To Sit and Ponder…

Do today’s advertisements send contradictory messages to American consumers? In the essay “Mixed Messages Call for Healthy Skepticism,” Norman Solomon argues that American consumers should not only be made more responsive of the media’s primary tactics in visual advertisements that seem to contradict each other by sending mixed messages, but also be more aware of the decisions that we make as consumers. Solomon targets today’s American health-style penchant and those things which can be directly attributed to causing a decline in the American consumer’s healthiness. In the end we as Americans are primarily responsible for making an intellectual choice, a choice that promotes a healthier being or a choice which could regrettably cause our unhealthy demise.

Solomon begins his argument by showing the selfless ruse of today’s visual advertisements to promote a more home remedy healthy lifestyle. The advertisement title examples he provides convey to the reader the many techniques and practices available to the consumer to pursue a homeopathic treatment approach, for example herbal remedies, as opposed to a more addictive and sometimes debilitating approach such as with chemically-produced medications like narcotics. Titles such as “How Your Mind Can Heal Your Body” and “The Power of Mood” propose that we are capable of promoting good quality health within ourselves subliminally while others such as “Are You Genes to Blame” shows a more diagnostic approach with brain scans and laboratory exams. Solomon makes it seem as if we are in control of our own well-being. We can help heal ourselves without long-term side effects.

Solomon’s argument then drifts into initiating a warning to all Americans to not fall for the media’s seemly unselfish deception. He believes that you can find through out the same publications where you find the more health-focused material articles about the same man-made medications that they criticized. He explains, “–elaborate pitches for laxative, a purple pill for heartburn, over-the-counter sinus medication, and prescription drugs for allergies and Alzheimer’s.” He even tells of an instance on the inside cover of Time where you would see the James Bond type man with a Camel cigarette in his hand with the title “Pleasure to Burn”, condoling the unhealthy “coolness” of smoking.

Solomon argues, “Many big media outlets tell us how to make ourselves healthy while encouraging us to make ourselves sick.” This is the basis of his argument: his thesis. He attacks the media by saying that they are being paid by the large fast food to advertise for them, selling for them the very thing that they condemn in articles that plays a major factor in causing morbid obesity in America’s society, fast food. This is contradictory in the healthy lifestyle the media promotes. The argument makes us seem that the media is killing us. Solomon’s idea is that we are primarily in control of our own ideal health. Americans decide which route that they want to go whether it is the healthy or unhealthy lifestyle. The media makes this thought decision process difficult by providing mouth-watering temptations that seem far more enjoyable then even exercise.

Solomon includes that coverage should be more directed towards healing the disorders and not being a cause of them. In other words, Americans should be more apt to prevent the care not cause it. He ends in pointing out even cancer causing pollution caused by the need to own air polluting trucks and SUVs as a result of conspicuous consumption. He gives an example of a Chevy advertisement titled, “A Sledgehammer in a Ballpeen World” an advertisement for an air-clogging diesel truck in Time magazine which also promotes well-being. Solomon promotes awareness that we as Americans should not be deceived by this conflicting communication venue.

Solomon actually includes the media as consumers to present to a much larger audience then just a more specific audience of American baby-boomers that fall victim to these faulty advertisements. He leans to the idea that not only as American consumers are we liable for our own well-being but one way to combat the use of misleading advertisement is placing the responsibility on the media to make more of their material more health directed and less sponsor-driven advertisement. This makes Solomon’s argument more accepted by a much larger crowd.

The opposing view of Solomon’s essay is best represented by an editorial by Joseph T. Plummer, the co-editor for the Journal of Advertising Research. It explains the benefits of knowing what advertising does to the emotions of the consumer. Plummer explains that understanding this allows manufacturers, along with the media, to provide better “build successful brands”. Americans who purchase the products the media advertises actually are contributing to the idea of consumer preference. The more Americans purchase or the more they prefer products over another, then advertisers are more apt to place targeted advertisements based on the consumer’s preference.

Plummer’s audience is far different than Solomon’s audience. Plummer is directing his arguments towards those who provide the advertisement for the media venues that Solomon counters. In return Plummer’s article shows evidence that Solomon’s argument is valid and brings up a very good point about the media’s view on the consumer’s freedom of choice. What about Plummer’s audience? Are those advertisers that Plummer states should be made more aware of consumer expectation the same people who make up the same audience that Solomon so strongly suggests are victims of the ambiguous advertisement. Is Plummer’s audience not the same consumers? The main truth is that awareness of the “good and bad” makes us more conscientious consumers and less conspicuous.

Our choices ultimately affect our own welfare. Knowing how to make good decisions that provide optimal benefit is the key but can only begin with knowledge to tell the difference. Not knowing that a big Mac from McDonald’s is bad for you is a bad thing since you would be more apt to lean towards the advertisement of the guy eating the delectable big Mac. Knowing about cholesterol and its downfalls that the big Mac contains would make us be more apt to pay more attention to the healthy articles then falling victim to hypocritical advertisements. Could this be a solution to Solomon’s argument? I believe that both arguments are dependent on the consumer and freedom of choice. As Solomon’s article suggests the media’s ploy is a never ending cycle of society’s desire for unlimited wants. As America works towards a healthier population, the dismal end the human race was facing does not seem as dire. Knowledge is indeed the key.

Solomon uses a web-based national media watch group called FAIR or Fairness and Accuracy in Reporting as a forum to voice his argument. The group exudes a message to all consumers to be more “media activists rather than passive consumers of news”. Falling for the misleading advertisements make us passive consumers. To be more active is to be more able to separate the good material from the bad. Americans should be directly associated with preventing the illness not having to treat it. Being able to tell the difference in the messages delivered by the media according to Solomon is the first step.

Works Cited 

Solomon, Norman. “Mixed Messages Call for Healthy Skepticism.” The Informed       Argument: Brief Edition, 6th ed. Robert P. Yagelski, Robert K. Miller. Boston: Wadsworth, 2004. 336-339.

Plummer, Joseph T. “Editorial: What do people do with advertising? The critical question.” Journal of Advertising Research 46.1 (March 2006): 1(1). Academic OneFile. Gale. University of Tennessee at Chattanooga. 2 Sept. 2007 .

Trackback URI | Comments RSS