camplate wrote:
>Just to try and see what you are talking about I went to this adbusters
>site....that was 20 minutes I'll never get back. So they get this idea in
>their heads that Americans and/or the world is being brainwashed, which
>gives them the right to vandalize property to try and break the
>brainwashing? Your holding them up as an example of a 'good' protest org?
I assume you're referring to their "billboards" campaigns, which I
actually think is rather funny. Mustaches on models, changing a few
strategic letters in an ad... it's interesting.
Please note, though, that one reason Adbusters does things that way is
because they're having difficulties getting the message across otherwise.
For example, they've been trying for years to run these "uncommercials"
on television, basically spoofed ads and little social messages damning
the corporate/consumer ethic. They aren't allowed to. The networks won't
run them. Please note that they aren't *forcing* anything; they're trying
to pay for a spot on television, just like McDonalds or Nike do when they
want to run an ad, and being turned down. Currently I think they're
taking legal action on the basis that this is censorship.
Also note that billboard vandalism is a fairly minor aspect of the
organization, not the central premise, as you seem to be suggesting
<grin>. Mostly they're involved in graphic design, "spoof" ads,
uncommercials, non-violent protests, and campaigns like Buy Nothing Day
and TV Turnoff Week.
Nor am I trying to hold them up as a "good" protest organization, I don't
think. I happen to like them. When Adam grumbled about the Seattle
protests they were who I thought to look at, because I already had their
website. I don't really approve of a lot of the stuff they do. They're
artists, and therefore whackos, more interested in being creative and
making an impact than getting their facts straight. But they're fun to
watch. (And I still giggle when I see the "Absolut Impotence" spoof ad.)
>
>Your last two paragraphs I need clarification on. 'They want to end WTO
>talks that would prevent "trade barriers" being put into place for
>non-trade reasons.' So the protesters support "trade barriers" for
>non-trade reasons? Why?
Eh, that sentence doesn't make sense, does it? I wrote it late. Sorry. As
far as I understand it, what the WTO was mainly discussing was a
moratorium on tariffs or other trade barriers for reasons that were moral
or social, rather than economically driven.
Kat Feete
--------
They show you how detergents take out bloodstains.
I think if you've got a T-shirt with bloodstains all
over it, maybe your laundry isn't your biggest problem.
- George Carlin
