Child actor cries in anti-smoking commercial; was a line crossed?

[Liberal_in_LA]

http://www.stltoday.com/blogzone/talk-of-the-day/talk-of-the-day/2009/04/child-actor-cries-in-anti-smoking-commercial-was-a-line-crossed/

Child actor cries in anti-smoking commercial; was a line crossed?

The Today Show this week has been obsessed by an anti-smoking television ad that has appeared in New York. The ad depicts a mother and young boy, perhaps 4, in a train station. The boy loses site sight of his mother and we we watch as he begins to cry over the separation. The tagline of the ad: “If this is how your child feels after losing you for a minute, just imagine if they lost you for life.”

If you have kids, you know it’s a heart-wrenching image. Here’s the ad: (ad at link)


This morning, Today’s Matt Lauer interviewed the Australian producer of the ad, Fiona Sharkie. She assured everyone that the boy and his mother — the two actors in the ad — were carefully briefed about the ad. She said, however, that the boy did, in fact, lose site sight of his mother and was, briefly, crying real tears.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30008941/

Do new anti-smoking ads go too far?
Some question whether a young boy’s crying is too real to be acting

Television anti-smoking ads have gotten increasingly graphic, even gruesome, in the past seven years, but a new ad rolled out by the New York City Department of Health goes for the heartstrings even while detractors say it hits below the belt.

[Liquorice]

1. I'm annoyed at anti-smoking and anti-drug ads. I don't think they should

be on TV at all. I don't smoke or do drugs, but I think scaring and shaming people into not doing those things is extremely inappropriate and insulting. As to whether that particular ad went too far, yes (if the boy was really crying)... Maybe the boy shed real tears, or maybe the producer is exaggerating. It wouldn't surprise me being that both actors were briefed on the ad and the little boy knew his mom was going to walk away and he was supposed to stand there, crying and looking for her. Either way, they did it so that everybody would talk about whether they went too far, thereby giving more publicity for the ad. Ugh, I've become so cynical lately! x(

[depakid]

4. Whether tobacco fear appeals annoy people or not- they work

and thus save lives.

The ethical issues re: use of children in the present case are more troubling. I'd be interesting to see if anyone know whether there are any formal guidelines on this.

[Why Syzygy]

6. What about those mothers who

have young children and cancers unrelated to smoking? They will be hurt by this commercial as well.
Only 1/3 of smokers will develop cancer. The very same as non-smokers.

The ad is cruel to a lot more than smokers. Smokers will just reach for another cigarette to ease their tension. Non-smokers have NO CLUE how to encourage smokers to give it up.

http://www.amazon.com/Easy-Way-Stop-Smoking-Non-Smokers/dp/1402718616/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1239608726&sr=1-1

[Liquorice]

7. I agree. Fear of death is not what I want advertised on my TV. Also these

commercials make children terribly afraid that a parent who smokes is going to die. I used to smoke and it was HORRIBLE trying to quit... But my quitting had zero to do with any ads I saw on TV. When a person who smokes truly wants to (or needs to) quit for herself, she will and no TV ad will make it happen a moment sooner.

You're right about the ads making people who smoke want to smoke even more. I used to feel so anxious when I saw those ads that I would immediately go have a cigarette. Some of those ads also make non-smokers feel like they are better than people who smoke and therefore entitled to freely criticize and harshly judge them. That attitude also makes people who smoke upset and more likely to light up. By the way, I read Carr's book when I was gearing up to quit.

[depakid]

13. " You're right about the ads making people who smoke want to smoke even more." err- no

Research shows fear appeals to be effective at increasing tobacco cessation. This is why countries like Canada, Australia and Brazil put nasty pictures on their cigarette packs, to use another example.

Of course, effectiveness is measured in terms of populations- it may not work for you speciically.

[Why Syzygy]

16. Please post link to

this "research". I don't believe it.

