Talk:Truth (anti-tobacco campaign)/Archives/2012

NPOV
This article is so blatantly NPOV. This is the last section of the article:
 * "In at least one of the commercials, an analogy between murder and smoking were made. Which, while smoking may kill much more than murder, most people who are murdered don't make a continuous, constant decision on the process of the murder. Relatively, another commercial used an example of the corrosive nature of sodium hydroxide; what they failed to tell you, is that many of our every day products are also created with this common base. Do we condemn salt because it's partly composed of chlorine?"

Do I need to say anymore? --Sbrools ( talk .  contribs ) 14:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

The "Criticism" area of this article needs to be re-done. The only factual part could be the "Race" paragraph. The rest sounds like defense on the cigarette's side.


 * TheTruth has been the target of criticism. This criticism cannot be ruled out on the basis that it is helpful to the tobacco (or smoker) lobbies. Joestella 13:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

The criticism section definitely needs to be expanded.

Okay, I did a bunch of work on the article to try balancing it out. I added "Support" and "Awards" and cleaned up what I could on the Criticism. FrostedTheFlake (talk) 15:27, 20 December 2007 (UTC)


 * The very first line of this article is wrong. Truth is not anti-smoking, it's anti-corporate tobacco. They work against the companies who manufacture the products and try to expose their inconsistencies; they do not target the people who use the product. That is the key difference between the Truth campaign and every other anti-smoking program out there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.146.122.34 (talk) 16:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the section on "Effectiveness of Anti-Smoking Campaigns." The last sentence says that the study never even mentions Truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.244.155.103 (talk) 23:52, 5 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Smoking is suicide. Purveying tobacco is murder. The argument that gun manufacturers and other manufacturers of dangerous products are just as guilty is nonsense, as responsible gun ownership is able to reduce the possibility that a gun death will occur. It has been proven that there is no safe way to smoke a cigarette. Coloneldoctor (talk) 03:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor


 * Wow, just wow. Not even addressing the fact that you use "smoking" to distract from the entire issue (there are methods of ingesting nicotene that do not involve smoking, thereby negating the health risks) you make the dubious claim that responsible gun ownership is able to reduce the possibility that a gun death will occour.  If guns were completely outlawed, the possibility of a gun death occouring would be MUCH lower than if they were not completely outlawed (as countless, countless studies of other countries with much stricter gun control has shown).  Gun ownership automatically INCREASES THE LIKELYHOOD THAT A GUN DEATH WILL OCCOUR, because a GUN has to be involved for a GUN DEATH to occour.

I'm not one to usually say this, but you need to learn that America is not the only country in the world. If you are going to claim that "purveying tobacco is murder" then I hope you at least make the logical leap to "purveying saturated fat is murder" or even "purveying any beverage other than water is murder." Somehow I think you don't make that leap. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.87.152 (talk) 01:05, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Anti-smoking propaganda? I doubt it
I think the criticisms section really needs to be improved. I've known and dealt with family and friends who have dealt with cancer. I understand how people can be against cigarettes. When I watch these commercials, I'm intelligent enough to know a few things:

1. Cartoons appeal to children

Yes, cartoons. When I first saw thetruth.com being advertised on television, it was subtle. Today, however, it seems to be using theatrics and comedic cartoons on channels such as cartoon network. I'm not too sure if children understand the message, the laws behind smoking commercials, and more. But I do know one thing: They are associating cigarettes with cartoons. And furthermore, people are having fun. It's as if this organization is advertising to children, but then they aren't.

Therefore, I have decided anti-smoking commercials are simply an indirect way of advertising cigarettes. That is my criticism. --Cyberman (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Bias
Just coming to this page and reading it sounds like it is definitely on the cigarette defense. Some revisions need to be made. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.219.77.207 (talk) 05:10, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I changed some of the criticisms for this reason. The "graffiti" section cited no sources, so who knows who is actually criticizing the use of Graffiti, other than the author of section. As far as legitimacy of Graffiti art...Keith Haring, anyone? I deleted it. I also completely rewrote the last criticism. The other one just linked to someone's blog (and the author even misinterpreted that). The study actually said that while many ads weren't effective, even counter-effective, some were effective. It's unclear from the study what camp thetruth.com fell in, but the section did not reflect that. Ugh! FrostedTheFlake (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

