There’s lots to say about yesterday’s new law, which prevents junk food from being advertised to children. However, I’m not particularly interested in the predictable ‘nanny state’ argument, which I am sure will surface elsewhere. Nor will I touch on the technicalities, which may well prove to be quite absurd.
First, I think that those who campaigned for the law may soon find that it is a hollow victory. For example, groups such as Netmums supported the legislation in order to protect their children. They reason that if the adverts for junk-food are banned, their children will be less predisposed to buy things that are unhealthy for them. Therefore (the logic goes) the kids are saved from an exploitation of sorts.
However, the unintended consequence of the ban is that TV channels will look for other advertisers to provide them with revenue. Yesterday we heard they had found such an income stream… from car manufacturers. By advertising to children, these new advertisers believe they can build up brand loyalty and demand amongst young people, who will be more likely to buy their product when they reach an age of majority. It’s the ultimate long term marketing strategy, yet has a sinister air to it, and I doubt the Netmums’ activists will be too happy with this alternative. And since we know that car adverts are the elusive sixth element, its all the more worrying – We just don’t know what effect early exposure will have on the extra-absorbent minds of our youngsters.
Second, the idea of an advertising ban seems outdated. The initial premise – that children are captive audiences – is becoming less true as technology develops. These days, TV audiences are able to bypass advertising on their way to content. I watched an entire series of Studio 60 On The Sunset Strip on the More4 channel, without glimpsing any of the adverts: I used the fantastic Sky Plus features to fast-forward my way to the drama. I do enjoy my American TV shows, and I’ve managed to see three series of 24 and three of Lost, the first season of Prison Break and the entire West Wing canon, without troubling myself with ad-breaks. This is all because of DVD technology, only truly ubiquitous in the last few years. And when the Blu-Ray/HD-DVD format war is resolved, we’ll have even easier access to the best entertainment around, without concerning ourselves with advertisements.
Banning one particular ad genre seems slightly pointless, when the entire concept of TV ad-breaks is under threat. Concerned mothers and politicians should turn their attentions to cross-media marketing campaigns and product placement instead.
Page 243 of 328
Congratulations to Billie Piper, and Laurence Fox, married today.
Its none of my business, of course (or maybe it is), but does the Church of England not bother with the whole “no marriage for divorcees” rigmarole anymore? Or is that the sort of thing that can be waived for celebrities?
So it seems Pakistan’s elections will be postponed after all. On the surface, this is another depressing development following the assassination of Benazir Bhutto. However, after watching the TV footage of burnt out vehicles littering the streets, I wonder if a short period to restore calm could make for ‘better’ elections in the long run. Clearly Pervez Musharraf will remain under pressure to deliver order, and elections, very soon.
One bug-bear of mine is the way Nawaz Sharif is referred to by the media. He is typically referred to as “opposition leader” or “former Prime Minister”. He is both those things, but he is also the deposed Prime Minister of Pakistan, the last person to win a democratic election. An incumbent of sorts!
The circumstances of President Musharraf’s rise to power, while never forgotten, have been given the sheen of legitimacy after his assistance with the War On Terror. However, the primary issue in Pakistani politics is now the restoration of democracy. I am no fan of Sharif’s political record and I hope he loses the elections when they are held. But it is well worth emphasising just who is the deposer, and who is the deposee in this dynamic.
Afterthought
Interestingly, Nawaz Sharif’s statement today called for a restoration of the constitution to its 1973 version. This despite his attempts, some successful, to amend that constitution!
For various reasons, I’m re-reading Anthony Crosland’s The Future of Socialism. This quote resonated:
[The British Conservative Party] lacks the essential attribute of a counter-revolutionary party – a faith, a dogma, even a theory. A passionate desire to restore the past must rest on a deep attachment – moral, ideological, or theoretical – to the virtues of that past. And this the British Conservative, typically pragmatic and empirical, seldom has. His attachment to the status quo, whatever the status quo may be; and his function is less to reinstate the past than to preserve the present.
I think this is a key reason why I consider myself to be Of The Left – The word ‘Conservative’ means resistance to change… and that’s not me. Indeed, the quote above looks like a slur to my eyes.
Interestingly, though, I sense that it does not look like a slur to anyone who does consider themselves Conservative, or just conservative. Last year’s Christmas reading, The Conservative Soul by Andrew Sullivan, puts the reluctance to change things at the heart of the Conservative mindset.
Sullivan also rejects the need for a core ideology. He celebrates what Crosland condemns, calling the Conservative approach the politics of the doubter. Indeed, that is the distinction between the religious/social Conservatives and the fiscal/libertarian Conservatives, two groups who are becoming increasingly uneasy bedfellows within the US Republican Party (and I suspect the British Conservative Party too). The religious/social Conservatives do seem to wish for a return to an earlier time, which is what makes them so much more worrying than Conservatives of the fiscal/libertarian bent.
None of this, however, allies me with blogger Alex Hilton’s recent suggestion that Toryism is ‘evil’. There’s more subtlety to politics than that, which is why its so interesting, and challenging.
I did not write about the death of Benazir Bhutto when it happened yesterday, because I did not feel I had anything interesting to say. I still don’t, but it is without a doubt one of the defining moments of this year, and thus deserves a mention. The posts on my front page are beginning to look a little stale, like the left-over turkey in our fridge.
Deaths and disasters are always discordant, inconvenient things, which disrupt the normal order of one’s day. But this is more so at Christmas time, which should be characterized by lighter emotions. You’re surrounded by torn wrapping paper and chocolate papers, and suddenly Huw Edwards is telling you that James Brown or Gerald Ford is dead, or that earthquakes and tsunamis have ripped apart other people’s homes, or that another nameless teenager has been stabbed in our capital. There is nothing to do but continue with Christmas, but now you know that somewhere, people are mourning. The next tangerine is more sour than the last.
Most depressing, in this case, is to watch the optimism die along with the woman. Political momentum takes years, or even generations to build. It colours the air slowly, like a smog, slowly pressurizing a government and a people into action. And then some cretin comes along and blows it all away. The clock is reset, and we start all over again. The last time I felt like this was after the London bombings.
The Bhuttos, Zulfikar and Benazir, took two generations to build a following and a reputation that could hold a military dictator to account, in the way Benazir did with General Musharaff earlier this year. Her death now, at the moment of a new victory, is a waste, the classic ‘tale told by an idiot’. She is suddenly gone, and in place of the political pressure, there is a vacuum, and no-one is optimistic about what will fill it.
