|
April 2007 -
Mass-media
collaborators are working hard to convince
the public that what “public health” says on smoking is true, thus we are expected to think and behave accordingly. That
form of cooperation is
effective and it is everywhere. It is also very sophisticated.
Here is a
British Broadcasting Corporation video clip with all the main ingredients of public opinion conditioning.
To tell the truth, I think that the
only interesting feature is Mr. Alexander Shoppmann, creator of
Smintair,
the smokers’ airline. How the BBC presents the issue is worth
exploring. It shows how smokers and the rest of the public are prepped to accept that “smoking is no longer a socially acceptable behaviour”. Light up a cigarette, inhale deeply, and
watch the short video.
 |
|
Alexander Shoppmann interviewed by BBC. Click on the image
to start the video.
(This file format may not
stream to your computer. Please allow time for full
download before watching) |
|
It is
fair to say that this is quite a "moderate" reportage compared to the
usual BBC
antismoking standard rant. Clearly the
base message is that smoking bans are inevitable and
everywhere - so you better get used to them as no smoking must become
the general social standard. This is the future, so if you want to "fit
in" why don't you quit, obey and conform? Not me, thanks. I
am actually having some fun smoking under no smoking signs, hoping
for a ticket that I can use in court to fight the passive smoke fraud, but
I never get one. Nor do I get the "dirty looks" in spite
of the propaganda-proclaimed "consensus" against smoking. Nobody seems to be willing to
pick a fight with me - yet I am not a large man. Go figure.
Back to
the issue, there is much more in this clip, however. For example, a three-second
sound bite speaks volumes on the arrogance of petty non-smoker/antismokers: “I totally favour it [the
ban] because smoking is no good for you”. Aside from
the "no-good-for-you" superstition, this alone promotes the dangerous concept
that it is “right” that something, which some believe is bad for you
(without even being able to prove it), must be forbidden by law
to all.
Let's see
what smokers have to say. “I definitely
don’t like it [the ban] because I am a smoker”. The way I (and
probably everyone else) interpret this statement is that if he were a non smoker he would like the
ban. Put differently, the sole reason why most smokers
oppose the ban is because they can't feed their "addiction" - otherwise
they would welcome prohibition as the
"right" way to go! The subliminal message, therefore, is:
“brand this opinion as irrelevant and count it out”. Another smoker makes a seemingly interesting point: “I do not agree with
this because I think it’s a decision of every person if she or he wants to
smoke or not”. Very true, but that can be easily beaten with the
"you-don’t-have-the-right-to-poison-me" sound bite, which has been hammered
in the heads of the grand public through mass-media and one-sided information.
Four people are interviewed in the airport in total, two smokers and two
non smokers – thus the appearance of fairness is preserved. But the smokers
are represented with a far weaker message. Let me ask a rhetorical
question: why wasn't a non smoker who is opposed to the ban shown? There
are a lot of them around. Answer:
they did not look for them. Through the years, I was interviewed on-the-fly by
several mass-media for short sound bites and I
always stated: "The dangers of passive smoke are false, and I worry
about the institutional problem". That was always edited out. If you
DON'T want to appear on mass-media, speak the uncomfortable truth on
smoking and I guarantee the result will end up on the cutting floor.
The
devastating impact of smoking bans on travel and hospitality industry is
represented with the opposite: “[the smoking ban in New York] created a
lot of jobs, it created 10,000 new jobs… and one of the reasons they
say is that people are going out more to eat". Clearly, smokers
are not people - especially when they smoke. Two realities are
conveniently ignored: 1) That free choice on smoking policies would still
allow those who don’t like smoke to have a non smoking environment, and 2)
The documented and universal business devastation caused by smoking bans.
But what are bankruptcies next to "public health" junk science? The used
car salesman trick works all the time: speak of the assets but hide the
liabilities, people are so gullible!
What
could be in the mind of a smoker travelling under ban? Personal
liberties? Concerns about the endemic institutional corruption pushing false information for the mercantile benefit of
their pharmaceutical industry? Perhaps the scam on
smoking, setting scary social and jurisprudential precedents for other
issues, such as food and alcohol to say nothing of the global warming
hysteria that is about to knock out western economies?
Parbleu!
Certainly not – a smoker does not worry about such things! Instead here
comes the elegant, vane-looking and kind-of jet-set lady who (after
rushing to say that she supported restrictions on smoking “to a
degree” - important for “credibility”), fears that she is going to be confined to
her home (wrong, madam, “they” are working on that too). But
even that is a minor, incidental issue. The real problem is
that “I am very worried about the future of
my cruising!”
BBC's
insult to public intelligence needs no more description.
The core
of every ban - passive smoking - is dealt with a straightforward false
information: “While there MAY be those who argue that the dangers of
passive smoking are exaggerated [token concession], the
overwhelming scientific consensus is that its impact on health can be
considerable [intended message]”. As we know, the studies not
only are junk, but they say - unquestionably - that there is no way to
determine whether passive smoking is a risk for health. Those who “may
argue" actually don't say that the dangers are exaggerated. They denounce
serious crimes actionable through criminal codes - public fraud and false
advertisement, for example. But that is certainly not something that BBC
is going to tell you. A dossier on any British political figure accused
of a fraud that is half as documented as that of passive smoke would make
BBC's prime time. But a fraud for your health is a "good fraud", so you
go along with it.
Mr.
Shoppmann, quite adamant on the passive smoke issue, does not seem to
say anything about it. He just says that “smokers are people”. But
people who harm other people are bad people… Don’t you agree?...
Knowing Alexander I can imagine how hard the show cutters must
have worked during the montage of this clip.
Light
tones, smiling faces and elevator music are the background. The
consequence of the most serious fraud in history is presented as some sort
of mundane happening, almost as if it was the latest fashion show with a
central attraction: the "eccentric" Mr. Shoppmann. Perhaps his
eccentricity is not his beautiful thick hair but the fact that he goes as
far as saying that smokers are people without saying that they are "sick"
first. And he even offers an airline where passengers are not treated
like cattle -- to the point that they can even smoke. In these "health
conscious" times that is strange indeed, don't you think? Shoppmann must
be really out of his mind.
-- Gian
Turci
FORCES International |