[depakid]

19. There's quite a bit of it out there

Here's a nice synopsis of how it works:

Fear appeals are persuasive messages designed to arouse fear by describing the negative outcomes that people will experience unless they stop risky behaviors or start practicing healthier behaviors. Decades of research show that such appeals are effective at motivating behavior change across a wide domain of health behaviors. In fact, fear appeals are argued to be most effective at promoting behavior change when perceived efficacy is high. That is, the more people believe they can do something to reduce their threat, the more effective the fear appeal.

The Extended Parallel Process Model, formulated by communication expert Kim Witte, sheds light on how fear appeals work to motivate behavior change. More importantly, the model specifies conditions under which fear appeals work and conditions under which they fail. For example, simply showing smokers an image of black lungs or a smoker hooked up to a ventilator on a hospital bed as ways of scaring smokers into quitting will not work by itself. People are likely to just turn away from these frightening images to reduce their fear. In addition to scaring smokers with frightening images, they need to be provided with solutions for how they can quit smoking. For example, showing a smoker calling a quit line or using a nicotine replacement product to help him or her quit successfully would make the fear appeal message more likely to work.

A recent study by Norman C. H. Wong and Joseph N. Cappella sought to test the Extended Parallel Process Model using PSAs that highlighted the risks of smoking and the risks of not kicking the habit. For example, one ad talked about how smoking harms the brain and causes strokes to occur by showing blot clots that occur in a smoker’s brain. Another ad talked about how smoking is socially unacceptable by showing a smoker being tricked into leaving a bar alone by an attractive patron. Along with the PSAs, ads that promoted solutions for helping smokers quit were also used. For example, one ad talked about how one smoker, Chuck, was able to quit by calling a quit line. Another ad was a commercial for the Commit Lozenge (a nicotine replacement product) that talked about how smokers double their chances of quitting by using the product rather than doing it cold turkey. All of the ads were shown in various combinations to determine their effects on smokers’ intentions to quit or seek help quitting.

Participants in the study were adult smokers—some of whom were ready to quit, others who were more reluctant to do so. These smokers were assigned to watch one of two conditions: a high threat antismoking ad or a low threat antismoking ad. Both ads were followed by either an ad for a nicotine lozenge, an ad urging the smoker to call a quit line, or no ad at all. After viewing the ads, participants were asked to respond to a survey measuring their readiness to quit smoking, intentions to quit, intentions to seek help to quit, the degree of threat they perceived in the ad, and how effective they perceived the ad to be.

The results of the study yielded several interesting findings. Intentions to seek help for quitting were highest among those who felt at risk because of their smoking and felt confident that calling the quit line or using the nicotine lozenge would make quitting easier. For smokers who were not ready to kick the habit, it was important for them to both feel at risk because of their smoking and confident in the solution promoted to help them quit successfully. Interestingly, among smokers with a high readiness to quit, the key motivator for these individuals was to feel confident in their abilities to quit successfully by either calling the quit line or using the lozenge. This makes sense because such individuals already feel their health is at risk due to smoking. They need to feel reassurance that they can quit successfully using either a nicotine replacement product or calling the quit line.

http://www.communicationcurrents.com/index.asp?sid=1&issuepage=133

You can find a whole lot more (though thanks to academic publishing parasites, a lot of the information is behind insulting paywalls).

Run searches for "fear appeals" "tobacco" "cessation" on google scholar: http://scholar.google.com/

or pub med: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/

[Why Syzygy]

57. Not likely to convince me.

I'm from the school of Risk Reduction. People are GOING to use MIND altering substances. It IS.
The most effective methods are those that reduce the risk to themselves and others.

Fear ain't it. It treats people stupid. And anyone who advocates FEAR as motivator, needs to go chum up with George W.

[seabeyond]

27. not to mention the "child" is not little but an adult by the time the parent is effected

by smoking if they are effected.

it is an extreme, out there, offensive commercial that people will self righteously claim "it works, safe lives, ergo ok"

[KittyWampus]

43. actually, the "child" is being subjected to toxic fumes daily by their parent's smoking and

also toxin remnants that embed themselves from lit cigarettes into household fibers.

