This ad was banned by the US government. (I received it in a powerpoint presentation, and these are screenshots from it)

Picture 1:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/5176/mtvad011ec.jpg
Picture 2:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/9089/mtvad026zl.jpg
Picture 3:
http://img212.imageshack.us/img212/3284/mtvad036ay.jpg

[ 09-18-2005, 11:12 AM: Message edited by: dplax ]

OMG I feel sick! Mtv should be ashamed of themselves!

<font color=skyblue>Their ads make it sound like we are not doing anything about the other three problems nor are we (the good people) united in our efforts. That's wrong. There was not much to do about the towers except unitedly mourn. But not everybody was mourning. A small few were rejoicing. Would those that rejoiced unite with us to help rid the world of HIV, hunger, and homeless? I am guessing that they have other agendas. So, who are they talking about when they say that the world should unite? Certainly, not all of the world even cares.

Besides, take all the starving, all the homeless and all the aids cases...and try to decide who is more important. They're all three important and should receive attention...but something comes to my mind when thinking about it. Let's say I give $10 a day to HIV cure, my neighbor gives $10 to hunger relief, and my other neighbor gives $10 to homeless shelter care. Now...after hearing one of those three commercials, I realize that I should unite the world in my efforts to cure HIV, and make them totally forget the other two problems. Therefore, I make more money for the HIV cure foundation, but now hunger and homelessness is worse for it. So how's a person to decide what to do? They cannot decide what needs are greater, so they continue to do as they have always done. Give what they can to their favorite charities and hope that they can help somebody with what they are able to do. Does this mean that I am therefore not united in my efforts to help the others? Should I not give $10 to one, but instead divide my money three ways and give $3.33 to each organization?

And what about Junior Diabetes?
And what about Cancer?
And what about...etc

There are too many problems in the world and not enough money to fix all of them at one time, and giving equal attention to all of them on the same day.

We do what we can and that is the best we can do. ~quoted from some cartoon that my daughter watches on PBS...


Another aspect to this whole Towers versus world problems...How dare they say that the Tower situation should not receive its five minutes of world attention. Sure, there are other problems,,,but they have been talked about for years upon years. Let those that died or lost someone in the Towers have their five minutes of world mourning. Damn.</font>

I still get sick opening this thread a second time. Would you mind linking those pictures so we don't have to look at them?

It does illustrate the fact that something needs to be flashy to be considered a tragedy. I just don't think they did it in a wise manner. Given the current climate in the country, the public clearly wouldn't be receptive to this sort of message.

What were they an ad on? TV?

If so then they're fake, the images are 900 pixels tall, the text in the images is 7 pixels tall... the best a TV can do is 480 lines of video, which means if those were images from a commercial the text on those images would be 4 lines tall... unreadable.

If they were an ad for some print media then it may be possible, but I don't know why they'd be 4:3 aspect ratio if that were the case. If they were an ad to appear on mtv.com then I doubt the gubberment would care (the internet is still pretty wide open for advertisers).

Personally, I think it's some idiot trying to make a point at the expense of 9/11 victims and MTV.

We kill people in the name of fighting terrorism. Making that kind of sacrifice in the name of other problems that kill alot more people makes sense if for anything the sake of consistency. From that perspective I can agree with the statement this "ad" seeks to make though I doubt it's authenticity and question it's effectiveness.

I think an even stronger, even more effective statement comes from showing the throngs of malnurished people living in squalor or showing the Aids patients dying in hospitals, at home, or on the street.

No need for dramatic comparisons to the Twin Towers attack when the actual
images and scope of those problems is even more terrifying and awful than what happened on 09/11. Millions sick, millions poor, millions malnourished, millions displaced. September 11th was bad, very bad but it just doesnt compare.

sickening and evil.

<font color=ccccff>How much profit does MTV produce? How much profit sharing does MTV give to any of these causes?
How much does the Federal Government hand out for ALL of these issues? And not just here, but worldwide?

