OPINION
i
rhysikiy, February 3, 2(XX)
THE BATTALION
"^Fashion victims
tew ad campaign focuses on sales, not protest against death penalty
SAIUE
pen m [
TURKOUi
the Agg-r
off Ibt!
in. You h;
id. "We j
Is to gOHO
i\-of-!wd
to a 20-pc
usts forBa
pseph Am-
rine just
got a new
Sb lolling
llothos lor
Ihton. But
line is not
Banetton
lelman,
|^| manager.
B clerk or even a buyer. Joseph
ine is a conv icted murderer.
Amrine has been on death row
ihct September of 1986 awaiting
ecution by lethal injection for
degree murder. Amrine and
5 cfther death row inmates are rep
otting Benetton in this year’s
idvertising campaign entitled “We.
in Death Row" a protest against
Irica’s use of the death penalty.
:er\ iew s and images of these in-
ate^ have already begun to appear
billboards and in magazines
ross America, and will be re-
d worldwide this spring,
obgh no one will admit it. Benet-
n is using crime, even death, to
11 clothes and people are buying
toil all over the world.
Benetton’s spring collection col-
irs bear no resemblance to bright
be and hot pink. The catalogs
ontam no one-piece jumpsuits with
elcro closures, no numbers on let!
nt shirt pockets and no shackles
l the accessory section.
Death row’ inmates and Benet-
n sweaters have absolutely no
gical relationship. Neither do
enetton and its own ads, but this
s really nothing new. Previous ad-
ertising for the Italian fashion gl
int centered around topics like
.yar. racism and AIDS; it has never
failed to shock, amaze and often
:onfuse the public.
It is no surprise that Italian pho
tographer Oliviero Toscani is out
for shock value again in this latest
campaign for Luciano Benetton’s
$4 billion company. Toscani calls
himself “a man of images.” He
;ays he is not out to sell clothes but
o “make people think.” I le avoids
he topic of Benetton’s question-
ible advertising strategy by claim-
ng he is not in the ad business. He
Jst snaps photos that happen to be
used in ads.
Washington Post staff writer
I lank Steuver calls Toscani’s
strategy “a contrivance of jour
nalism and art with an enigmat
ic undercoat of name-brand
ing.” Enigmatic, indeed. Any
logical person might intuit that
associating one’s company with
convicted killers might cause a
significant drop in sales. But
Benetton and Toscani are hard
ly worried about sales figures,
especially not in America,
which houses only 200 of
Benetton’s 7000 stores. Even if
American sales drop due to this
risky campaign, the loss would
hardly make a dent in Luciano
Benetton’s weekly allowance.
Designed to coincide with
the new millennium, “We, on
Death Row” features quotes
from inmates such as “I think
people like seeing other people
suffer and killed,” and “TV in
here [prison] is a big influ
ence.” Appearing on a solid
background, the only hint of
anything Benetton-related in
these ads is a small green rec
tangle containing the company
name. The same rectangle also
appears in ads using Toscani’s
pictures of the inmates them
selves. Looking into the cam
era with expressions some
times sad, sometimes aloof and
often unreadable, these men
and women almost appear to
reside solely within the paper
world of advertisements. It is
quite possible for one to forget
exactly who they are and what
they represent.
Who are they again, and
why are they selling sweaters?
Their resumes hardly qualify
them for the job. All 26 inmates are
awaiting death by lethal injection
or electrocution in various states,
Texas included. All have commit
ted crimes unimaginable to most
people — among them, rape,
sodomy and murder.
The world in which these 26
men and women really exist is not
made of paper. Their world is made
up of people; people who have
feelings, opinions and reactions.
Though Toscani claims he just
“takes pictures,” he has long car
ried the advertising strategy for
Benetton inside his lens. Bypassing
the clothes altogether, he goes
straight for the controversy. By us
ing an issue like the death penalty
and putting faces on America’s in
mates, he will bruise feelings, dig
up opinions and spark reactions.
No, the world is not made of paper,
but Toscani would like people to
think it is.
Toscani and Benetton are no
fools; they know this campaign
will stir up a fuss.
The Benetton name will come
up countless times as people argue
over the fates of these 26 poster
children.
Meanwhile the two men will
JEFF SMITH/! nn Battai.ION
quietly slip away to plan their next
assault on America’s sensibilities.
With Joseph Amrine telling the
people of the world “I am not ready
to die,” there is no need to mention
the clothes at all, really.
No need to mention the
victims, either.
Melissa Johnston is a senior
English major.
and that waste
»sts made ihtss
i it out when the) w
aood looks and we8
e of the strongest^
1 low ever, A&M d
towcss with a s
. Wt NEED
reent. vet allowed A FUXG iHf\T
ISNY RACIST...
MAIL CALL
you are eating!,
ns with binge
being formed a:
e problems. This 1
•d treatment dial
ig/vomiting, red
steem, and dew
Aggie Alley decision
criticized
In response to Jeanette Simpson’s
Feb. 2 article.