[seabeyond]

51. yada yada yada yada yada...... n/t

[proud2BlibKansan]

53. Even if the smoker doesn't smoke around their children?

[spoony]

74. Please read #30

And even if what you are saying is always the case, it doesn't comfort a 25-year-old at their parent's funeral that they're an adult. You still think of all the time lost, that didn't have to be.

[seabeyond]

75. what was he, in his 30's. was he a 60 yr old father of 7 yr old? genetically inclined to heart

attack?

this isnt even kinda sorta maybe any kind of a norm

[Hippo_Tron]

15. The problem with anti-drug ads is that they are mostly anti-pot ads

And since marijuana really isn't that dangerous, the ads are misleading to make it seem otherwise. I would have less of a problem if the office of national drug control policy spent money showing kids the dangers of actually dangerous drugs.

[depakid]

20. I've seen a couple of nasty meth ads

but you're right- the pot ads are counterproductive- for ALL drug use, because they're so often percieved (and often rightly so) as giving out bogus information.

Here's an example of a "good" one from my old neck of the woods:

http://www.facesofmeth.us/main.htm

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

56. They don't really make pot seem dangerous

Just kind of uncool. If you want to debate the merits of that, feel free.

[Hippo_Tron]

72. The more recent ones do

But there were a lot of ones from the 90's about how it's a "gateway drug" and other such nonsense.

[Bolo Boffin]

2. Don't let this crack reporters hear about the Little Rascals. n/t

[Tom Kitten]

3. Well at least we still try to manufacture some things in America

like false outrage...

[Joe the Liberal]

5. Lol.......

I don't think you can outsource that. :rofl: :rofl:

[bobburgster]

17. Agree with that..

Seems to me the outrage over the commercial is a tad disproportionate.

[Number23]

8. That commercial's been playing here in Australia for about 3 or 4 months

And it is NOTHING compared to some of other anti-smoking ads. Folks with gangrenous limbs; mouth cancer. Horrible stuff.

Personally, I've always hated that commercial. My baby is 2 and seeing a young child crying like that really upsets me.

[Smith_3]

9. Yeah, because the real issue is not smoking, but the way people advertise against it

:eyes:

[TreasonousBastard]

12. Actually, the issue here is...

"Does the end justify the means?"

(Always a good question to ask)

[Smith_3]

14. If the ad gets my dad to quit smoking, that's fine with me. I doubt that it will though.

My guesses are he would rather suffocate slowly than put down those damn cigarettes.

[Jeep789]

10. Umm, doesn't everyone die?

What a pleasant thing to remind young children of. This is way over the top and not even accurate. Smokers die an average of 10 years younger than non-smokers (the same as obese people). Relatively few (about the same percentage as a non-smoker) would pass away while the child was still considered one (and probably not because of smoking).

[aquart]

11. I thought so.

Not unlike the director who got tears out of a child actor by telling him his dog was hit by a car.

[TexasObserver]

18. No. The commercial is fine, and factual.

I find "concern" that the smoking ads are going too far to be ridiculous attempts to protect America's most hard core addicts - smokers - from hearing messages they don't want to hear. Smoking is a killer. If people want to do it, fine by me, but commercials that truthfully demonstrate the perils of smoking are worthy.

[annabanana]

21. It may be "fine and factual", but that child "actor" was genuinely

scared. I do not find that exploitation of a small child acceptable. period. It is emotional abuse.

[TexasObserver]

22. Exploitation of a child?! Not buying it. That's a ruse.

It's a child actor. If your concern is child actors, why is it only smoking commercials that offend those who now suddenly find themselves advocates for oppressed child actors? What about diaper commercials? What about any time a child is shown crying on any form of television? How do you think they get them to cry, acting lessons? If you want to blame someone, blame the parent who is putting their child in acting at that age.

This faux concern "for the children" is bogus. If you want to say you hate commercials because you don't like their content, just say that. There has never been such poutrage over diaper commercials voiced at DU. But let a kid cry in an anti smoking commercial, and the "what about the children" meme comes out.

[annabanana]

23. Children that young do not "act"., , ,,

They are manipulated into genuine feelings.

[TexasObserver]

24. That's right, they do.

The parent leaves the room. The child whimpers and cries. The tv commericial or show director shoots that. They use it.