How could they miss the World Trade Center comparison?
This article levels many criticisms, but does not explain the timidity of many anti-tobacco campaigns. Consider that the collapse of the World Trade Center caused the tragic death of 2,750 people, while tobacco claims 1.4 million lives annually. Comparing one year of tobacco fatalities with one thousand World Trade Towers seems too obvious to miss. In fifteen years the World Trade Towers equivalent to tobacco fatality rates would cover every square inch of Manhattan, and the simulated collapse of even a third of that number would be a most memorable image for television. Instead a visit to their site yields only a cow-milking game. Are they serious? Mike Serfas 23:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Could someone please explain that mathematic[s]? I had thought that "multiply by ten" would mean to move the digits to the left by adding a zero or moving a decimal. Are you counting one tower, two, or the several neighboring towers?

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * Forget the WTC, how could they miss the various genocides of history, though tobacco executives are universally and without exception evil enough to claim the rest of history's victims "must have been a typo," and that there is a "magical amount" to Zyclon B and how many smallpox tainted blankets make for an appropriate gift.Coloneldoctor (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

whadfxup
Every time that I look, I find that it is impossible f/ me to figure the meaning, the definition, of "whadfxup". Someone should write about who had coined this, & why.

truth_%28disambiguation%29

the_Truth


 * The meaning of the word truth extends from honesty, good faith, and sincerity in general, to agreement with fact or reality in particular. {< http://m-w.com/dictionary/truth >; < http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?truth >; < http://m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?reality > } The term has no single definition about which the majority of professional philosophers and scholars agree. Various theories of truth continue to be debated. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth; how to define and identify truth; the roles that revealed and acquired knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective, relative, objective, or absolute. This article introduces the various perspectives and claims, both today and throughout history.

reality_%28disambiguation%29


 * Reality, in everyday usage, means "the state of things as they actually exist."

I do find it difficult that reality  & truth seem to share the same operational space far less often than they should. An excellent start would be an agency calling itself "truth", explaining any word [or phrase &/or term], such as "whadfxup".

Thank You,

&#91;&#91; hopiakuta Please do  sign  your  signature  on your  message. %7e%7e  Thank You. -]] 16:35, 31 October 2007 (UTC)


 * The website presents statistics or 'truths' about smoking. 'What the Fuck's Up' is a way to appeal to a younger generation as it is somewhat edgy for network television. the_undertow talk  23:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

what everyone here is forgeting ,and i hate to tell you this cause i thought that people were smarter than this but once again humaintiy has failed me, is that you dont have to smoke if you dont want to. its a personal choice that you make and live with. Everyone knows its bad for you but it also has positive effects, not medically of course but mentally it can settle you down. Personally i believe those numbers to be a tad inflaited, my theory is that their taking the numbers of anyone who died from lung complications over a year and combining those numbers with those that ciggaretts could be actually responsible for and then adding anyone who dies that year that smokes a ciggarette. my point is for everyone to quit being retarded and to just drop it. People chose to smoke and as long as that is then theres gonna be coperations that sell ciggarettes. For Christ's sake no ones forcing you to light one up with a gun to your head, so grow up and realize that adults can make decesions without your approval, this isnt communist USSR, well not yet at least. my name is daniel winstead and if you want to talk to me my email is danimal285@yahoo.com and my myspace is www.myspace.com/danimal92. im more than willing to have this conversation with anyone and id love to here from you so just hit me up and talk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.191.232.109 (talk) 11:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

When did they start their new ads?
It went from Whathefxcksup to "The Brighter Side of Truth". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.131.62.107 (talk) 04:22, 27 January 2008 (UTC) According to their press release, January 22nd (http://americanlegacy.org/2191.aspx) --Mblumber (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Dubious Content
The content below is of a seriously questionable nature, I doubt anyone would make such a ridiculous claim. Though I fully find anti-tobacco campaigners to be just as fanatical and ridiculous about this issue, to the point of lying to people for their own cause, I think this statement would throw all their credibility out the window. Obviously sources are needed, it either needs to have serious factual evidence behind it, or it needs to be removed. Neuro √ Synapse ▪  ∆  06:01, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

