Ernestly ?!Ernestly ?!By ERNIE NEUFELD, Weyburn Review Associate Publisher
Strange and interesting things happen when common sense, self-righteousness, greed and self-deluding rationalization commingle. When such a phenomenon occurs on a national scale the result is downright comical, in a pathetic sort of way.
Reference here is to the federal government's perceived need to eliminate advertising of tobacco products almost completely. The collision of this otherwise much-applauded objective with the reliance of some sectors of our society in the sports and entertainment fields on sponsorship by the tobacco industry.
Admittedly, as one whose livelihood has always been closely tied to the advertising dollar, my feelings are mixed. I too - probably in my own greed - have been able to rationalize the right to advertise legally produced and merchandised products. Some of these products arguably - and even obviously are detrimental to the public weal, but the tobacco flaw goes beyond the traditional villains attracting regulation or censorship.
And yet, there was also a time when the very mention of alcohol products in advertisements carried by Saskatchewan publications was banned. Even the disclosure in an advertisement for a local gala of any sort that liquor would be purveyed on the premises during such an event was prohibited. There was little tolerance for innocent, inadvertent or mischievous reference to the demon rum and its immoral cousins. While I don't recall any convictions for minor violations of this nature, that was largely because the prohibition was so deeply established that all media staff members were on standing alerts for infractions. Where doubt existed, it was necessary to apply to the provincial liquor board for harumphed approval.
Nevertheless, this was at a time when publications from other jurisdictions flooded the province, replete with full-color depiction of beautiful people becoming even more beautiful through the (implied) benevolent effects of alcohol. As we saw it, advertising the product in Saskatchewan was not being prevented, but heaven forbid that the publishers and journeymen in this province should owe their living to this insidious source.
Not that battle has been won or lost, and you still seldom see provocative liquor ads in the Review or other weeklies, but let's look at the tobacco question.
Lest this be seen as a pitch for tobacco advertising, it is many years since weekly newspapers received substantial advertising from this product, which in recent decades has been convincingly blamed for many thousands - perhaps millions - of deaths. Its cost to an already overburdened health system is cumbersome. (The liquor industry bears a similar stigma, but let's leave that for now.)
In support of national health, and particularly to prevent young people from becoming addicted to tobacco, cigarette packages for years have been obliged to carry warnings that their use is hazardous to health.
To a broad extent tobacco advertising has already been banished from most Canadian media. Schools warn against the dangers of smoking, and the filthy habit is all but banished from respectable circles in the country. Nevertheless, the government in recent months saw fit to plug most existing loopholes for tobacco advertising. Where sports and other entertainment events are sponsored by tobacco companies, advertising of the product is to be restricted to the bottom 10 percent of signs promoting these events.
The upshot is that a major tobacco company - in retaliation and/or to influence modification of these restrictions - at the time withdrew or reduced funding from a number of high-profile art and/or sports groups.
Naturally, some of the affected groups cried "Foul!". Heavy pressure was exerted on the federal government to mitigate the new prohibitions.
It's not that I blame them. Facing the possibility of extinction, it is logical for these groups to seek a reprieve.
But then, how can one blame tobacco companies for using the squeeze to further their own ends?
Already branded as rascals for producing and promoting dangerous products and even deceiving the public in this matter, why would these companies suddenly become nice guys and spend their profits on promoting these worthy events without being allowed to promote their own products? And just where is the money for sponsorship to come from? As I see it, their only source is profits from the unworthy avails of products whose use and sale we - through our government are trying to curtail and even eliminate.
It is sort of funny - in catch-22 sort of way.
My address (also listed on the Review's Website) is ernestly@pathcom.com.
Box 400, 904 East Avenue
Weyburn, SK
S4H 2K4
Phone: (306) 842-7487
Fax: (306) 842-0282
E-mail: production@weyburnreview.com
This web page and its contents are copyright of the Weyburn
Review (1987) Ltd.
