Be careful what you advertise.

This is an old story but I have had it on my to do list for some time so no time like the present. ABC News had a story from 14 February 2008 that went something like this:

Country singer Billy Ray Cyrus apologized on Wednesday for being filmed in the back seat of a car with his daughter Miley, who plays Hannah Montana in the hit Disney series, without wearing seat belts.

Cyrus had to apologize (had to?) because his faux pas was reported by Consumer Reports also noted in the ABC News story:

Consumer Reports said Cyrus and his 15-year-old daughter were filmed riding in a Range Rover on the way to rehearsal for the concert tour and neither was wearing a seat belt.

The magazine said in a blog posting that movie and TV shows did influence how children and adults acted in daily life.

"Simply put, not wearing seat belts while riding in the rear seat of a vehicle is dangerous," said the blog posting.

Ok, fair enough. I find it hard to get my head around a magazine that has time to note the most minute infractions of a star's life but ok. What's next, setting up unofficial speed traps to report which stars from Hollywood are speeding and what a bad example they are setting for the youth of today.

Continuing with ABC News, in their health section on 28 Feb 2008 there was a blow up (no pun intended) about the energy drink entitled "Blow". The story explains the controversy this way:

Worried that Blow and similar products are glorifying drug use, the Food and Drug Administration sent a letter to the makers of the energy drink mix last month, threatening legal action if the company does not rehab its image.

Named after the well-known street name for cocaine, Blow comes under scrutiny for being packaged and marketed as an alternative to cocaine, as well as for not complying with federal drug laws.

Again, ok I got this. The FDA is concerned with drug use being glorified. I guess (is this a stretch) if you portray something as glamorous or "cool" that is harmful to the body or person, the FDA (Government) or some watchdog magazine (Consumer Reports) jumps in and gives the offender (Country Star or stupid energy drink) a whack upside the head. Disney made a similar decision last year to to ban depictions of smoking in Disney-branded films. Ron Meyer, president and chief operating officer of Universal Studios stated that "We feel it's important to use our influence to help stem a serious health problem in the United States and around the world".

So there you have it. The culture police are out there ensuring everyone has a seatbelt on, no one sees anyone smoking and dangerous behavior is not encouraged, especially from products that are "Disney Branded". One final note on this discussion. Yahoo has an interesting story that falls into this "topic". Entitled "Study finds 1 in 4 US teens has a STD" the article has some pretty scary facts (besides the obvious one from the title):

The overall STD rate among the 838 girls in the study was 26 percent, which translates to more than 3 million girls nationwide, researchers with the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found. They released the results Tuesday at an STD prevention conference in Chicago.

Also the story quotes the president of Planned Parenthood as blaming abstinence only education. Yeah right, the problem with all the STDs is that the United States is promoting abstinence. Why don't we apply the same line of reasoning as we did to smoking in movies or calling energy drinks by slang terms for cocaine? Does anyone think that the sewer that is the current state of our media (TV and Movies) which has an incredible saturation of all kinds of sexual imagery and visual depictions is to blame for any of this? When we show kids having sex and having no responsibility the "day after", advertise the "be young, be free" message that carries with it no moral code, highlight the stars having all kinds of sex and being cool does send a message to the youth of today. The message is just as if these same stars are not using their seat belt or taking a drag from their Marlboro's. But we won't attack the sex in movies as that would make us appear to be prudes and not hip like the Hollywood in crowd. But let's make national news about a country singer not wearing a seat belt?

What about violence in the movies - should we be at least as worried about the kill count in some of these movies with their horrible depictions of violence as we would if Brad Pitt lights up a cigarette? Case in point a movie called Hostel which has a scene were a European business man pays for the pleasure of torturing and murdering a young American, all graphically shown in the theatrical release. Should we be as worried about depictions of torture and murder and its potential impact to the viewing public at least as the name of a drink that is loaded with caffeine?

Where the hell are our priorities? The problem with this crap is the minute you cast a discerning eye on the actual filth that Hollywood is putting out you are called all kinds of names, the fascists that support this "art" cry censorship and the director and/or writer are seen as martyrs to the all powerful 1st Amendment.

At least everyone will wear their seatbelt or get a nasty blog mention in Consumer Reports. This country has lost its balls and the inmates are apparently in charge.

OS