It's done in commercials and TV shows of all kinds, but only the anti smoking commercial brings out the "what about the children" theme for such practices.

Anyone who cares about kids knows that smoking around them is far worse than making them cry from missing mommy for five minutes. It's a phony argument by smokers.

Anna, this isn't personal on my part. I strongly disagree with your point of view on this topic. If someone wants to say some anti smoking commercials are really annoying and pretentious, I'll agree with them. But when someone who smokes tells me they are concerned about child actors used in such commercials, I simply do not believe them.

[annabanana]

25. I am opposed to the use of children that young in ANY commercial.

When they are still too young to discern the difference between fantasy and reality, they are TOO YOUNG to be used in this fashion.

I don't care if it's smoking or smoked beef.

(edit: I quite smoking 23 years ago when I found out I was expecting my first child)

[ejpoeta]

29. but it's what 'they' want. i love when i hear that!! like a small child can

decide whether they want anything beyond a doll or toy. and at that they don't really want the toy beyond being told they want it by commercials or someone else. lol.

[proud2BlibKansan]

38. So smokers can't be concerned about child actors in commercials

Gotcha

What about alcoholics? Since they drink does that mean they also can't be concerned whenkids are exploited? Are you targeting all addicts or just the ones whose habits annoy you?

[TexasObserver]

50. Your comments lack logic.

If you have something that logically relates to what I posted, instead of another non sequitur, you can try again.

[proud2BlibKansan]

52. Did I misintepret your remarks?

You said "But when someone who smokes tells me they are concerned about child actors used in such commercials, I simply do not believe them."

So if you didn't mean that smokers can't be concerned about these kids, please correct me.

[Reterr]

41. Couldn't agree more

The militant reaction of many smokers to any information regarding smoking and health is sometimes surprising.

Look, if you are someone who says, "I don't care about the effects of smoking (or fast food whatever) on my health. It is my choice." fine..It is certainly your choice and you are entitled to it. But, to want that the information should not even be put out there for other people who may actually be engaging in habits that they may change if the right info is available is absurd.


I remember a study on third hand smoking was posted in LBN a while back and lot of the responses were snide and suggesting such a study shouldn't even be done and such info shouldn't even be posted.

Again, I reiterate, if you don't want to know about the science behind some unhealthy addiction you have feel free to block it out. But to apparently want to bully everyone from not even spreading info on this is bullshit.

[KittyWampus]

45. There was a thread about how the toxins in cigarettes embed themselves in household fibers like rugs

and become radioactive (?) and dangerous to toddlers crawling (?).

If that's the thread you are talking about, it was FILLED with smokers trashing the scientific study for no apparent reason other than they felt oppressed.

[TexasObserver]

49. Watching the false poutrage is amusing, however.

People who don't give a damn about exposing their children or pets to second hand smoke suddenly care about a child actor in a commercial. Their silence regarding the other 50 child actors they'll see today in TV commercials is deafening.

I find plenty of anti smoking ads to be annoying, but it isn't because they use child actors.

[Kalyke]

47. It's not "factual."

Very few parents of a child that young will die from smoking while the child is still under the age of 18. In fact, I doubt ANY of them will die from smoking unless they were trying to light a cigarette at the Olive Garden whilst breast-feeding and got attacked by an angry mob.

Smoking can kill - but not as much as obesity and driving fast.

[Fleshdancer]

62. and yet if it were a dog quivering in fear, all of DU would be pissed

The issue has nothing to do with what the ad was for, it's about putting a small child in a very scary situation when he's too young to understand that it wasn't real. It's a cruel and unnecessary thing to do.

[Vinca]

26. I quit smoking decades ago, but if I hadn't there was an ad on TV

the other day that would have made me stop immediately. It showed them wringing a cup of tar out of lungs. Yuck! I imagine it's true, too, since I had the opportunity to witness an autopsy once. It was an old man who died from emphysema and his lungs were black and looked liked rocks. According to the pathologist they were hard, but there was no way in hell I was going to touch them.