A person with HIV did something (for the majority) to become infected with the virus.

A person that is hungry, has not attempted to grow a garden, fish, or hunt the wild critters that go well with garden fresh potatoes.

A person who is homeless, may be homeless for desire. Others may in fact be homeless, for they have no means of tying sticks together, and forming shelter. But, will sit on a street corner and expect you to help them. While they do nothing.

The cowardly events of 9/11 effected folks of all walks of life, health, and social status. Which cannot be compared to events MTV can help eradicate!

So, what is MTV going to do about it? Show live coverage of the next (insert whatever) Live Aid concert?

Krunchyfrogg, may the powers of healing and recovery be with you. God-Speed. </font>

Thanks. BTW, is there a link somewhere showing that Mtv wanted to air this commercial? Also, if you got this in an e-mail, could you please forward it to krunchyfrogg@gmail.com

Thanks

What if you replace every instance of the word "person" in this part of your post above here with the word child, or add the word sick, old, or handicaped. How about the word mother. Plenty of people, millions, are unable or don't know how to help themselves so they die a slow death or simply cling to life. That's the whole problem.

[ 09-16-2005, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Chewbacca ]

Oh and BTW since when does the U.S. Government ban ads, besides those with sex, nudity, cigarettes, or people drinking alcohol. On what grounds, by what law, and who's authority was this ad banned if it, infact, actually was? (assuming it is a real ad which I also doubt)

Those are really, really ignorant statements. Seriously, what the hell?

This is a Joe Job. Stop and think before you believe anything. Ultimately someone at MTV would have 1) thought up the idea 2) gotten it submitted and accepted 3) actually sat down and made it. In all those three steps it would have had to pass through real people like the ones on this board. The likelihood of MTV ever making such a blatant error is minimal to non-existant.
Joe Jobbing (that is spam or harmful content send to a second party in the name of a third party, where the third party is intended to recieve the full blame) is getting more abundant these days. Expect to see thousands of "secretly leaked" repulsive ads and similar in the next year or so.

[ 09-17-2005, 05:57 AM: Message edited by: mad=dog ]

Since this is generating quite some controversy I can send the powerpoint presentation I had received this in (I know it is too big for a tv ad, but consider that I had to take screenshots of a powerpoint presentation and then put them on the web, so this isn't real size) to anyone interested. I don't know whether it is true or not, what I was told was that the ad aired only once.

However a google search for "banned mtv ad" (link) shows a surprising number of results also. I don't have time to go indepth into these to try and find whether it is true or not right now, but might do so later.

EDIT: I have edited the first post to show links and not the pictures as krunchyfrogg had asked.

EDIT 2: Also as krunchyfrogg asked, I have forwarded him the email.

[ 09-18-2005, 01:00 PM: Message edited by: dplax ]

Thanks on both accounts, dplax.

Techinically the gov't doesn't ban those either, the FCC (the beaureau that oversees TV, radio and they're trying to get their hands on the internet) merely give ginormous fines to those who air things like that aside from specific pre-approved venues. (You won't see beer ad's on tv before a certain time, and usually only during sporting events, "girls gone wild" video comercials don't air until after 11 PM, you may have a point on cig's I haven't heard or seen an ad for them as far back as I can remember, which is about 20 years)

[ 09-19-2005, 10:13 AM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

Techinically the gov't doesn't ban those either, the FCC (the beaureau that oversees TV, radio and they're trying to get their hands on the internet) merely give ginormous fines to those who air things like that aside from specific pre-approved venues. (You won't see beer ad's on tv before a certain time, and usually only during sporting events, "girls gone wild" video comercials don't air until after 11 PM, you may have a point on cig's I haven't heard or seen an ad for them as far back as I can remember, which is about 20 years) </font>[/QUOTE]Yeah, Thanks for clarifying. I've never seen a cig ad on the airwaves either, but evidently they used to exist. As for booze, I know it's prohibited to show people actually drinking any, but I wasn't specifically aware of time regulations.

