Truth in Photoshopping

[limr]

Seriously, what kind of people are we talking about here who would be affected by that text?

12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos that they think are real and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."

Adults who know better are not the target audience for these advertisements.

You know who else sees those texts? People who may decide to take their business elsewhere if they don't like that a company puts out heavily edited images to make their stuff look better.

 

[Gary A.]

what do we have to lose?

Common sense? Sanity?

You can't post warnings, disclaimers etc all over the world, that's just silly. Advertising is a result, not the cause. Companies do studies and then do adverts like they do because it works. If people would deem such looks etc. inappropriate, companies would have to adapt their strategies. But people WANT to see attractive individuals. They instinctively prefer nice looking partners and not fatties who can't fit into a car. It's just a fact.

if a simple inexpensive label can help to balance out the negative by contributing to the positive

The thing is, it can't. Exactly the same like a text under a photo won't prevent anyone from stealing your photos. Or like a warning on a box of cigarettes won't prevent people from smoking. That's a very naive way of looking at the world.

Seriously, what kind of people are we talking about here who would be affected by that text? Would you suddenly prefer fat/unhealthy people over healthy fit looking ones? Just because of some silly text told you what you already (hopefully) know, that the image was processed? Would you suddenly change your eating habits or ...?

My ex, who used to smoke would say that she finds " ... it hard to believe that people who can read still smoke...".

There is no data or research stating that a label will or will not dissuade eating/self-esteem/et al disorder(s) ... but until we have hard facts giving up a little "sanity" and/or "common sense" is little to give up if a label can positively and pro-actively affect a person's life. Besides, I don't buy your point of common sense or sanity. Why do you seem to have knowledge of common sense and sanity that many of us on this thread, seemingly by your judgement, lack?

Rather than your take, I think the opposite, that it would be a lack sanity and a lack of common sense not to promote transparency with a simple label. Who do you expect to protect by not labeling ... huge cosmetic and clothing conglomerates? (Lord knows they need protection from government dictated labeling.)

I live near the seashore. I remember at low tide seeing a group of men ravishing the tidepools harvesting tubs and tubs of sea stars. I ran ahead of them grabbing star stars, that would have been destined to be a dried up novelty item in some shop, and tossing them into deeper water. They laughed at me saying it won't make a difference. I pickup up another sea star, tossed it into deeper water and told them "It made a difference to that one ...". In summary, just because you think it won't make a difference to a person suffering from self-esteem issues ... possibly the mere knowledge that a photo of thigh gap, (as an example), is fake ... it just might make a difference, maybe a small difference ... maybe a big difference, to an individual or a group of individuals. You and I don't know. Not knowing the true extent and impact a label could have, I'd rather side on the chance that any positive impact is better than no impact at all.

 

[limr]

The impact of the media on eating disorders in children and adolescents

"Research studies have shown that young people frequently report body dissatisfaction, with adolescent girls experiencing more body dissatisfaction than boys (11,12). Adolescent girls generally want to weigh less, while adolescent boys want to be bigger and stronger. A meta-analysis of 25 studies involving female subjects, examined the effect of exposure to media images of the slender body ideal. Body image was significantly more negative after viewing thin media images than after viewing images of either average size models, plus size models or inanimate objects. This effect was found to be stronger in women younger than 19 years of age (13).

Tiggemann et al (14) studied body concerns in adolescent girls (aged 16 years old) and attempted to understand the underlying motivations for their wish to be thin. The factor exerting the strongest pressure to be thin was the media. Despite the fact that these adolescent girls clearly articulated a desire to be thinner, they also described how this did not necessarily mean they were dissatisfied with their bodies. The authors found that the girls had a surprisingly well-developed understanding of the media and its possible role in influencing self-image. The authors suggested that this understanding may serve to moderate against overwhelming media forces."

Eating Disorders and the Role of the Media

"A recent naturalistic experiment conducted in Fiji provides strong evidence to support the hypothesis that the media has a significant role in the development of body dissatisfaction and eating disorder symptomatology (Becker, Burwell, Herzog, Hamburg, & Gilman, 2002). Until recently, Fiji was a relatively media-naïve society with little Western mass-media influence. In this unique study, the eating attitudes and behaviors of Fijian adolescent girls were measured prior to the introduction of regional television and following prolonged exposure. The results indicate that following the television exposure, these adolescents exhibited a significant increase in disordered eating attitudes and behaviors.

A number of studies have examined the correlation between the use of mass media and body satisfaction, eating disorder symptomatology, and negative affect. The majority of the studies have demonstrated a direct relationship between media exposure and eating pathology, body dissatisfaction and negative affect (Stice, Schupak-Neuberg, Shaw, & Stein, 1994; Stice & Shaw, 1994; Utter, Neumark-Sztainer, Wall, & Story, 2003). However, the strength of the correlations have varied within and between studies and with type of media exposure (Tiggeman, 2003; Vaughan & Fouts, 2003)."