I was completely appalled when I
read about the closing of Aggie Alley.
Obviously I haven’t paid enough atten
tion to take advantage of my chance to
voice my opinion on the decision.
Oh wait!! Our esteemed athletic di
rector Wally Groff, neglected to ask
anyone but his pocket book what they
thought about this idea.
I can only speak for myself, but I am
on a very limited budget and to save
money I don’t buy an All-Sports pass.
Aggie Alley gave the students a way to
watch baseball games for free, and
have a great time doing it.
I'm sure I will get completely at
tacked if I’m wrong about this, but I have
not heard of any dangerous incidents, or
accidents, which were a result of the “un
safe” nature of Aggie Alley.
Next Groff will be taking away our
right to yell at football games. If Groff
and the athletic department don’t
think they “need to involve students in
order to make a decision,” maybe they
need to take another look at who the
“Aggies” are. They are the students,
not a bunch of hot shots who are only
here to make a profit.
I would also like to add that Groff’s
claim that selling the spots will make
Aggie Alley safer, is off the mark. Now
we’ll just have richer Aggies partici
pating in games at Aggie Alley. We all
know that those with the almighty dol
lar are much smarter, much safer,
and much more responsible than
those financially challenged students
such as ourselves.
Robyn Broome
Class of ’00
Page 13
ViEW POiNTS
Super Bowl follies
S omewhere in that amazing waste of time
— the Super Bowl pregame show, ABC
struck a blow for gender stupidity. Mered
ith Viera, host of morning gabfest “The View,”
did a spot comparing players on the St. Louis
Rams and Tennessee Titans.
To be more precise, her piece was on the
backsides of the players. Her bit on the buns of
the big game was not only boring but a blatant
showing of an emerging double standard in so
ciety.
As the Houston Chronicle aptly noted, “could
you imagine what would happen if (Comedy
Central’s) “The Man Show” had rated the bust
sizes of the U.S. Women’s Soccer team?”
While this is something that cannot be put past
Adam Carolla and Jimmy Kimmel, they would do
so on a cable channel late at night, not to a
mixed audience during the biggest television
event of the year.
They would never be allowed to do a “bust-o-
rama” during the Super Bowl due to outcry
about the degradation of these women, who
have proven to be the equal of any man on a
sporting field. While Kurt Warner and Eddie
George are certainly not sobbing over having
their backsides plastered on 100 million televi
sion sets, they have been made into pieces of
meat just the same.
In this era of equal rights and no desired dis
crimination between the sexes, this is unac
ceptable. ABC acted in an irresponsible fashion
by allowing this to happen as it minimizes the
rights of all people to be respected. If the play
ing field is supposed to be even, such objectifi
cation cannot be allowed at all.
Or maybe it should be allowed on both
sides. The anchors on Sportscenter should be
allowed to rate the backsides of female
skaters and gymnasts.
After all, shouldn’t America know whether
or not Oksana Baiul rates a “booyeah!” from
Stuart Scott?
— Mark Passwaters
A s the media saturates more and more of
society, Super Bowl hype is no longer limit
ed to just the football game, but to the
high profile, exorbitant commercials as well.
Fans expecting to be entertained for the entire
four hours were again confronted by commer
cials that were disappointing flops.
With an estimated cost of $2 million for air
time alone, one would believe commercials fill
ing such expensive time periods could live up
to the property value of their slots. However,
the results speak for themselves, and they
were not pretty.
During the first quarter, when television view
ers were least likely to be getting up for a cold
beverage or more bean dip, advertisements
showed hardly any original thought or entertain
ment value.
Mountain Dew tried to stick with their “Do
the Dew” concept, but put forth a disgusting ef
fort as one of their grunge teens rams his
whole arm down the throat of a cheetah just to
retrieve a can of the yellow beverage. For view
ers, actually wanting to “Do the Dew” may have
ultimately been hampered by the sound effects
associated with an arm going down a rather
small esophagus.
Another company who seriously wasted mil
lions on poor advertising during the Super
Bowl was Oldsmobile. This ad had The Gap
written all over it as trendy young adults sang a
cheesy song while suddenly undergoing ran
dom costume changes. But — surprise — it
was only a car commercial.
With ads dominated by the Internet companies
who live and die through innovation, many of the
of the so-called “dot-com businesses” failed to ac
tually portray their ingenuity in their commercials.
WebMD had Muhammad AN fighting the cam
era, and Nuveen’s technology depicted Christo
pher Reeves walking again, but both companies
left viewers wondering what was being sold.
In the end, the football game provided far
better entertainment for the evening. The com
mercials yet again failed to be worth their cost
and viewers’ time.