Anyway my point was the U.S. Government bans very few things from broadcast, even using the term 'ban' loosely- a trend I'd like to see continue.

Well, I find it interesting that not one of those ads made me want to help the poor, AIDS-afflicted, or homeless. The whole thing strikes me as one big advertising campaign for social Darwinism.

Those are really, really ignorant statements. Seriously, what the hell? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=ffccdd>Why? How does it make YOU feel? Does it strike a chord? I have patrolled the streets of Kosovo, I have been shot at, and returned fire in many places other than Iraq. I have walked the streets of El Paso, TX. So tell me, Oh wise one what do my first hand experiences of people, poverty, and the dying not have to do with this political scam? I have seen an (insert what you like, but it must be politically correct) kill a (the other politically correct term) because he raised a 'pig' to feed his family. I have seen fertile ground sit idle. I have seen sex in the streets and no protection used. I have shared a bottle with a 'bum' to experience life without shelter. He could have shelter, but 'he' choose to weather the storm. Others could have shelter too, but it would call for that four letter word, AKA: WORK.

The key here is WILL where there is will, there is a way. However, I have seen with my own two eyes, many ways, but not a single will!

If you want to cry foul, go forth an experience life to it's fullest, then come back full circle and we shall quantify your findings!</font>

[ 09-19-2005, 06:21 PM: Message edited by: Felix The Assassin ]

God Bless you, Felix.

My sister has every sort of mental instability you can imagine. She's 17, so my parents have some degree of control over her. But I dread the day, a few years from now, when she decides to up and leave, maybe with some guy. But she would be unable to stay with him, either. There is a very good chance she'll end up on the streets, with absolutely no way to change her situation.

People are different. You have your experiences, Felix, and you've had many more than I, because you have more time. And I respect what you've seen, but you need to be aware that situations exist outside the ones you've described. People don't just end up on the streets. Women in particular are in danger of this... They're raped or molested as girls, and snap some time down the road. People can end up in a bad place because of remarkable circumstances, and maybe they *can't* just "get over it" or "get a job."

And growing fishing, hunting, or growing a garden in Manhattan is probably some sort of zoning violation.

ID, I wish your sister and your family all the best. My Wife became a social worker after the events of 9/11 (leaving a six-figure, high profile CPA position at a major tax firm in Manhattan). I can only imagine how tough things are in a situation like the one you touch on.

Those are really, really ignorant statements. Seriously, what the hell? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=ffccdd>Why? How does it make YOU feel? Does it strike a chord? I have patrolled the streets of Kosovo, I have been shot at, and returned fire in many places other than Iraq. I have walked the streets of El Paso, TX. So tell me, Oh wise one what do my first hand experiences of people, poverty, and the dying not have to do with this political scam? I have seen an (insert what you like, but it must be politically correct) kill a (the other politically correct term) because he raised a 'pig' to feed his family. I have seen fertile ground sit idle. I have seen sex in the streets and no protection used. I have shared a bottle with a 'bum' to experience life without shelter. He could have shelter, but 'he' choose to weather the storm. Others could have shelter too, but it would call for that four letter word, AKA: WORK.

The key here is WILL where there is will, there is a way. However, I have seen with my own two eyes, many ways, but not a single will!

If you want to cry foul, go forth an experience life to it's fullest, then come back full circle and we shall quantify your findings!</font> </font>[/QUOTE]http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y13...l/emot-911.gif
...And as we all know, anecdotal evidence automatically beats common logic and actual factual knowledge - and allows you to say whatever the hell you want to say to drive home a certain point, in whatever way you want to say it; even at the expense of sounding like a jerk in the process. So those millions upon millions of people in, say, Ethiopia or India dying of hunger are just lazy? Ever heard of overpopulation, ruined harvests, natural disasters, wars, or even simply climate and weather conditions playing a role in possible cases of hunger?
As for Aids, people getting raped in South Africa are just asking for it? Careless, unhygienic blood transfusions spreading aids is the patient's fault? Hey, and did you know Aids could get carried over to newborn babies as well, in 15 to 30% of all cases, with the risk getting higher when breastfeeding? Those babies had it coming as well, right?
And yes, nice newsflash there that people in poverty and desperation could do horrible, horrible things. The New Orleans disaster fallout in itself demonstrates that clearly, but I was aware of that beforehand as well. Just that I didn't see it with my own eyes doesn't automatically invalidate anything I have to say by default, however.

