9745: When Stock Photo Models Attack.

From The New York Times…

Model in Anti-Obesity Ad Criticizes the Campaign

By Patrick McGeehan

Another of the overweight models appearing in ads from New York City’s health department — one who did not have a limb edited off — criticized the campaign, saying that the ads will not have the desired effect.

After reading about the virtual amputation of the leg of another model, Beth Anne Sacks said she felt misled when she saw herself in one of the ads in a subway car. Not only did she not like being one of the “poster people for obesity,” but she also said the message was too negative to inspire overweight people to change their eating habits.

“This is so negative,” Ms. Sacks said in an interview. “If they think they’re going to reach overweight people with these ads, they’re not going to do it. I don’t think they would make someone go, ‘You’re right, I need to change.’”

Ms. Sacks, a 43-year-old actress and singer (see video below) who lives in Manhattan, said the health department was trying to frighten people into changing their habits, but “the ad of me doesn’t scare me.” She is shown climbing the stairs of a subway station, with containers of French fries arrayed in front of her, to warn of the dangers of growing portions of fast food and sugary drinks.

“I look at it and think ‘Oh, it’s just a big girl walking up the subway stairs,’” she said referring to one of three ads the health department is placing in the transit system. “None of those scare me,” she said, not even the one of Cleo Berry, an able-bodied actor whose right leg was made to appear partly amputated to represent the devastating effects of diabetes.

John Kelly, a spokesman for the health department, said, “Our smoking cessation ads have helped drive smoking in New York City down to historic lows, and our other public health campaigns have been essential to the progress we’ve made helping New Yorkers live longer and healthier lives.”

Unlike Mr. Berry, whose image was captured by a stock photo agency several years ago, Ms. Sacks knew she was posing for a city-sponsored campaign. She said that she answered an ad on Craigslist in mid-December that was placed by the health department’s ad agency. It was seeking an “overweight actress” for a photo shoot within the next two days and offering $250, she said.

The next day, she was taken to a subway station downtown and photographed climbing the steps — not her favorite activity. “I’ve never been a stair person,” she said.

She said she was pleasantly surprised when she was paid $300 at the end of the day because it helped pay her rent. But now, she said, she has some regrets. “The 300 has come and gone, and now I’m all over the subway system,” she said.

9726: King-Sized Overconsumption.

There’s something disturbing about this Burger King commercial touting the new thick-cut fries—especially the shot of the dude choking down a handful. Talk about promoting gluttony fit for a king.

9715: Big, Fat Liars.

From The New York Times…

Blame Photoshop, Not Diabetes, for This Amputation

By Patrick McGeehan

New York City’s health watchdogs warn that drinking too much sugary soda could cost you a leg. But you also might lose a limb if you appear in one of their ads.

A blunt new poster from the Bloomberg administration shows an overweight man on a stool, his right leg missing below the knee. A pair of crutches leans against a wall beside him. The advertisement, being placed throughout the subway system, warns that ever-growing portions of fast food and sodas could cause diabetes, which could lead to amputations.

But it turns out that the person shown in the advertisement did not need crutches because his legs were intact. The health department confirmed on Tuesday that its advertising agency had removed the lower half of the man’s leg from the picture to make its point: the headline over the image reads “Portions have grown. So has Type 2 diabetes, which can lead to amputations.”

When city officials announced the campaign on Jan. 9, they did not let on that the man shown — whose photo came from a company that supplies stock images to advertising firms and others — was not an amputee and may not have had diabetes. The city did not identify the man, and efforts to reach the agency that supplied the photo were unsuccessful. The photographer who took the picture, Morten Smidt, said he did not know the man’s name.

Mr. Smidt said on Tuesday that he had not seen the advertisement. In response to a description of it, he said, “Well, it is an illustration now, clearly not the picture I did.”

In a news release about the campaign, the health department said that in 2006, nearly 3,000 New Yorkers with diabetes were hospitalized for amputations. The advertisements are the latest in a series of attention-grabbing messages about the dangers of smoking, drinking and consuming too many sweets and fatty foods. Other advertisements that the health department sponsored featured a grizzled smoker who talked through a voice box and a woman named “Marie” from the Bronx who showed off what appeared to be fingers whose tips had been lost to smoking.

City officials said those advertisements were testimonials that showed real people and real consequences. But they said that doing so was not always feasible. “Sometimes we use individuals who are suffering from the particular disease; other times we have to use actors,” said John Kelly, a health department spokesman. “We might stop using actors in our ads if the food industry stops using actors in theirs.”

The American Beverage Association, which opposes the city’s efforts against sodas and fast food, called the advertisement overwrought. “This is another example of the ‘What can we get away with?’ approach that shapes these taxpayer-funded ad campaigns,” Chris Gindlesperger, the association’s director of communications, said in a statement.

Bob Garfield, a commentator for Advertising Age and National Public Radio, said that the misrepresentation “was lazy or cheap or silly, but I wouldn’t lose any sleep over it.” Still, he said, “Why people lie when there’s no penalty for telling the truth is an absolute mystery to me.”

9714: It’s The Sleaziest Cheesiest.

Sociological Images spotlighted this anti-obesity campaign that attacks cheese and people with cottage cheese thighs. It’s another ineffective example of shaming the victim versus naming the villain.


Meanwhile, the media weight behind this effort likely appears anorexic when compared to pro-cheese propaganda.