[ejpoeta]

28. i really enjoyed the really disgusting ones they had a while back.

with stuff coming out of tubes or whatever that represented body parts. my daughter was freaking out about it and how her dad was going to die. So I, who quit smoking several years ago, had to calm down my child and assure her that daddy wasn't going to die. i hate these commercials!! bob is now taking chantix and has cut down considerably on the cigarettes. but i detest these commercials.

[MedleyMisty]

30. My father died of a heart attack when I had just turned seven

The autopsy showed that he was developing emphysema. I remember standing at his casket and thinking "Why did you smoke?"

Also, we all had respiratory problems but after he died and we weren't inhaling secondhand smoke anymore, that all cleared up.

So how does the ad "go too far"?

[Marrah_G]

31. All anti-smoking commercials do is make smokers want to fucking light up

If I could take a baseball bat to every fucking tv studio that makes one, I would.

It's hard enough quitting without seeing that propaganda bullshit on tv reminding me just how much I miss it.

(I quit Jan 1st- I still despise the anti-smoking crew)

[TexasObserver]

32. And that is the intent of some anti smoking ads - funded by the tobacco industry.

The tobacco industry is behind some of the anti smoking ads of which you complain. They want to be able to say that the public has been thoroughly warned of the dangers of smoking, and these over the top commercials provide that for the tobacco industry.

Ask "who benefits?"

Some of the most annoying commercials are supported by big tobacco, because they make the anti smoking lobby look excessive, while helping big tobacco defend its many lawsuits.

I quit smoking a number of years ago, and it takes years to get over the urge to smoke.

[Hippo_Tron]

73. They are funded by the Tobacco Industry as part of the settlement they made in the 90's

If the Tobacco companies could go back to advertising cigarettes like they did in the 50's and 60's, they would do so in a heartbeat.

[ecstatic]

34. I think the commercials do more to deter potential smokers

than to stop current ones.

[scrinmaster]

59. No, I don't smoke and they piss me off enough to start, just to spite them.

Same with the anti-pot commercials, I don't smoke that either, but I would just to spite them.

[Reterr]

42. Maybe it isn't just about you?

Maybe for every smoker like you who finds the anti-smoking crew despicable, there are ones like me who found that sort of stuff a helpful reminder to quit.

I like choice, but I also don't mind getting accurate info on my choices :shrug:. If some people get offended by every bit of info (you know what the libertarians bitch and moan about as "nanny statism" or something) on fast food, cigarettes etc. out there reminding them of stuff in their lifestyle that is unhealthy, ok I understand..They feel judged, they get defensive etc. etc.

But there are also a lot of people out there who are open minded to getting info about their choices. So the assumption by some people that all of this stuff is just pointless is wrong imo. It is just about how mature you can be when given accurate info about shit you are doing to yourself. If someone reminds me that a bad habit of mine is bad for me, I thank them. Whether I quit right then or not, I don't get defensive and say "You shouldn't even be putting that out there because I am offended."

[Marrah_G]

46. Good for you !

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

55. I hate smoking.....it's filthy and pointless

....and yet when I see a "Truth" commercial, I want to smoke in protest.

Many of these commercials are funded by pro-tobacco lobbies, and I'm starting to wonder if there is a subliminal element here.

[Why Syzygy]

70. So you must be okay with abstinence based sex ed! nt

[Hanse]

61. So then...it's a can't lose situation.

It gets rid of smokers one way or another.

[depakid]

65. The science shows you're absolutely wrong....

What is it about Americans that makes them so hostile to scientific study when the results contradict their own heartfelt beliefs?

Seems to be a strongly recurrent theme.

[SidDithers]

33. I'm more concerned about parents who smoke...

than ads about parents who smoke.

Sid

[ecstatic]

35. The commercial seems to be working as intended

If it's not making smokers uncomfortable/squirmish, then it is not effective.