I'm sure you've seen some awful things, and without a doubt in those anecdotal cases those people had it coming just like you said, but anecdotal evidence should never cloud your judgment in the face of other known and more prevalent causes for aforementioned tragedies. For someone as experienced in life as you are, reading a newspaper every once and awhile shouldn't be that much of a problem, right?

[ 09-20-2005, 03:15 AM: Message edited by: Grojlach ]

About the ad itself, since I haven't commented on it yet:

I agree with the point (*) it makes, but not the way it makes. MTV is, as far as I know, an american tv company, and the ad (if it existed really) uses a theme (9/11), which is still a sore spot for many americans.

(*) The point being that for us to talk about something important, it has to happen suddenly, has to be in the press and has to be unexpected. If it weren't for Live8 concerts we wouldn't have talked about poverty. If 9/11 hadn't happened then Afghanistan and Iraq wouldn't have been attacked. But I'm starting to go into too many ifs here...

Those are really, really ignorant statements. Seriously, what the hell? </font>[/QUOTE]<font color=ffccdd>Why? How does it make YOU feel? Does it strike a chord? I have patrolled the streets of Kosovo, I have been shot at, and returned fire in many places other than Iraq. I have walked the streets of El Paso, TX. So tell me, Oh wise one what do my first hand experiences of people, poverty, and the dying not have to do with this political scam? I have seen an (insert what you like, but it must be politically correct) kill a (the other politically correct term) because he raised a 'pig' to feed his family. I have seen fertile ground sit idle. I have seen sex in the streets and no protection used. I have shared a bottle with a 'bum' to experience life without shelter. He could have shelter, but 'he' choose to weather the storm. Others could have shelter too, but it would call for that four letter word, AKA: WORK.

The key here is WILL where there is will, there is a way. However, I have seen with my own two eyes, many ways, but not a single will!

If you want to cry foul, go forth an experience life to it's fullest, then come back full circle and we shall quantify your findings!</font> </font>[/QUOTE]Just because you've had the luck to be born in a country with social healthcare and actual possibilities to take care of yourself doesn't mean that everyone in the entire world has had that opportunity.

And the fact that you're actually proud of yourself patrolling streets and taking and opening fire makes me sick. I think those ads 'on MTV' are a tad bit offensive but to say that they're over the top, horrible and sickening? That your the American patriotistic view on the matter, I'm sure that 90% of Africa's inhabitants couldn't care less about 9/11.

Just a minor correction, Link: America is not a "country with social healthcare," technically speaking. And a darned shame, too. ;)

Felix called this a political scam. All these adverts do is show just how narrowminded people are. The issue isn't the "sickening" exploitation of the 9/11 tragedy, the issue is that these adverts show american* people how wrong their priorities are, and they dont like it; hence the ban. You like to think that the people who are suffering are the ones who are to blame, because that absolves you from the guilt you have not being able to help them.

Most humanitarian problems happen because of natural disaster coupled with corrupt government. These adverts are not just a political scam, they are meant to create political pressure. Politics is the only solution to these problems, and so I think the adverts are just and the revulsion to them only shows their effectiveness. How can you dismiss an attempt at helping those in need as sickening?

Felix, a military background gives you a very biased picture of the world. You have been sent to deal with man made problems, where humanity is at its worst. i think your opinion would be somewhat different if you were an aid worker.

*I don't mean this as anti-american. It happens here as well. The london bombings and the war on terror overshadow more grievous problems with the world, simply because they are closer to home.