 

[terri]

Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?

 

[limr]

Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?

Sorry, bad habit

 

[Gary A.]

Geeze ... so you're not just shooting from the hip. What a concept, to base one's arguments on actual facts.

 

[Gary A.]

Gee, Leo...you present facts and case studies to support your argument?

Sorry, bad habit

Man, I'd hate to take a class from you.

 

[Tomasko]

12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos that they think are real and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."

THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.

Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach!
Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent.

Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
a.) putting a label on drugs
b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
?

I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them.
It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.

 

[terri]

Bubble? For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.

You want unreality? False advertising? Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?

 

[limr]

12-year-old girls who see the ads and think that they're supposed to look like that when they grow up. 12-year-old girls who don't know how the world works or how common Photoshopping is, or what the history of beauty standards has to do with anything. 12-year-old girls who then start developing into women and realize that they look nothing like those photos that they think are real and are ready to do anything to make themselves look "perfect."

THIS exactly is a job for the parents. You can't make "a safe world" where nothing harms your kids. It's not your job to shield them from all the bad things, but it's your job to teach them how to behave, how to think for themselves etc. If a couple raises a kid who is so vulnerable some adverts can harm him/her, well, something went terribly wrong.

Seriously, in the past kids were playing on the street, they ate dirt, played with others kids and so on. And nowadays? It's a joke! Safety here, safety there. Let's all wear helmets. God forbid the kid broke its leg playing a football. Let's sue the coach!
Being overprotective can be as bad as being negligent.

Let me just ask you a question. What do you think is more effective?
a.) putting a label on drugs
b.) having a discussion with the kid and explaining him/her why are drugs bad
?

I'll give you a hint. Putting a label on something never trumped a properly raised child. But go ahead, enjoy the bubble where you can solve problems by labelling them.
It certainly helped people with the smoking addiction.

Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked? When did parents start actually discouraging their children to smoke or punishing them for doing so? When we started to learn about and understand the negative effects of smoking on health.

And no, it wasn't the label alone that made people stop smoking, but rather public awareness of the health effects, advertising efforts, and social pressure. That all did not come about just by parents reading some studies about lung cancer and teaching their kids about it.

You're oversimplifying the arguments of those who think this is a step in the right direction. Did anyone here say that the labels alone will solve the problem? No. But it's just one element in a public awareness campaign to bring attention to the problem. No parents are going to be able to teach their kids about anything if they themselves are not aware of the issues.

 

[Destin]

I mean, we can’t label everything. The world is screwed.

The day that we put a warning on coffee cups that the coffee inside was hot was the day that we started sliding downhill hard with this type of stuff.

Seriously.

 

[limr]

"Know the Facts:" Resources for Consumers

"It is the case that gave rise to the attacks on “frivolous lawsuits” in the United States. Almost everyone seems to know about it. And there’s a good chance everything you know about it is wrong."

 

[Derrel]

I mean, we can’t label everything. The world is screwed.

The day that we put a warning on coffee cups that the coffee inside was hot was the day that we started sliding downhill hard with this type of stuff.

Seriously.

We should bring back asbestos insulation in all our new school construction products. And make sure that pregnant women drink plenty of beer and wine during those all-important first- and second-trimester weeks! And what the heck, let's start a movement to drive tipsy-buzzed, but NOT drunk-drunk.

Yeah...the world was officially f*$(ed once we started warning people about bad sh!+. Warnings-schwarnings, amiright?

 

[JonA_CT]

Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible.

This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.

 

[Tomasko]

Bubble? For pete's sake, you are really taking an odd exception to this - it's a simple notification that an image has, in fact, been Photoshopped and is. not.real.

You want unreality? False advertising? Who's actually pining and mooning for a bubble here?

I hate to break it to you, but photos are NOT real. There is not a single photograph in history that wasn't altered in any way. A photograph is not an objective reality and it never was.

Your assumption is that the parents know to teach their kids these lessons. How many generations of children started smoking because their parents smoked?

If parents pass on their kids their skewed view of the world, no amount of labels will ever change that. But that's exactly what I'm trying to say. You're saying that it's aimed to help 12 year olds, but those are already taught by their parents. They see their mother puts tons of make-up on her face, dresses nicely, tries to loose weight over and over... You seriously believe a label would combat that in any way? Ok, you want to raise awareness, but then the target audience are those mothers (not kids), which we agreed on that they already know the photos are photoshopped and not real. So putting a label "photoshopped" under a photo is useless.

Just going to throw this out there too...the best parents in the world can’t screen and judge every piece of media their child sees. It’s impossible.

This is a measure that costs nothing...if it makes an advertising agency uncomfortable, maybe they should be.

That's why you don't teach your kid to avoid only certain stuff you explicitly name for them, you rather teach them to think for themselves and to be able to judge the situations they come across. That's usually the difference between good and bad parenting.