[ObamaGear]

36. Yes

involving children in that type of commercial is wrong

[Iggo]

37. No big deal.

[Bluenorthwest]

39. The issue in the OP is not about smoking

nor about anti- smoking ads. It is about child labor issues on the set. When I hear this director state that a 4 year old was carefully briefed about an ad involving death and seperation, I know something is not right. Anyone here think they could 'carefully brief' a 4 year old?
It is possible to make bits of film with very young children and not be abusive, but care must be taken. At that very young age, it is usually not about 'careful breifing' about the content, but more about the opposite, in that one wishes to get a workable reaction without bringing the child into a frightening mindset. It can be done.
Note that the child actors cried real tears when he lost sight of his mother...with cameras set and rolling. If he 'lost sight' of his mother, that was the director's fault. Seems to have been her intentional 'method'. And she was as wrong as a sweatshop supervisor.
Children at work. This is about child labor, and adults who abuse the labor of children in film.

[BreweryYardRat]

40. If the anti-smokers were so concerned for our health, they'd be attacking Big Business.

Our health is more at risk from environmental pollutants -- in the air, in the water, in the earth -- and poisoned Chinese products than it is from smoking.

If the anti-smokers sincerely cared about us, they'd help us deal with that, and they'd help get rid of the chemical additives in our tobacco. (I don't smoke cigarettes, and I'm thinking of switching from cigars to a pipe and organic tobacco.) As it is, they're showing their true colors -- they want to indulge their punitive desires and their holier-than-thou attitudes.

When environmental toxins stop being a concern, then I'll stop taking the occasional smoke. (I've mostly switched to nicotine gum, but I like to light up now and again. Gives me an excuse to sit outside, relax, and I can drink my coffee while I smoke.)

[Ian David]

44. Too many of the "anti-smoking" commercials mandated by law are actually pro-smoking anyway.

Remember the commercial where they say something like, "If your child is under 18, we won't sell them cigarettes. Trust us. We'll protect your children FOR you, because we have these signs next to our cash registers."

[NashVegas]

48. When Has the Anti-Smoking Lobby Ever *Not* Stooped To Manipulative Tactics?

[ProudToBeBlueInRhody]

54. This ad sounds less annoying than....

......the ones with a bunch of twenty-somethings running around with megaphones acting like morons.

[lame54]

58. This hits below the belt...

[Fleshdancer]

60. I thought it was mean and way over the line

You can get your point across without scaring little kids. Shame on the mom and the director for putting him in that position.

Frankly I'm tired of advertisers (and my local news for that matter) exploiting the unconditional love a parent has for their child in order to sell a product, idea, or to increase viewership. Germs on a telephone won't kill my kid, my kid will most likely NOT be a victim of identity theft, no I'm not afraid of chester the molester every Halloween, same-sex marriage won't harm my kid, and smoking isn't the same as abandoning a kid at a train station. Advertisers need to stop peddling fear.

[Hanse]

63. Textbook example of manufactured outrage.

CNN's been pushing this story for weeks and it's gone nowhere.

They interviewed the makers of the commercial, a number of tobacco experts who liked it, people on the street who didn't give a shit, and their soul source of complaints consisted of anonymous whiners on the internet.

[RedCappedBandit]

64. Kids are built to cry

He's never going to remember that one time he lost sight of his mother. It happens all the friggin time.. no big deal.

[Fleshdancer]

67. That's a very sad justification for scaring a child

Since it happens, it's ok to do it on purpose? Kids fall and hurt themselves all the time too, but that doesn't mean it's ok to knock them on the ground.

[Why Syzygy]

71. He is sure to also forgive

the fear monger rapture readies who scare their children about being "left behind". :sarcasm:

[Quantess]

66. Big deal.

Who cares?

[kiva]

68. This ad is simply a way for anti-smoking zealots to

waste money and feel good at the same time. The only people who are convinced this would stop anyone from smoking are--surprise--non-smokers. I don't doubt that people who have experienced the loss of relatives and friends often find that a compelling reason to quit smoking, but watching a glossy and manipulative ad featuring a terrified child...not so much.

[snooper2]

69. What the fuck does this have to do with Pirates?

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:


Now- put that kid and his mom on a yacht off the Northern coast of Somalia and then you'll see that kid cry....

:evilgrin: