Thursday, 14 October 2010

Misleading advertising

I’ve long held the view that airbrushed ads should be clearly identifiable as such with some kind of brush logo and maybe the word “fake.”  I could have sworn I blogged about this before but can’t find the post so either I have and Blogger search is rubbish, or I haven’t and am slightly senile.  Both of these potential scenarios is plausible.

Anyhow, I was delighted but not really surprised and then annoyed and then non-plussed and then delighted again, to learn that the Guiding movement have obviously read my (non) existent airbrushing blog post.

Delighted because they’d read my blog and taken note.  Not really surprised because the Guiding movement has always been forward thinking.  Annoyed because they didn’t credit me with the idea.  Non-plussed because I realised I probably wouldn’t have done anything further with my idea and then delighted because I’d gone full circle.

Research done by Girlguiding UK shows that girls are concerned about the pressure caused by unrealistic images in the media.  Go Guides, go Brownies, go Rainbows.

There is a petition to support the call for a kitemark that distinguishes between airbrushed and natural images.  If you’d like to support this idea, and I would encourage you to, then pop to and you have until 2 November to sign up.

No comments: