Ban airbrushed ads, say Lib Dems

[Oneeyedvic]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8181499 .stm

Airbrushing should be banned in advertisements aimed at children to tackle "body image pressure", say the Liberal Democrats.

Altering photos to make them look better means children are subjected to "completely unattainable images", said front-bencher Jo Swinson.

The party also wants cosmetic surgery adverts to give their success rates.

The Advertising Standards Authority said they received only a "small handful" of complaints on the issue.

The Liberal Democrats, Britain's third largest political party, have put forward measures aimed at protecting women and girls from pressure about their weight, and to promote healthy living.

A good idea or the nanny state getting over excited?

[youngmafbog]

Nannty state gone mad.

Why cant politicians just leave us alone. I for one am sick of the do as I say not as I do.

All politiicans, particularly liberal and Noo labout types are a**holes anyway

[Oneeyedvic]

So on that basis, do you think that everything should be legalised? Drugs, prostitution etc

Is there anything that can be legislated against, or is any 'interference' the nanny state gone mad?

[Hazel104]

Sorry I have to disagree, this is not a nanny state reaction at all.

There is an immense pressure on young girls (and boys) to be physically perfect more so than ever before. I believe this is a direct result of altered images within advertising and the media.
As an adult I can rationalise these images, a child (especially an adolescent one) can not and starts to measure themselves against these picture perfect ideals, creating a completely unrealistic perception of how they �should� be.
I can not believe you think it is not a problem to alter and by that we all know they mean slim-down (already very slim) models used in advertising for the under sixteen�s?
It is just irresponsible advertising.

[anotheoldgit]

All advertising should be looked into, I refer mainly to those product that state they do what they can't possibly do.

Washing product's stain removers are a prime example.

[birdie1971]

I'm always amazed at how many people buy celebrity magazines in order to gawp at overpaid morons whose very pockets they are lining by paying for the privilege of gawping at their overt displays of wealth.

However, I don't think this Lib Dem idea is particularly bad.

I hate falseness and fakery. When I see a picture of someone, I 'should' be able to assume that the picture is an accurate representation of them. If the picture has been altered, amended and enhanced then I think I should have to right to know if I'm being told lies.

Any publisher that chooses to display an 'altered-from-reality' image, be it a newspaper, magazine or website, thay should have to declare that fact.

By not admitting that photos are enhanced and corrected, you're suggesting that the personality concerned is as physically flawless as they appear. This might not seem like a big deal in the grand scheme of things and I suppose it isn't.

However, an alarming number of our teenagers, unable to reach the dizzying heights of (faked) perfection displayed in the media, take their own lives. Happily, I have lived through and survived my teenage years. But I do remember with painful recollection just how difficult I found it at the time dealing with rampant hormones and a spotty boat-race � when everyone I saw in the press was young and beautiful and spot-free.

I suppose I just don't like being lied to.