Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Sunday, 7th September 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

I don't know about you, but I'm no killer



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 05 August 2008
By Hugh McLachlan
SHOULD we kill Jill? In posters and in a video, viewers appear to be presented with the question of whether or not to 'Kill Jill'. The alternatives 'Yes' and 'No' are presented.
The idea that the promoters want to suggest, without explicitly stating it, is that if we do not posthumously donate our organs, we are killing someone who requires a transplant in order to survive. This current campaign by the Scottish Government an...



The full article contains 1063 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 05/08/2008 00:31:23

It sums up our fears!

The Doctor that could save your life, lets you the Patient die, because they need your Organs to save two lives.
2

Don Smith,

Edinburgh 05/08/2008 15:18:15
As our idealist academic friend points out, the options 'Yes' and 'No' are offered to the viewer within these pieces of 'Propaganda'. Showing a respect for the freedom of choice that the viewer has when responding to the communication.
And the reality is that people die as a result of there being too few people on the organ donor register.
This campaign recently won a UK wide effectiveness award for the strength of response to its various media executions. And what's more, lives will be saved as a result.
As the person responsible for creating the work I sleep well at night knowing I have contributed to something so positive and worthwhile. And if the work generates debate and draws more attention to the issue, even better.
So thank you Professor for being responsible for giving the work even more publicity, and potentially encouraging more people to make the important decision to donate their organs.
I sincerely hope that one day someone you care about is fortunate enough to benefit from the incredible work done by the transplant doctors, coordinators and propagandists.

Advertising is a powerful tool for promoting positive social change, and the Scottish Government, and its agents, are responsible for some of the most powerful and effective social advertising not just in the UK but in the whole world.
3

Giles Moffatt,

Edinburgh 05/08/2008 16:54:16
Brands influence choice, so why should social marketing not? Especially when the majority believe the cause to be good, moral, just, and beneficial to society? Especially when the thinking is grounded in fact and actual behaviour. In the past, less persuasive advertising campaigns have failed to sign up potential donors, even though 90% or more of the population are in favour, but just haven't got round to it yet.

There is a statistical relationship between numbers of people on the register, and lives saved in the future. See Strathclyde University's admirable analysis (Dr Stephen Tagg, 2007)

Were the iconic tobacco campaigns of the 70's and 80's merely being 'informative' with their heroic and glamorous view of smoking?

It's not a level playing field in today's media landscape. Brands influence choice every day, if not every minute. There's nothing wrong with social marketing campaigns emphasising a point of view if they are founded in belief and conviction that they are doing the right thing.

There was no malice or misinformation behind this campaign - simply a desire to stimulate the greatest amount of action possible, which it has.

Surely you can find something worse to take a pop at? We don't all live in an academic world of logic, reason and absolutes. Come and meet a transplant recipient and you will see what I mean.
4

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 06/08/2008 08:29:20
#2 Don Smith

I have no fundamental objections to the advertisement as an advertisement. For instance, if it had been financed and promoted by a private pressure group, I do not suppose that I would have remarked upon it. It is objectionable that an official governmental campaign should take such a form. That it might produce good effects is not the point. Governments are not required merely to produce good effects. Lies, manipulation and cheating might produce good effects but the state and its agents and agencies are not entitled to produce good effects by duping their citizens. With regard to public policies, it matters not merely what is done but why and how what is done is done. This campaign is at variance with how the state and its agents should operate in a liberal democracy.

That you should attempt to justify the campaign by its effects is an indication of how deep the confusion over the difference between information and propaganda is.
5

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 06/08/2008 09:20:01
#3 Giles Moffat

'There's nothing wrong with social marketing campaigns emphasising a point of view if they are founded in belief and conviction that they are doing the right thing.'

There certainly is if the state funds and promotes it.

'Surely you can find something worse to take a pop at?'

Yes, I can and frequently do.
6

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 06/08/2008 09:50:36
#3

'Come and meet a transplant recipient and you will see what I mean.'

Thus speaks a propagandist.
7

Don Smith,

Edinburgh 06/08/2008 15:09:53
First of all, there is no 'duping' going on at all in these adverts. They offer a choice.
Secondly, the state is a bunch of human beings doing their best for another bunch of human beings.
Life is not as black and white as you would like it to be.
It's so easy to sit back and condemn those trying to make a difference.
Some of us take part in cultural change, some just observe and criticise.
But then positive, optimistic, life affirming writing rarely gets printed in our negative and polemic Scottish press.
8

Hugh V McLachlan,

Elderslie 06/08/2008 16:59:17
#7 Don Smith

'Secondly, the state is a bunch of human beings doing their best for another bunch of human beings.'

I disagree. Those who occupy the official roles of the state are not free to act like any other bunch of human beings. They are required to govern and administer objectively and impartially. They are the servants of the citizenry, from which they derive their power and authority. That, in my views precludes the peddling of propaganda designed to manipulate the life-style choices of citizens. To provide information on the basis of which we can make informed choices is one thing, to present propaganda to us is something else.

It is, as you say, not all black and white. Sometimes, the distinction between information and propaganda is blurred. However, the existence of the colour grey does not preclude the existence of the colours black and white.

That is my opinion. Other people are clearly free to offer other opinions and other arguments. Such differences of opinion need not and should not lead to personal ill-feeling or antagonism. Those who disagree with you can affirm life and, as you say, try to make a difference as much as you do. We might, of course, try to make a different difference or the same difference in a different way.



 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Health

More Health >>

More The Scotsman medical matters pages

More The Scotsman medical matters pages >>

Featured Advertising



Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.