[ 09-20-2005, 11:43 AM: Message edited by: Melcheor ]

So the fact that he is proud to have defended the defenseless makes you sick? It's not a matter of "I got to shoot at fifty [insert racial slur of choice] today", it's a matter of "I was able and ready to defend the peace in a region of the world where instability and violence was more common than it was with my presence"

The fact that you feel that is something to be looked down upon says alot about you Link. Let me quote one of my favorite songs and one that has helped shape the direction of my life
While I agree with much that Felix said there is a small % of the population that is unemployable due to mental health problems, physical handicaps, etc etc, they certainly didn't "choose" to be homeless, and likely either don't know, or refuse the options that could alleviate their pain (mental hospitals, social security and halfway houses, etc)

Since the commercial in question was supposed to have been on american MTV it makes sense to look at it from an American perspective, and is unfair to overgeneralize (in both ways). AIDS cases in the USA are MOSTLY caused by the wilfull actions of those aflicted, in third world countries, not so much. But unsanitary blood transfusions hasn't been an issue in the US in a very long time, sharing needles for drug use, they knew the risks going in. the only ones who aren't at fault are babies born with AIDS which is a tiny portion of the US AIDS population (which is what Felix was addressing, and overgeneralised).

For Africa where is it so rampant and widespread I'm sure a much higher % of the problem is due to children being born with the disease, and surviving into childbearing age (which is much lower there than is considered normal in the west) and having children.

As for world hunger, and homelessness, the US donates very substantial amounts to foreign governments, as well as what is donated and volunteered by private citizens, and it grows exponentially when there is a major event that makes things worse in the country in question, like the tsunami relief efforts.

But the problems are also prevalent in the US, and I'm a firm believer in making sure your own house is in order before telling other people how to arrange theirs. The homeless (if able to work) should get involved with programs like habitat for humanity, where they help build their own homes and donate x amount of hours to Habitat for Humanity before being given a home, like Felix said, building their own place in the world.

[ 09-20-2005, 01:02 PM: Message edited by: Morgeruat ]

<font color = lightgreen>Who cares about MTV? [img]graemlins/1ponder.gif[/img]

Those ads, even if they are real and were really "banned" by either MTV or the government, are designed solely to motivate people into some sort of action through guilt. I don't know about the rest of you, but I am not motivated by guilt. [img]graemlins/petard.gif[/img] </font>

<font color=skyblue>That's a great point, Azred. I have read something somewhere about motivational methods...and the guilt trip was mentioned as a no-no.</font>

I don't think it is about guilt per-se. I think MTV (or whoever made it) tried to create an image Americans could relate to. Few people in the West lose sleep over the millions dying in the Third World because it is hard to relate to people who live so far away and have such a radically different culture. By comparing the casualties there to those in our own back yard, we may get a better idea of the magnetude of the suffering there. After all, the '800 million' people dying of famine are just numbers, but we are made to see the almost three thousand people that died at 9/11 as individuals. Dreaming, breathing, thinking people with families and jobs. When we realise that people in the Third World are much the same, it might give us a whole new perspective on their problems.

[ 09-21-2005, 10:26 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Actually, it just reflects one of our specific morality distinctions. Our government is supposed to protect us from being molested by tragedy and war and strife. Ergo, it is the proper place for our government to come in and put an end to a military/warlike threat, such as terrorist attacks, or to help in a time of disaster, Katrina being a fine example of a tragedy where the government should have helped (how good a job they did is another topic, sadly).

But, we do not see it as the purview of our government to feed every hungry mouth and care for every sick person. Here or abroad. It's a government, it's not Jesus Christ. And, to be fair, we like to think that people who are suffering *from certain things, such as hunger or poverty* are the ones to blame because lots of times it's true. We have too many self-made people here who have worked their ass off to want to dole stuff out for free. Free-riders are an injustice, and no less culpable than others who are unjust.

