The ad was not only distasteful but moronic, there are a few things that can be noted here is perhaps that the ad creator was clearly in out of touch with sensitivity or trying to generate some discussions on the natural and un-natural world events.
To give a point of view about a major event its more easily done if you are directly or indirectly involved. I can imagine a writer in a third world country writing about an event in that country to which would be of no significance to anyone else but the natives. I few years ago I was directly affected by a terrorist attack in the city of Nairobi and that was one of the most pain times in my life, I lost a friend and did so many other people but its my feeling that not everyone will take more personal than the people who were affected but that does not give anyone a free pass to be insensitive about it.
In general the ad would generate more reaction in America more than any other country, therefore regardless of its insensitivity it serves to show the demographics of who understands the implication of it and those who do not take a second look at it judge by it graphics. The writer would be served best if both points of view were considered and determine why the designer opted for the more controversial route. The ad seemed to have mainly invoked pathos judging by the writer emotional attachment to the event that transpired at 9/11. From a different view I am sure there are people who would also feel differently about the ad designer talking about tsunami in a light note. It would then seem appropriate when writing my paper to be wary of the sensitivity nature of the material to be written.
No comments:
Post a Comment