Newer posts are loading.
You are at the newest post.
Click here to check if anything new just came in.

January 09 2014

Nivea und die Biologie [ErklärFix]

…eine Geschichte voller Missverständnissen. Vor langer Zeit habe ich mich einmal über eine TV-Werbung von Nivea aufgeregt. Eine Creme für Frauen über 40, eine neue von geschätzten 2346821 auf dem Markt. (@pulegon konnte sich noch daran erinnern!) Damals waren die kreativen Köpfe der Nivea-Werbe-Abteilung der Meinung, man könne auf den hippen DNA-Trend aufspringen. Dabei haben sie im Rahmen der unvermeidbaren Vereinfachung aber mal eben die Zellen der Frau ab 40 zu Bakterien deklariert. Guckt Ihr hier. Das war 2009, geändert hat sich an der Qualifikation der Markting-Abteilung scheinbar wenig.
In der aktuellen Werbung einer wieder neuen Hautcreme für Frauen älteren Alters geht man wieder “wissenschaftlich” vor und illustriert, wie toll die Creme für die Zellen ist, wieder stark vereinfacht, ist ja klar.

Das Bild ganz oben kommt dann dabei raus.

Dieses Mal sind die Hautzellen nicht mehr (durch den beginnenden Prozeß der Verwesung?) durch Bakterien ersetzt worden, wie damals. Nein, dieses Mal sind es schon pflanzliche Zellen! Evolutionär macht die Frau, oder ihre Haut, also bei Nivea schon einen großen Schritt!

Aber tierische Zellen haben nicht solche dicken gar keine Zellwände! Das da oben ist die schematische, klassische Darstellung einer pflanzlichen Zelle!

Wer unbedingt möchte, kann sich das ganze noch mal hier auf Youtube angucken.

In der Werbung ist Zeit Geld, jede Sekunde TV-Werbung kostet viel Geld. Entsprechend kann so ein Spot natürlich nicht immer vollkommen wissenschaftlich korrekt sein, man muss es vereinfachen und nur Kernelemente in den Fokus rücken. Vollkommen klar.

Aber dennoch rege ich mich darüber auf. Muss man derart falsches Wissen verbreiten?
Würde, rein hypothetisch, eine Firma Jürgen Klopp mit einem Schalke Logo auf dem Hemd in einer Werbung zeigen, würden (derzeit) viele motzen und diese Firma mit einem Shitstorm ihre Meinung sagen.
Aber wenn Nivea Bakterien- oder Pflanzenzellen nimmt, um Haut zu illustrieren? Juckt nicht, stört nicht. Alles das gleiche, was soll die Haarspalterei?
Ich bin gespannt, ob und was man bei Nivea dazu sagt…

November 23 2011

'On Bullshit,' a book that tells us the techniques of the Romney campaign

by John MacBeath Watkins

Steve Benen today referenced a lovely little book, On Bullshit, by Harry Frankfurt, who used his training as a philosopher to bring rigor to the concept of bullshit.

Perhaps the classic example of bullshit was when George W. Bush in a June 19, 2005 radio address justified the Iraq war by saying, "We went to war because we were attacked, and we are at war today because there are still people out there who want to harm our country and hurt our citizens."

It was a statement carefully written so that everything in it was true, and the effect was to get people to believe a lie. We were attacked by al Qaeda, and Iraq was ruled by Saddam Hussein, a man too jealous of his own power to allow such an organization to operate in his country. In short, claiming we invaded Iraq because we were attacked by al Qaeda was bullshit.

Benen mentioned the book because it seems to apply to Mitt Romney. The Romney campaign's first television ad targeting President Obama is bullshit.

As Benen noted in this post,

'To briefly recap, Mitt Romney’s very first television ad of the 2012 campaign pushes a blatant, shameless lie. In 2008, a month before the president was elected, then-candidate Obama told voters, “Senator McCain’s campaign actually said, and I quote, ‘If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.’” In Romney’s new attack ad, viewers only see part of the quote: “If we keep talking about the economy, we’re going to lose.”'
CBS News followed up on the Romney campaign's deceit with Romney senior New Hampshire adviser Tom Rath and got this response:

'Pressed on whether it was unfair to lop off the top of Mr. Obama's comments -- which would show the president was quoting the McCain camp -- Rath said, "He did say the words. That's his voice."
He then suggested that the more people discuss the ad, the better it is for the Romney campaign.'
Which, of course, is more bullshit. The statement "He did say the words. That's his voice." is literally true, but the intent and effect are to deceive. And the television station running the ad, WMUR, says it cannot legally refuse a campaign ad from a qualified candidate for inaccuracy. Over the years, many campaigns have been pressured to remove ads for inaccuracy, which of course is only possible if the campaign cares about whether it has a reputation for telling the truth.

Think Progress did some creative editing to demonstrate what such an ad would look like if it were about Romney and used the Romney campaign's standards of truth:


Which, of course, is not how the Obama campaign will respond.

The smartest thing they can do is portray him as what he is, a person willing to say anything to become president, without regard for truth and with no core beliefs, save that he should be rich and powerful.



Older posts are this way If this message doesn't go away, click anywhere on the page to continue loading posts.
Could not load more posts
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...
Just a second, loading more posts...
You've reached the end.

Don't be the product, buy the product!

Schweinderl