For a personal take on this: As a kid, my father had a dirt floor in his house in Appalaicha. He had no opportunity for college despite good grades, so he went to work at the lowest of the jobs in his company and worked himself up the ladder to an engineer position. From the trailer in a holler he lived in, he sent his son (me) to the best education he could afford, which wasn't much, and he bested his father's income by age 30. It took me until age 31 to best my father's income. We worked through 3 generations to overcome poverty. We don't like giving shit away to those who were too lazy to do what we did.

Did you get a chance to best poverty because of the institutions available, or because of you and your ancestors working their asses off?

I don't think African poverty is the sole result of laziness. It's mostly due to lack of infrastructure (schools, roads) and unfair trade laws from our side. (Europe at any rate, not sure about the U.S) People who are forced to live under the worst possible circumstances, in poverty and war, and work from dawn to dusk to provide for their (often rather large) families deserve better then a life with no hope at all for a better future. Many people are prepared to give everything, but when there are no jobs or schools (and your country is either to poor to provide them, or your government is so corrupt all the money vanishes into the pockets of a rich elite), your options are rather limited.

[ 09-21-2005, 11:29 AM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]

Um.... both, of course. I had no better institutions available than any American, worse than most, but better than most Africans (meaning: in Africa), I suspect.

Regarding trade laws, while Europe is still pretty vehemently protectionist, we in the US are suffering under the world's most open trade policy. It's taking our jobs, but our bankers and companies don't care because their business in Asia is booming. Their investments give them a return, wherever the investments are located, so they don't give 2 farts about the job losses "in Peoria" afflicting most US communities. So, African companies benefit much more than they suffer based on trade. Asian companies benefit, benefit, and benefit some more.

Now, there can be little doubt laziness alone is not the reason for starvation in Africa. That's why I didn't speak in terms of universals. But, with our open trade policy, and with our foreign aid, we are doing something to help there -- as are most 1st world countries. Is it enough? You may say "no." I say, well, since there is no affirmative obligation to do anything to begin with, then it's a subjective question at best. It depends on your morality, and the degree of morality (meaning: not only the question of whether to give charity, but also the question of how much charity to give). But, what is sure is that trade modernization has Asia on the rise, and Africa will inevitably follow, though it is frustrating how hard it has been for it to do so thus far.

But, with Africa, it's not like there are no rich people. Africa's starvation and other problems are more attributable to the continuing cycle of revolutions and dictatorships than to our failure to send over boats of grain, wouldn't you think?

To be honest, I think we're both about as bad as each other. Historically it's perhaps been South America shafted by the US (as opposed to Africa which has been mostly shafted by Europe) - this is one of the reasons for a real swing away from the US and towards Europe by such countries in recent years.

Well, you saw my comments regarding the trade laws. Whether or not S. Am. has been shafted by the US, we recently approved CAFTA, which will create a sucking sound much greater than the sucking sound created by NAFTA, which was heretofore our suckiest suck.

<font color = lightgreen>Then perhaps when enough people over there get tired of being broomhandled (thank you, Timber) by their governments, which have some of the most notorious human-rights abuse records and widespread corruption problems in the modern world, they might make some headway towards improving the quality of life.
If popular revolt doesn't work, then a group of nations (or only the US if others don't wish to join in) should tell each government "you have 6 months to improve or we will implement regime change here"...and then follow through on that statement. </font>

Timber: although many individual European countries can still be considered to be extremely protectionistic (Italy, for example), the Union as a whole has slowly been opening up during the last few years. Although, judging by the speed at which the European Union typically works when handling such controversial issues, I'll probably have to get back to you in a few decades. ;)
Azred: how do you suggest they improve their quality of life? Obviously, the democratic process doesn't function in many such countries, as all major political parties are typically extremely corrupt. Also, I doubt the average oppressed-African has the acces to independent media or education needed to even realise there is an alternative to the corrupt dictatorships they have known all their life.

[ 09-21-2005, 03:13 PM: Message edited by: Dreamer128 ]