due to a choice I've made to support this evil industry, or my addiction? In truth? My answer would be both, however many would argue that it is mostly the former, perhaps I am not ready to completely take on all the responsibility.

The add centres on a young child lost in what I believe is an airport/transport terminal location, clearly targeted at parents that smoke, the young boy is lost and traumatised, a voice over announces, and please allow me to adlib here, something similar to, "if this is how distraught a child is after losing you for minutes, think about how he'll feel if it's for life". Interestingly, the objection to the commercial was the boy appeared clearly distressed and wasn’t acting. Are you kidding me? I am painfully aware that not all the American population are moronic, but unfortunately, the ones that continue to speak out seem to be examples of America's finest fuck-knuckles.

The biggest point of outrage seemed to be that the emotion was "too real". A rep, I believe she was from the Cancer Council, but could have been involved with the commercial’s production team appeared on the news programme defending the add, suggesting "Alexander" (the child in the commercial) was acting and not really in distress. I firstly couldn't believe that this was a major news story, but that so many American's felt the need to get on TV and question the ad because the emotion felt too real? Come on? Who made you an expert, it's called acting, why the outcry now and not when child actors give a convincing performance on the big screen? I mean really? Can we assume now that there is worldwide exploitation of children on every film set? Every time a child cries on screen, someone must have pushed him/her over the edge, I mean let's not allow one knee jerk reaction get in the way of another? At the end of the day, even if the emotion was in someway manufactured beyond acting, I am loathe to believe that "Alexander" was led to any real suffering, kids cry for many reasons, I highly doubt he was left to watch Fluffy the guinea pig succumb to pagan ritual sacrifice.

I believe the next reaction was the commercial being an overt manipulation using a child as the weapon. Advertising is manipulation people! We are always being manipulated into buying a new chocolate bar, healthier cereal, tinned soup, moistureriser, soft drink, gym membership, you name it somewhere along the line we being manipulated in to considering it. One "it girl" is dropped for the next "it girl" to convince us to buy something we didn't necessarily want or need or adversely make us feel better about something we already do indulge. Britney wanted people to buy Pepsi, so did Beckham, if I eat Special K for two weeks, I can feel better about my bikini body this summer, if I use Dove, it won't trash my skin like soap can and thank fuck for that!

What I suspect the real objection here is, did the commercial hit a little close to home? Did it make you feel uncomfortable? Did it make smoking and non smoking parents have to think a little bit harder about their parenting an their lifestyles? Might we reconsider driving after that touch and go glass of wine? Might we think twice about sprinting across the road when the red man is staring us directly in the face? Might we have to consider what bad behaviours we may currently be teaching our children by osmosis? Might we feel like we have to invest a little bit more time into a lonely child?

So, what were really objecting to is, for a brief minute, being manipulated into thinking a little bit harder. No one told us to stop smoking, Britney didn't tell us she thinks we should take up the fags, we were actually forced into an action/reaction, choice/consequence thought pattern and you know what, it was scary. Will I give up? That's no ones business but my own, but did I have to think a little bit harder when I'm used to being told that Omega is a better standard of watch just because, well, it's a resounding yes.