COMM 390: Reorienting ourselves; three points of view we'll consider ... and an upcoming speech (which may be assigned if it takes place)

Since I was out sick most of last week, we'll need to reorient ourselves a little to make up for lost time. That's the bad news. The good news is I took enough steroids to qualify for a career in minor league baseball, and you guys are all rested up and ready to read. (How do you like the 'lliteration?) We were going to do this anyway: I want to frame the rest of our reading and class discussion in COMM 390 in terms of examining the effects of advertising in light of different opinions that have been expressed about it. I don't want to present you with one guy's opinion and call that reality.

Here are three that we'll deal with so far in a big way in the next few days:

1. Arthur A. Berger. I'll let you read this for yourselves as we finish our textbook "Ads, Fads, & Consumer Culture." Please keep reading it as fast as you can, and I will be thinking of ways I can give you the opportunity to express yourselves in writing (cough, cough, if you get my drift) on the issues he raises and unintended consequences he discusses before midterms.
2. Kenneth E. Clow and Donald E. Baack. Authors of "Integrated Advertising, Promotional and Marketing Communications," they're advertising professionals who explain how consumer attitudes are affected psychologically by ads in an IMC campaign. I gave you a very brief summary last week, but it's so abstract I hardly understand it. (Not a good sign, if I'm going to try to explain it.) So I'll photocopy a longer explanation this week (week of Feb. 16) and get it to you ASAPest.
3. The Vatican. The Pontifical Council for Social Communications issued a paper called "Ethics in Communications" in 2000. I do not regard it as a "message from our sponsor" that cuts off discussion; it invites dialog with "professional communicators—writers, editors, reporters, correspondents, performers, producers, technical personnel" (and management). Is advertising necessarily inconsistent with the Pontifical Council's vision of "a body of moral truth based on human dignity and rights, the preferential option for the poor, the universal destination of goods, love of enemies, and unconditional respect for all human life from conception to natural death...?"

Next month we'll get into a fourth point of view -- that of media critic Jean Kilbourne, author of our other assigned text, "Can’t Buy My Love: How Advertising Changes the Way We Think and Feel." As you can guess from the title, she'll have a point of view.

Kilbourne may speak in Springfield early next month. All I can find is an item posted to a blog for Wednesday, March 4:

“Deadly Persuasion: Advertising and the Corruption of Relationships,” with Jean Kilbourne, 7:30 p.m., Brookens Auditorium, University of Illinois at Springfield; free.

I couldn't find the events listing on the Journal-Register's website and I couldn't open either of the press releases UIS posted to the Web. Nor did I find a speech in Springfield listed on Kilbourne's schedule, either. So I can't confirm it. If she's in town, try to go to her talk. And whatever else you do, read her book.