— Elizabeth Kohl
Helms’ criticism of United Nations unfair, undermines charter
Cororve at the
- 845-8017
t is an unfortu
nate fact of life
that those who
e quickest to
iticize others are
en most in need
m getting it dirt)' criticism them-
Ives. But the
any of this reali-
riple Loaders has apparently
OE ca P ct ' 8en. Jesse Helms, R-N.C.,
B ^(3 ho has made a career out of noticing
e speck in the eye of the United Na-
ppy Hour WaS^ns while ignoring the plank of wood
i. - Fri. 6 p.m. - 9p f own -
^ /\/\ The 78-year-old chairman of the
111J treign Relations Committee has been
" w v cantankerous and colorful critic of
I other times S 125'^ I operations for decades, but on
n. 20, he outdid even himself.
, , ,, ,, Helms earned a dubious place in
Vlon.-Fn. Noe • “^tory as the first U.S. legislator to
it. & Sun. 11 a.m.-M»ew out the U.N. Security Council in
corner of Texas & Ha' rs on. He was followed a day later
(behind Garcia’s) lhc second such honoree, Sen.
seph Biden, D-Del., who also deliv-
id a critical speech before the 15-
ior Credit Cards Arf U 'f 8r0Up -
ATM Available
But what was truly history-making
was Helms’ hypocrisy.
Both he and Biden impertinently
scolded the United Nations for its bal
looning budget, entangling bureaucracy
and ineffective missions. But both
failed to consider the possibility that the
United States is partially responsible for
the crippling of the international body.
After all, thanks to the persistent
efforts of Helms’ ilk, Uncle Sam still
owes debts to the United Nations to
taling nearly $1.5 billion in unpaid
membership dues.
The looming fact of these unbe
lievable arrears would have made
much of Helms’ invective laughable
— if only offending the Security
Council were a laughing matter. But
Helms insisted on flirting with disaster.
“It is my intent to extend to you my
hand of friendship,” Helms said. “If the
U.N. were to reject this compromise, it
would mark the beginning of the end of
U.S. support for the United Nations.”
In truth, the end of U.S. support for
the United Nations has already come
and gone, in large part because of
Helms’ considerable influence on for
eign policy matters. Congress has at
tached a stringent set of conditions —
authored by none other than Helms
and Biden — to the full repayment of
its U.N. dues. A Helms-driven Senate
refuses to cough up the money until
the United Nations overhauls its fi
nances and
reduces the
U.S. role in
operations.
Other
proposals
calling for
the funds
were killed
in Congress
because of
controver
sial rider
bills about family planning treaties
designed by opponents to forestall a
final reckoning of the account. Late
last year, Congress did begrudgingly
commit to paying $926 million, but
only if the United Nations would ac
cept the sum as payment in full and
forever reduce America’s financial
share in the organization.
There are two problems with these
weak-kneed policies.
First, it is bad enough to kick a
horse while it is down. It is even
worse to hold it down while telling it
to get up. Helms said the United Na
tions was
“para
lyzed” in
Kosovo
and that its
mission in
Bosnia was
a “disas
ter.”
Both of
these mis
sions,
which suf
fered from a woeful lack of resources,
were undertaken with the nominal
support of the United States, which re
mains in former Yugoslavia with more
IOU slips to show than results.
But apparently Helms has not
grasped the contradiction inherent in
his demand. Even if he is trying to
extend the members of the Security
Council a hand of friendship, it will
not do any good. He has already tied
their hands.
The second problem with Helms’
style of bombast is its hypocrisy. Sen
ate Republicans have ridiculed calls
from leaders as varied as the presi
dent and the pope to completely for
give poor nations of the debts they
owe the United States.
Most developing nations that
have outstanding balances with
Washington are incapable of ever
paying them back. Because so much
of their gross national wealth goes
straight to the United States’ coffers,
they are never able to generate
enough economic development to
stop borrowing money.
But despite the fact that debt for
giveness would be a fiscally pro
gressive aid to the developing world,
Congress has not even taken the pro
posal seriously. Therefore, Con
gress’ demand that its debt be par
tially forgiven by the United Nations
truly curls the lip. While wringing
some third-world economies dry,
legislators like Helms are acting as
if the United States is being gener
ous by asking for generosity.
It is no wonder that the com
ments of Helms and Biden were re
ceived icily by delegates from
France, Canada and several other
countries. “Under the U.N. charter,
a member state cannot attach condi
tions to its willingness to pay,” said
Peter van Walsum of the Nether
lands in The New York Times.
Before Helms makes the U.S.
government more of a laughing
stock in the United Nations than it
already is. Congress must forge a
bipartisan commitment to fixing
what continues to be a grievous
wrong. It should not take a chair
man of a Senate committee to see
that the United States has no right
to be seeing red as long as it is still
in the red.
Caleb McDaniel is a junior
history major.
Even if Helms is trying to
extend the members of
the Security Council a
hand of friendship, it will
not do any good. He has
already tied their hands.