Decius wrote:
] Well, no they are rejecting it because it is shocking to watch
] little girls explode, but TV stations in California ran an
] anti meth ad that showed a house with a little baby in it
] exploding. Why is one OK and the other is not?

[ Exactly. I'm going with "people are retarded" as per usual. ]

]People I guess
] are more willing to send tough messages about drugs then they
] are about land mines. This is likely because they've been
] hearing weaker messages about drugs for a long time and they
] are desenitized to it.

[ That's a possibility. It may also be because drugs are a more identifiable risk or concern. No one here really knows anyone who got killed or maimed by a land mine, but we all know a drug addict or two, or at least think we understand how bad drugs are from watching Trainspotting. As usual, it's hard to get people to care about something they can't see with their own two eyes. This UN ad, perhaps not effectively, was trying to make that very point... that just because you don't see it doesn't mean it's not happening all over the place, and, oh, by the way, a lot of those mines still say "USA" on them. To be perfectly fair, I didn't whip out my checkbook right away either, so I guess in the most fundamental sense the ad wasn't successful since even someone who's sensitive to the message wasn't moved to send money right away. -k]

RE: Boing Boing: U.N. landmine commerical won't air in US.