Ethical Advertising Issues - Case Study Example

Ethical Advertising One common problem nowadays when it comes to perceiving an image is that there are some messages which tend to be out of bounds. There are instances where the image presented creates controversy and spectacle, depending on the perception of the people who sees the image. One thing that is crucial with the perception of the people is that they can give criticisms. These criticisms can lead to problematic notions or judgment, especially when it comes to understanding the image and coming into terms with it. One of the core things that must be understood with advertising is that it is a representation that appeals to sensibility of people and is intended for popular consumption. Thus, the popular appeal of a certain depiction that is rendered in an advertisement creates a condition of biased, shallow perception. This kind of perception is highly reductive. In this case study, I shall focus on the issue of the image of Obama in an advertisement that has a certain pedigree of racism and political labeling. This discourse shall be explained and engaged further in the succeeding parts of the paper. At the same time, aside from the construction of the image, the impression derived thereof shall be put into account by looking into the formal elements that make up the image. At the same time, there is also a need to clearly assess why the image creates an impression through certain sensibilities, which are political, cultural and sociological in nature and must be discussed in conjunction with the signs that parts of images create for the spectator to gaze. Looking at the elements of the image, Obama’s image is presented with sickle and hammer, which are embodiments of communism (“Image”). Another crucial thing to look at the image is the use of the terms “somewhere in Kenya a village is missing its idiot Obama” (“Empty Suit”). Together with the image comes the face of Obama, smiling and wearing formal attire that befits the campaigning needed for the elections. The advertisement has these elements that evoke a totally different level of problematic propositions and discourses of representation. To understand the points to be raised in this paper, there is a need to understand that the context of presidential elections must be duly considered since this defines how the image works and creates a certain standard for judgment. The first thing that must be understood is that the image is highly offensive, given that the signs and symbols that have been incorporated in the advertisement are tantamount to redbaiting. The use of the communist symbols are politically offensive, given that Obama did not proclaim himself to be a communist but a democrat. There is a huge difference between the two. The ad is banking on the negative notions that surround the communist symbol to defame Obama, which can have a detrimental effect on his campaign for presidency. Such condition occurs due to the meaning associated with it. Thus, semiotics plays a very vital role in determining what shall constitute the message of the whole image through the interaction of the forms and other visual elements presented. For Geertz, semiotics is “Believing, with Max Weber, that man is an animal suspended in webs of significance he himself has spun, I take culture to be those webs, and the analysis of it to be therefore not an experimental science in search of law but an interpretative one in search of meaning. It is explication I am after, construing social expression on their surface enigmatical” (5). With this phenomenon in mind, it should be made clear that the presentation of the image does not automatically create a uniform response. There will be a volatile condition that will emerge along the line of observation since there is a duality of perception in the images involved: annoyance or offence and joy and satisfaction. The perception involved rests on the fact that there are a political agenda and condition being proposed by the image: publicity in a negative light. Another thing that must be taken into account is that the origin of Obama is attacked by the phrases inserted in the advertisement since there are several conditions being tapped. One is that Obama is an African American, oftentimes labeled as a black. This then responds to the second condition of imbibing and reviving a hardline racist practice. Thus, there is a blatant personal attack in the ad, which tries to inflict personal damages upon Obama and can derail him in his race for presidency. This racist practice is induced by the images, which then reflects a certain aspect of one’s culture. One must carefully look into the historical context where the blacks have been abused and labeled as lower class citizens in the name of the white supremacy. This dialectics is being established in the advertisement: not implicitly but clearly and explicitly. With such condition, it is undeniable that the image will cause a scandal since the portrayal of Obama with such an image is a black propaganda of some sort. With the premises and meaning derived from the image, it is undeniable that it is a political propaganda of some sort. The use of the different indicators in the image stresses that Obama is a bad president without even providing a clear and reasonable line of argumentation by those who made the advertisement. Now, the question of ethical practice comes along the line of attack and thought towards the problematic and controversial image given that it is provocative and unjust. It is crucial that the messages posed by the advertisement are deeply embedded in the cultural system given that the history has defined the manner of thinking, which are oftentimes defined by choice that is necessary to be made (Geertz 5). Thus, thinking and choice are always coming in pairs when it comes to making judgments in society. This makes the condition of the image problematic since the image appeals to the sensibility of the white people who are still employing racist judgment in a highly contemporary setting. This detriment is caused by unreasonable positioning and framing of the image by the advertiser without careful consideration of the debacle that shall come along with its presentation, especially for those who are supporters of Obama. One thing that must be taken into account is how the framing of Obama affects the current political discourse. Analytically, the problem can be deemed connected to the ironies in terms of principles of democracy given that freedom is guaranteed, but there is abuse of it, especially when in coming to terms with the issue of expression. The ones who made the advertisement are insensitive to the plight of the minorities of race in America, especially if it is assessed in conjunction with history. This can trigger a debacle in terms of igniting racial hatred, though not as harsh as before but might not befit the running of the American society in the long term. There is a need to be careful about how images are presented since these are embedded in the consciousness. The images supplanted will already have an alleged meaning, which cannot be dispelled instantly but can be evoked upon presentation of images – images that are unconventional in the contemporary setting and political discourse of democracy. Another point to consider is that images must be redesigned to fit the discourse of electoral politics. This is important to have a substance in the discussion of power. The bashing introduced by the advertisement will not be sufficient enough to constitute a healthy debate and discussion about the future of the country. If the advertisement has been more critical in presenting more concrete evidence why Obama should not be voted, then that would be reasonable because there is a certain degree of objectivity coming along that line. If only such a phenomenon is made or done, then the controversy should have been reprimanded, or did not occur at the very start. Thus, ethical considerations in advertising call for a certain degree of sensitivity, responsibility and liability given that certain propositions will not yield the projected or expected results. Things vary. Perceptions vary. These conditions must be taken into account since people have their own sensibilities and upbringing, which are dependent on a certain social condition that defines them. At the same time, ideology becomes one of the crucial interpellator of the images since culture is at stake. If culture becomes the locus of inquiry, then there is a need to assess every representation and presentation made. It can be detrimental or favorable or can pose a certain degree of disjuncture between conflicting mindsets that can affect the society. Keep in mind that differences in upbringing pose problems in terms of reconciliation and cooperation. The advertisements such as this one should not be allowed since it does not promote reasonable engagement of the social issues but creates distances and barriers among people of different cultures. In the end, advertisements must have social relevance and not just mere idiosyncrasy and idiocy since it will not yield beneficial things in the long run. If the ads are able to fulfill such agenda, then people will be more critical and engaging in respect of the issues. That is the power of media, which must not be abused and used to fool people, but should be used to educate them. This is the controversial image. One must be observant and critical about this. Works Cited “Empty Suit.” N.d. Web. November 11, 2012. emptysuit.wordpress.com. Geertz, Clifford. “Description: Toward and Interpretive Theory of Culture.” The Interpretation of Culture. NY: Basic Books, 1973. Print. “Image.” N.d. Web. November 11, 2012. emptysuit.wordpress.com. Read More

 

Read More