To the point of unconsciousness?
Column Karl Lüönd finds it spooky that hardly anyone from the hyperactive and talkative communications industry is speaking out against the nonsense of advertising bans.
Column It's spooky that hardly anyone from the hyperactive and talkative communications industry opposes the nonsense of advertising bans.The sentence comes from the civics textbook. "If you don't politicize, you will be politicized." The sentence is as exciting as sleepy feet - and it's spot on. Right now, we can once again see how the health lobby, fed with taxpayers' money and donations, is taking over the public debate thanks to the indifference of the other side. In the canton of Solothurn, a new health law is being put to the vote, which not only provides for smoke-free pubs, but also a ban on tobacco advertising. According to the Basler Zeitung newspaper of November 11, it will probably be the toughest anti-tobacco law in the whole of Switzerland. In the cantonal parliament, it only received a narrow majority of 45 votes to 42. The familiar picture: FDP, SVP and business associations against, SP, Greens and health organizations for - and among the supporters also the inherently insidious CVP with its pfäffische double face, which we already know from media politics.
Once again, the old arguments are trotted out and the impression is reinforced: the Taliban of healthy living are inspired by a holy zeal to declare their version of the truth universally binding. "You have to take the product out of sight and restrict its availability. Tobacco products belong under the counter," demands a functionary named Verena El Fehri from the Tobacco Prevention Working Group. Piero Schäfer, the unwavering campaigner against advertising bans, counters this with the simple fact that although a tobacco advertising ban has been in force in Italy since 1962, there has been no reduction in smoking or changes in consumption habits.
The outcome of the religious war in Solothurn is predictable. On September 24, the canton of Baselland decided in favor of advertising restrictions with a 71% majority. It is spooky that apart from the brave Piero and a few paid association officials, no one from the otherwise so hyperactive and talkative communications industry is fighting with all their might and eloquence against the inhumane nonsense of advertising bans.
What we have been predicting for years for the mentally and politically inert industry is now promptly happening: Advertising bans are to be used to "combat" all kinds of damage to civilization: Alcoholism, sugar consumption, fast cars. All this is being seriously considered and drafted - not only, but also in the couloirs of the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. The bureaucrats lull themselves and us into the false sense of security that an evil has been combated by banning the advertising of said evil. It's like the superstitious fighting ghosts: Just don't talk about it and they'll go away. Eyes closed and through - even at the cost of freedom. After all, advertising for legally available products is part of freedom of expression and as such is actually non-negotiable in a free society. The alternative, taken to its logical conclusion, would be state-imposed truth, proclaimed and controlled by the Ministry of Truth, as outlined by George Orwell.
Does the majority of the Swiss advertising and communications industry actually have the political awareness of amoebas? Sure, it doesn't affect the powerful in this league. Newspaper and magazine publishers, for example, only participate in tobacco and alcohol advertising with a few lousy percentages (at least as long as they don't count Denner's wine advertisements). 72 percent of the relevant budgets go to billposters and 14 percent to cinema advertising. The tobacco industry itself hardly puts up any noticeable fight for its advertising freedom. As a typical oligopoly, it can only be happy with advertising restrictions for cost reasons; after all, they know best from experience what tobacco advertising really does: not so much an increase in the number of smokers, but certainly a shift in market share.
Tobacco today, alcohol tomorrow - and the day after tomorrow? Anyone who occasionally listens to the world-improving visions of the bureaucrats in Brussels should set alarm bells ringing. But nothing is happening, with the exception of the aforementioned brave officials, who are being let down by the base of well-paid consultants and suppliers. Do they no longer believe their own arguments? Or do they no longer trust themselves to stand up with the power of conviction and better arguments against the devious prohibitionist mentality of the Jacobin watchdogs? Or is it the inertia of the full, who don't think they are affected just because they are not managing a cigarette or liquor budget?
Karl Lüönd is a freelance publicist.
Once again, the old arguments are trotted out and the impression is reinforced: the Taliban of healthy living are inspired by a holy zeal to declare their version of the truth universally binding. "You have to take the product out of sight and restrict its availability. Tobacco products belong under the counter," demands a functionary named Verena El Fehri from the Tobacco Prevention Working Group. Piero Schäfer, the unwavering campaigner against advertising bans, counters this with the simple fact that although a tobacco advertising ban has been in force in Italy since 1962, there has been no reduction in smoking or changes in consumption habits.
The outcome of the religious war in Solothurn is predictable. On September 24, the canton of Baselland decided in favor of advertising restrictions with a 71% majority. It is spooky that apart from the brave Piero and a few paid association officials, no one from the otherwise so hyperactive and talkative communications industry is fighting with all their might and eloquence against the inhumane nonsense of advertising bans.
What we have been predicting for years for the mentally and politically inert industry is now promptly happening: Advertising bans are to be used to "combat" all kinds of damage to civilization: Alcoholism, sugar consumption, fast cars. All this is being seriously considered and drafted - not only, but also in the couloirs of the EU bureaucracy in Brussels. The bureaucrats lull themselves and us into the false sense of security that an evil has been combated by banning the advertising of said evil. It's like the superstitious fighting ghosts: Just don't talk about it and they'll go away. Eyes closed and through - even at the cost of freedom. After all, advertising for legally available products is part of freedom of expression and as such is actually non-negotiable in a free society. The alternative, taken to its logical conclusion, would be state-imposed truth, proclaimed and controlled by the Ministry of Truth, as outlined by George Orwell.
Does the majority of the Swiss advertising and communications industry actually have the political awareness of amoebas? Sure, it doesn't affect the powerful in this league. Newspaper and magazine publishers, for example, only participate in tobacco and alcohol advertising with a few lousy percentages (at least as long as they don't count Denner's wine advertisements). 72 percent of the relevant budgets go to billposters and 14 percent to cinema advertising. The tobacco industry itself hardly puts up any noticeable fight for its advertising freedom. As a typical oligopoly, it can only be happy with advertising restrictions for cost reasons; after all, they know best from experience what tobacco advertising really does: not so much an increase in the number of smokers, but certainly a shift in market share.
Tobacco today, alcohol tomorrow - and the day after tomorrow? Anyone who occasionally listens to the world-improving visions of the bureaucrats in Brussels should set alarm bells ringing. But nothing is happening, with the exception of the aforementioned brave officials, who are being let down by the base of well-paid consultants and suppliers. Do they no longer believe their own arguments? Or do they no longer trust themselves to stand up with the power of conviction and better arguments against the devious prohibitionist mentality of the Jacobin watchdogs? Or is it the inertia of the full, who don't think they are affected just because they are not managing a cigarette or liquor budget?
Karl Lüönd is a freelance publicist.
