h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

An amazing trio of topix. My problem now is that I want to comment on them all but I lack the ability to carry on three simultaneous conversations at the same time (on such diverse subjects in three different moods and styles) with the same person.

So I'll leave the Paltrow discussion for another day and for the moment I'll dismiss the whole UN ecology summit as a frustration too large to get me head round. In any case it's only liable to lead to cuss words and bitter 'postal' anger. The one great democratic concern of the world's people, the ecology of the planet, and the people have no say. Aaaaarrrgghh!

So that leaves ADBUSTERS. A most worthy but much suppressed Canadian phenom. I wasn't sure they had survived this long. I wonder if they have a web-site....?

Mad Pride has a valid point. Medicating all forms of mental and emotional 'instability' and sending patients back to the streets is not the modern miracle it is supposed to be. It is not the Liberation of the Mad. It is the denial of any proper assistance to them.

Obviously, by eliminating the 'need' for long term institutional support, governments can cut apparent health costs drastically. Or perhaps it went the other way: redirecting funds once available to maintain long term institutions so that the rich pharmaceutical friends of politicans get richer and patients can be thrown back onto the street.

I am happy to hear you found relief in your medication, most just find numbness and lethargy. I am surpirsed that you and your doctor plan to have you off it soon. This is not the common operating procedure. Usually they keep adding dosages and variants to keep you pacified and keep themselves rich.

The stigma of mental illness is most peculiar to our western culture. Our libertarian heritage has always allowed, even celebrated and encouraged the oddballs, the explorers, the adventurers, the risk takers, the inventors, the artists, poets and bohemians. It is part of our belief in 'progress' and of 'individual liberty'. We allow and tolerate some of the most bizarre behaviors, eccentricities and quirks well beyond that suffered in most other cultures. We barely discourage alcohol and drug abuse because they are too large a part of our economy and restrictions would be seen as contrary to our sense of personal freedom.

But we always drew the line in a very arbitrary way. When a 'nutter' crossed that line the authorities were always quick to save and protect normal citizens and lock the crazies away out of sight. Other cultures deal with oncoming madness sooner and in a much more pro-active way. We just locked them away when they became too offensive. Ask Oscar Wilde, Nelson Mandella or the Count of Monte Crisco.

But over the long term, incarceration has proven too expensive, so we medicate them now and leave them to wander passively thru back alleys...

Sorry, I sorta got into my own little tirade there. Only meant to show some empathy and appreciation for your article, didn't mean to rant on. Thanks for getting my juices flowing.

peace
jwf

Thanks, jwf - glad you liked the column!

Adbusters most certainly do have a website. You'll find it right here: http://www.adbusters.org/home/ . I knew the website long before I saw the actual magazine - I've had a link to the Adbusters site on my Personal Space for ages, but only recently found a place in my home city that sells the magazine. I'm intrigued to hear Adbusters described as 'much suppressed' What has been done to them?

The treatment of psychiatric patients is a difficult, complex area. I don't think that a reluctance to institutionalise people long-term is necessarily a bad thing, even if the reasons for it might be financial. Personally, I'm quite happy to have been treated with tablets and counselling - I don't think I'm a serious danger to myself or others, so I don't need to be 'put away'! But clearly, long-term residential care should be available for those who really need it.

Incidentally, one interesting thing I've found out recently is that short-term residential psychiatric care is readily available in Britain for those with addiction problems. Most of the people who go to the alcohol support group I attend have been in residential rehab, and some have been regular visitors to such institutions.

It feels strange not to be writing 'Notes From A Small Planet' on Wednesday afternoon; but as you may know, there's no this week. Never mind - I'll have plenty to write about next week!

>> I'm intrigued to hear Adbusters described as 'much suppressed' What has been done to them? <<

Glad to hear Adbusters has a website and thanks for the link! Hopefully, with the web they can reach the audience that has been denied them in other media. They actually started quite some time ago, long before the internet. Their original intention was to create critically analytical parodies of TV ads and run them on Canadian and US television as antidote to the mind bending crappola being produced by corporations to sell consumer products.

The core group who started ADBUSTERS included some out of work TV producers. Their main focus was debunking TV advertising generally; to show how phoney, unreal and stupid most ads and their claims really are. A few of their early parodies caused quite a sensation here. They ran as 'real' commercials in paid air-time and the public was left to 'get it' or not. Most of the public ignored them as much as they ignore real commercials, but some saw them as 'comedy programming' and did absorb some of the lessons revealed there-in.

It was one of their early TV parodies that first caught my eye. It brought them some media attention and made thousands of Canadians aware of their magazine. The public and the news media seemed to appreciate their humour at first and it looked like another Canadian success story. The CBC was going to integrate them into one of their comedy shows. Such radical comedy was not unknown, Canadian humourists have no sacred cows, but it has always been in the context of a comedy show, not 30 seconds of politically charged anti-establishment fervor in the midst of a pod of other 'real' commercials.

Their problems started when one TV broadcaster refused to sell them air time because they did not want to offend (and lose the business of) the large corporate client that was being spoofed. It became a 'free speech' and 'fair business' issue. Can a TV station or network just arbitrarilly refuse to air commercials if a client brings in a finished ad and has the money to pay for the air time?

Once it became a 'legal' case, of course all the TV stations could refuse to air any of their ads pending the resolution of the litigation, which as far as I know is probably still in the courts after more than a decade.

Producing TV ads is expensive. Buying air time is even more expensive if you want to reach large national audiences. ADBUSTERS could have succeeded if they had approached the national broadcasters as 'creators of comedy programming'. The networks would have paid for the production and given them airtime like they do for other comedy shows. But ADBUSTERS had a serious political and social agenda and wanted to 'terrorize' and 'snipe' with random insertions amid the regular adverts. They were already labelled as 'trouble' to the broadcasters caught up in the debate of freedom of speech and the rules for accepting or refusing ads.

Courts and lawyers are expensive. Since ADBUSTERS did not and could not support their magazine with advertising revenue, they were reliant on contributions and donations. The revenue from magazine sales (this applies to most print these days) does not cover the printing costs.

Then certain magazine wholesale distributors started refusing to carry the magazine as a show of support for the offended advertisers who were trying to sue ADBUSTERS. Many stores and supermarkets, in league with corporate advertisers, refused to have the magazine displayed or sold in their stores.

The pressure that kept them off the air and out of the stores combined with the enormous costs of getting their message produced and distributed certainly suppressed their initial impact. I had not heard of them for years and as a TV producer (currently between engagements myself) I was one of the more curious and keen to see them succeed. But they had dropped below my radar years ago.

For the general public it was all a blip and soon forgotten. For the average citizen, who can enjoy almost non-stop entertainment and comedy on literally dozens of TV channels, they were just another comedy group doing spoofs. To the average Joe Canuck they were 'funny and made a good point' (like SCTV or Kids-in the Hall who also did TV parodies) but it wasn't worth the grief to get involved in their serious political and legal problems. Public support was not there and corporate and government pressures continued. I really thought they had died the good death a long time ago.
peace
jwf

Thanks, jwf. That's all very interesting, and very sad. There are obviously some very sharp minds at Adbusters, and their ad parodies are brilliant. It seems a great pity that they can't find a way through the media maze to get their vision out to a wider audience. Ah, well, nothing for it but to keep plugging the website and buying the magazine!