UNICEF attacks Smurfs with nukes
The sun is shining, birds are singing, and dozens of cute little Smurfs are frolicking amongst the flowers. Suddenly, nukes and dirty bombs start falling from the sky, sending a hundred blue legs running for their lives.
This isn't a scenario created in the depths of Gargomel's dark mind. This scene was created by the minds at the UNICEF marketing department. UNICEF, the non-profit organization that give out the orange change boxes at Halloween, has decided that they need to shock viewers into realizing that war is destroying childhoods across the globe.
I understand the reasoning behind this sort of ad; I read the paper and watch the news, and I know that children really do seem to have a shorter, gloomier, less active and more violent childhood. But I wonder; does creating another image of violence make things better? Is this one of those rare cases where the end really does justify the means?
Simply, no. UNICEF is not alone in their concern for preserving the innocence and light-heartedness of childhood. What if all the kid-friendly organizations started making ads like this? What's next? Bert and Ernie getting beaten to death by a group of homophobes wielding tire irons?
The Smurf ad campaign is just another 30 seconds of violence that kids have access to — the same sort of violence that is destroying the youth; the same violence that UNICEF is so desperately trying to stop. And any argument that claims children won't see it because its aimed at adults and shown later at night is blind to the world of technology — in less than a minute an eight year old can locate and download the ad. He can then email it to his friends, use stills as his laptop screensaver; and download it onto his cellphone to use as a background image.
Shock value is a good way to get someone's attention, and when it is aimed exclusively at adults and doesn't contain anything that would entice a youngster (read: bright colours and beloved cartoon characters) it is a valuable marketing tool. But there must be another way for UNICEF to get their point across.
A useful and much more tame campaign could have outlined the lives of soldiers who are living with the consequences of war and bombing, such as the man who loses his legs and will never leave his wheelchair. Those stories are still shocking and would upset the audience that they're actually trying to target.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
This isn't a scenario created in the depths of Gargomel's dark mind. This scene was created by the minds at the UNICEF marketing department. UNICEF, the non-profit organization that give out the orange change boxes at Halloween, has decided that they need to shock viewers into realizing that war is destroying childhoods across the globe.
I understand the reasoning behind this sort of ad; I read the paper and watch the news, and I know that children really do seem to have a shorter, gloomier, less active and more violent childhood. But I wonder; does creating another image of violence make things better? Is this one of those rare cases where the end really does justify the means?
Simply, no. UNICEF is not alone in their concern for preserving the innocence and light-heartedness of childhood. What if all the kid-friendly organizations started making ads like this? What's next? Bert and Ernie getting beaten to death by a group of homophobes wielding tire irons?
The Smurf ad campaign is just another 30 seconds of violence that kids have access to — the same sort of violence that is destroying the youth; the same violence that UNICEF is so desperately trying to stop. And any argument that claims children won't see it because its aimed at adults and shown later at night is blind to the world of technology — in less than a minute an eight year old can locate and download the ad. He can then email it to his friends, use stills as his laptop screensaver; and download it onto his cellphone to use as a background image.
Shock value is a good way to get someone's attention, and when it is aimed exclusively at adults and doesn't contain anything that would entice a youngster (read: bright colours and beloved cartoon characters) it is a valuable marketing tool. But there must be another way for UNICEF to get their point across.
A useful and much more tame campaign could have outlined the lives of soldiers who are living with the consequences of war and bombing, such as the man who loses his legs and will never leave his wheelchair. Those stories are still shocking and would upset the audience that they're actually trying to target.
Editorial opinions or comments expressed in this online edition of Interrobang newspaper reflect the views of the writer and are not those of the Interrobang or the Fanshawe Student Union. The Interrobang is published weekly by the Fanshawe Student Union at 1001 Fanshawe College Blvd., P.O. Box 7005, London, Ontario, N5Y 5R6 and distributed through the Fanshawe College community. Letters to the editor are welcome. All letters are subject to editing and should be emailed. All letters must be accompanied by contact information. Letters can also be submitted online by clicking here.