"In a 2002 editorial in the Columbia Spectator, conservative commentator Jaime Sneider contended that TheTruth.com attempts "to create the illusion of a racist conspiracy perpetrated by 'Big Tobacco'."[citation needed] Sneider notes that some Truth commercials contain the claim that "Tobacco gives black males 50% more lung cancer than white males." Sneider argues, "Obviously, tobacco itself hasn't been engineered to increase the health risk for blacks; therefore, the sentence would more accurately read, 'Black males are 50% more likely than white males to contract lung cancer from tobacco.'"[citation needed]"

Black Propaganda
Black propaganda is a term which describes propaganda which is created by one group, but purports to protect the interests of another group, while serving the interests of the original group. Unlike "grey propaganda," which is intended to obfuscate issues as part of a group's strategic goals, it is the classic "wolf in sheep's clothing." These commercials are not grey propaganda, as the tobacco companies are not trying to confuse people.

For instance, the "Must have been a typo" and "The magical amount" commercials begin with startling acknowledgements of how evil a product tobacco truly is, but then spend the majority of the commercial disputing those acknowledgements (the five million MURDERS Big Tobacco has committed against the innocent drug addicts of the world; the MURDEROUS amount of nicotine used to enhance cigarettes so the innocent drug addicts of the world will be less prone to not get hooked, however contradictory the concept might be). Finally, a brief, skeptical recap of the initial acknowledgements of how every single tobacco executive should be charged with a capital crime gets cut off by the dropping logo. Set to "catchy" music and in one case using cartoon characters reminiscent of Joe Camel, these ads accomplish the task of luring innocent children into the greedy clutches of Uncle Smoke and his polluted closet of candy tricks.

As the campaign is part of the only-partially just settlement against Big Tobacco, it is inherently dishonest that these facts be allowed to be misrepresented, and it to be left unsaid that the campaign is funded by Big Tobacco.Coloneldoctor (talk) 02:56, 22 June 2008 (UTC)ColonelDoctor

lol at this article for claiming the ads are effective. I don't smoke, I just never got into it, but all my nonsmoking friends and I are tempted to take it up every time one of these obnoxious commercials come on TV. Look at the Not Even Once anti-meth campaign if you want to see something somewhat effective. 207.172.186.128 (talk) 13:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

My Two Cents
Those Truth people really need to be murdered! —Preceding unsigned comment added by John R. Sellers (talk • contribs) 02:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

"data has shown that historic declines in youth smoking have stalled, making truth’s lifesaving messages more important than ever" this is just one example that shows most of the article was written by someone most likely working for the site. Can someone make this more neutral? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.168.13 (talk) 03:44, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I just cleaned up the introduction and stopped just before the history about florida etc. hopefully it sounds more neutral, and really the "lifesaving messages" part...wow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.230.61.155 (talk) 08:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization?
Is there a standard way on whether the campaign should be referred to as truth (with a lower-case t) or Truth? The article is not consistent one way or the other, and I am not sure which is more correct. Bnszero (talk) 21:35, 31 January 2009 (UTC)

Holy Crap
The lead section of this article looks like it was written by thetruth.com editors. Shenanigans like this me want to smoke out of spite. Balonkey (talk) 06:03, 28 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I quit more than a year ago, but that lead made me wish to have a smoke and blow it in their face. No wonder they're criticized for excessive advertising. I found a reasonable version in the history so I reverted it. No such user (talk) 11:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * And people wonder why a criticism section is necessary on this page? Almost every single person I know finds these ads stupid at best, or offensive and patronizing at worst.  Anecdotal evidence to be sure, but I think it is pretty obvious to anyone with half a brain that there are people criticizing this campaign.  I'd bet that the only people who want that section removed are the same people who say selling cigarettes is MURDER (emphasis on the capital letters, since these types of braindead morons seem unable to type MURDER in lowercase)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.77.87.152 (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Ad Descriptions
They were unnecessarily Long, contained overly detailed and irrelevant info. The paragraphs were also unsourced, but I simply edited in lieu of removal. I think it's much neater, and contains no usless descriptions of ads. There's just the years and a simple, yet effective discription. All taken from the original edit. Indeed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.246.140.157 (talk) 14:21, 15 August 2010 (UTC)