Skip navigation

 Login or Register | Member Centre

Canadian made

KEITH MCARTHUR

From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Latest comment posted at 8:34 AM EDT 20/04/07

Why red-hot ads get the cold shoulder ...Read the full article

This conversation is closed

  1. andrei de souza from Toronto, Canada writes: People need to stop censoring. It may be offensive to some people in society, but they need to learn to turn the channel instead of dictating what is suitable. Only material that violates the Charter, or is a hate crime should be turned down.

    If we aren't careful, we'll lose our hard fought liberty and end up like our censored, information controlled, pressure to conform neighbours to the south.
  2. D C from Canada writes: for 40 years now people have stopped censoring and what has it bought you ? Unless you are over 40 of course you would not have seen the decline in morality and the upsurge in women leaving their husbands, swap clubs online and just a general coarsening of society .... a desensitization has taken place where things that were never acceptable before are now seen in family time T-V ... two girls kissing being the least of your concerns for sure.
    Look, even if we accept morals and community standards change, we must also accept there are hundreds of thousands of citizens who have no voice, no say in the rank and vile depictions of carnality and (worse) salacious violence we seen daily. The best families today may be the ones with an antenna in the attic and only 3 T-V channels on the tube. At least on the internet you have to click a bit to get filth and porn.
    Some people think it is a great victory if another standard bites the dust. But you can also consider road rage, and a worsening of the social niceties in interactions as a symptom of the coarseness that infests a society of strangers in today's world. Oh sure we have to "live with it" but this advertising review and limitation agency is only effective for private T-V whose management adheres to what the agency says...hardly an Orwellian plot. You have already lost your "hard won freedoms" and are now in the hands of the militants who have determined you are going to hear and see things whether you like it or not. AGain you are having stuff shoved into your face by NGOs and Charities as well as advocacy groups that cements their victory over YOUR morality. Same sex T-V shows are already in the market.... and their has been a 1,000% increase in the sexual activity in the schools legal and illegal. I am just so happy for all of ya' that you have all this freedom from censorship and everything . What has it bought your society except family breakups, pornography and sexual predators by the thousands?
  3. janfromthe bruce from Canada writes: boys will be boys - a big boy wacking a little boy off the bed with a pillow. And what is the ad selling?
  4. A D from Canada writes: "Edgy" or "sleazy"? Today's advertising is what's making our nine, ten, and eleven year old girls think that they have to dress street-walkers in order to fit in. It's also what has pushed pre-teens into having sex and caused girls as young as eleven to become pregnant. It's caused society to become obsessed with sex and to think that it is normal to be as obsessed with sex as it is. All of this just to line the pockets of the advertisers with as much money as possible from individuals gullible individuals who actually believe that having orgies on the beach, or having sex with anyone who is willing, is going to make them happier and turn them into winners. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. The fact that advertising is out of control, and increasingly targeting children, calls for intervention of some kind. People are not disgusted because they're prudes; they're disgusted because there is something to be disgusted about. However, the saddest part of this current trend is the fact that those screaming 'censorship' when someone points out there's too much sleaze around, are the same ones who demand that harmless commercials like the kid-gets-pillow-whopped one be pulled. As already noted: this society desperately needs to see a psychiatrist.
  5. Bruce Farris from Canada writes: And for God sake, please don't show baby's bottom!
  6. Adebisi TheGamer from Canada writes: Advertisers have to abide by hyper strict rules?

    Let me file this under "WHO THE HELL CARES?"

    Sorry, I do not think we should spend one single tax dollar worrying about this issue.
  7. Jim Bradley from Disneyland-on-the-Rideau, Canada writes: Could we please end the witch hunt? Advertising is not ruining this nation. If you don't like it, change the channel or better yet - write to the sponsor and complain. I'll take freedom of expression over some preconceived notion of decency any day of the week.

    The nightmare isn't sexually suggestive advertising encouraging young people to behave badly, rather it is the move toward the locked-down thinking of some posters here. If you want to live in 1955 apply for your green card right away! The neoCons in the States will welcome you!

    Finally, children are the products of their upbringing. If parents do their jobs then promiscuity and pregnancy will be avoided.
  8. J Law from Canada writes: Where is our society going? What do we envision our society should be? Should we have any controls as a society or should we just allow people to do as they want regardless of the consequences?

    I read a ficticious story 40 years ago about a guy having to go out shopping for food in the future. He put on his guns and knife; viewed the surrounding area through a scanner; unlocked his doors; moved the razor wire and sneaked to the store that was wired and guarded. As I read I found this was the norm for that period as opposed to the unlocked doors and nightly walks without fear in my neighbourhood.

    I thought, "what a joke," but that sort of scenerio is much closer to reality today than it was 40 years ago. Am I a prude? I don't think so. I can sit with the boys and talk the talk as well as you or any other can, but It makes me wonder where are we allowing our society go.
  9. Stude Ham from Outremont, Canada writes: The concern is that of showing a huge hulking creature blast a young child right off a bed. The concern is that what is being depicted is in fact nothing less than violence aimed at children. The concern is well placed. The depiction is neither funny nor harmless. It is sick in its implied violence against children. The CRTC was correct in forcing changes to the ad.
  10. Random Human from Toronto, Canada writes: Axe the regulator! And I don't mean dousing them in that new Men's body spray
  11. Another Andrew from Toronto, Canada writes: Definitely glad they censored this and glad we have censorship. This is what makes our country better than the USA and why people are drawn to Canada. Good job regulator!!!
  12. perp lext from Vancouver, Canada writes: I'm with those who are glad they nixed the Jays ad. It's all too easy to picture a larger kid deciding to try that on his younger sibling, to take a very benign bad-case scenario. That said, I'm pretty disturbed that the regulator's guidlines would explicitly say that for condom ads:
    "Commercials must not make mention of contraception."

    I mean really, god forbid we link condoms to contraception.
  13. T B from Canada writes: Canada blows (can I say blows?). You'd think the Mayflower just docked.

    And Another Andrew: people flock to the US and Europe in greater numbers than Canada. Prudish values don't make Canada great. It hurts us. It fact, Canada does not even have mediocre advertisements.
  14. D M from Canada writes: Pushing the limits seems to be what makes money. Most of these commercials are edgy and I can see how they would be offensive to some people. But lets face it, they generate revenue and get people talking about them, as we are doing here. As long as advertisers keep trying to out-do each other, expect to see more of this...This discussion alone has probably been worth it's weight in gold to the advertisers.
  15. A RazorWit from Belleville,, Canada writes: This group should take their responsibilities seriously and ban John Baird. His comments and actions both in and outside the house of commons are obscene...

Comments are closed

Thanks for your interest in commenting on this article, however we are no longer accepting submissions. If you would like, you may send a letter to the editor.

Report an abusive comment to our editorial staff

close

Alert us about this comment

Please let us know if this reader’s comment breaks the editor's rules and is obscene, abusive, threatening, unlawful, harassing, defamatory, profane or racially offensive by selecting the appropriate option to describe the problem.

Do not use this to complain about comments that don’t break the rules, for example those comments that you disagree with or contain spelling errors or multiple postings.

Back to top