bodyType

customContents

entityId

entityUuid

articlePageQuery

filter

article

articleBaseAdvertisingInfoArticle

articleListArticle

articleSeoArticle

hooksArticleAcknowledgementGateOverlayArticle

hooksTrackPageViewArticle

hooksContentInterestArticle

articleLinkingDataContent

hooksAmpRedirectArticle

articleSchemaContent

liveArticle

advertZone

sentiment

contentLock

topics

types

sections

paywallTypes

createdDate

publishedDate

sponsorType

urlAlias

moreOnThisArticles

commentCount

authorLocations

authors

corrections

displaySlideShow

multimediaEmbed

printHeadline

seriesContainer

articleSpeeches

socialHeadline

headline

images

flag

firstTopic

glossary

flattenTypeIds

image

relatedLinks

relatedNewsletters

__typename

sponsor

pdfFiles

seriesReverseOrder

series

disableOffPlatformContent

published

updatedDate

summary

subHeadline

body

keywords

readingTime

customTimezone

liveContents

SCMP Reporter

SEVERAL months ago, it was reported that the series of existing realistic and hard-hitting TV ads for AIDS awareness were going to be replaced with other, less 'frightening' adverts.

  The originals depicted believable and highly possible situations, and were calculated to make viewers consider the danger that exists to 'ordinary' people in ordinary situations.

  Now we are witnessing the replacements.

  In one, a group of women at the beauty parlour is chatting about the recent pregnancy of one of their number.

  'I took all the tests - even an AIDS test,' says the supposedly enlightened new mother-to-be.

  Are we to believe that she waited until after she became pregnant to take an 'AIDS' test?   Does this advert mean to tell us that this is recommended? Then she says 'It's not that I don trust my husband - I just don't trust his old girlfriends.' I find this extremely offensive on several levels.

  First, the test this healthy woman would have taken would be for HIV, not AIDS.

  Next, the idea that if her husband had contracted HIV from an old girlfriend and then passed it along to her, that the 'blame' would lie with the ex-girlfriend rather than the husband, is preposterous.

  Finally, depicting this whole situation as an issue of 'trust' perpetuates the exact attitude which such ads should be trying to eradicate.

  Another ad features several mouths full of crooked teeth telling us that AIDS is a 'four-letter word' that is simply not discussed, but should be.

  I won't even bother to address the implications of referring to AIDS as a four-letter word (besides, it's not a word - it's an acronym). My principal objection is to the fact that there is absolutely no education contained in this ad. We should be told why it should be discussed and how it should be discussed.

  In its current form, this ad is a useless waste of air time.

  What kind of convoluted thinking went into the concept and production of this new 'awareness' campaign?   Can someone enlighten me as to the perceived value of these ads, which not only fail to educate but also perpetuate harmful notions of 'blame' and 'trust' and 'obscenity'?   LESLIE FRAPPIER Ap Lei Chau 



Useless waste of air time