Posted on 01/08/2003 11:57:05 AM PST by MrLeRoy
WASHINGTON, Jan. 7 — Ratcheting up the debate over sport utility vehicles, new television commercials suggest that people who buy the vehicles are supporting terrorists. The commercials are so provocative that some television stations are refusing to run them.
Patterned after the commercials that try to discourage drug use by suggesting that profits from illegal drugs go to terrorists, the new commercials say that money for gas needed for S.U.V.'s goes to terrorists.
"This is George," a girl's voice says of an oblivious man at a gas station. "This is the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The screen then shows a map of the Middle East. "These are the countries where the executives bought the oil that made the gas that George bought for his S.U.V." The picture switches to a scene of armed terrorists in a desert. "And these are the terrorists who get money from those countries every time George fills up his S.U.V."
A second commercial depicts a series of ordinary Americans saying things like: "I helped hijack an airplane"; "I gave money to a terrorist training camp in a foreign country"; "What if I need to go off-road?"
At the close, the screen is filled with the words: "What is your S.U.V. doing to our national security?"
The two 30-second commercials are the brainchild of the author and columnist Arianna Huffington. Her target audience, she said, is Detroit and Congress, especially the Republicans and Democrats who last year voted against a bill, sponsored by Senators John McCain, Republican of Arizona, and John Kerry, Democrat of Massachusetts, that would have raised fuel-efficiency standards.
Spokesmen for the automakers dismissed the commercials.
Eron Shosteck, a spokesman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, said of Ms. Huffington, "Her opinion is out-voted every year by Americans who buy S.U.V.'s for their safety, comfort and versatility." He said that S.U.V.'s now account for 21 percent of the market.
In an interview, Senator Kerry distanced himself from the commercials. He said that rather than oppose S.U.V.'s outright, he believed they should be more efficient.
"I haven't seen these commercials," he said, "but anybody can drive as large an S.U.V. as they want, though it can be more efficient than it is today."
Ms. Huffington's group, which calls itself the Detroit Project, has bought almost $200,000 of air time for the commercials, to run from Sunday to Thursday. While the group may lose some viewers if stations refuse to run the advertisements, the message is attracting attention through news coverage.
The advertisements are to be broadcast on "Meet The Press," "Face the Nation" and "This Week With George Stephanopoulos" in Detroit, Los Angeles, New York and Washington.
But some local affiliates say they will not run them. At the ABC affiliate in New York, Art Moore, director of programming, said, "There were a lot of statements being made that were not backed up, and they're talking about hot-button issues."
Ms. Huffington said she got the idea for the commercials while watching the antidrug commercials, sponsored by the Bush administration. In her syndicated column, she asked readers if they would be willing to pay for "a people's ad campaign to jolt our leaders into reality."
She said she received 5,000 e-mail messages and eventually raised $50,000 from the public. Bigger contributors included Steve Bing, the film producer; Larry David, the comedian and "Seinfeld" co-creator; and Norman Lear, the television producer.
More likely, they would get out of the drug business and law-abiding businessmen would get in.
If we do legitimize drugs, won't there still be a black market for underage children?
I doubt it; as far as I know, there isn't any underage-alcohol black market to speak of.
SUVs are legal. Drugs are not. [...] At this time, you still can't say that there's not difference with the two issues.
What I'm saying is that there's no difference that is relevant to the moral culpability implied by the drug ads. Paying out money that goes in part to terrorists is what it is, whether you're paying for a legal or an illegal product.
Whoop-de-doo. She oughta buy a Prius, like me. 52 MPG! ;-)
It was precious!!!
Isn't *more* miles per gallon supposed to be a *good thing*.
$200,000 and they can't get a simple thing like that right.
It's awkwardly worded, admittedly, but it's not a mistake. You are apparently failing to note the effect of the word "consume" in the sentence.
But the socialism (ooops, sorry, dictating to business is actually facism) proposed by Puffington is an even bigger problem.
Of course.
Really? Could you name one drug lord who *doesn't* use murder and bribery and intimidation to protect his business? I'd love to hear about such a humanitarian -- the good citizen drug lord. This ought to be interesting...
I agree. I have a pickup(naturally) and don't like to be behind anything I can't see over. BUT, it's also hard to see around something when you're driving TWO FEET behind the vehicle in front of you. Sound familiar?
I don't mind people "suggesting that my energy use could be curtailed". What torques me off, however, is a holier-than-thou zealot singling me out because I drive a vehicle that, as a class (not necessarily on an individual model comparison) consumes a bit more energy than average, while smugly implying that he's somehow guilt-free burning gasoline in *his* vehicle of choice.
You need only look at any SUV thread on FR (or for a real eye-opener, on DU) to see some real ugly self-righteous anti-SUV-owner rants that go *way* beyond anything justified by a 6mpg differential.
Most of it is simple class envy/hostility/prejudice.
...which says a lot more about you than it does about SUV owners.
None of those are terrorism.
No.
Little cars or buying plastic or power generators -- anything that uses oil would also be supporting terrorism.
Singling out SUVs makes no sense.
All true, but a good advertising campaign can create a market. Otherwise, no companies would buy all those adverts and billboards and magazine inserts and...
I, for one, wish that highly efficient vehicles (the European diesels, hybrids, and electric vehicles) wouldn't be treated as the red-headeded stepchildren of the vehicle lineups. Give them the same advertising support as any other vehicle gets, and let the markets develop and sell. Of course, that won't happen; there's nowhere nearly as much profit in selling a hybrid as there is in selling a SUV...
Hope Brit Hume will be addressing the subject in his "Grapevine" segment, too.
Exactly. She is rich because she was some rich guy's beard (who tried to run for Senate in California as a Republican).
Having a house that size compared to a small energy efficient house would be equivalent to the SUV vs smaller car. Except that in her case, the house size would make a bigger difference.
She should live in a small house to save on oil.
Let's make a law saying people cannot live in big houses ha ha.
Singling out SUVs makes no sense.
SUVs use more oil than alternative transportation; the more oil you use, the more you support terrorism. SUV drivers aren't UNIQUELY 'guilty' but they are higher on the list. (And would you really agree with an ad that said, "Unless you ride a bike, you're morally complicit in terrorism"?)
Exactly. It is not equivalent to the drug ads which do not single out any specific subset of drug or user in the way this ad does.
I can't believe, though, you actually take this seriously.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.