Hurting Fish for Asthma Awareness

I have seen that ad, David. It is hard to watch the fish flopping around in the water draining away. I guess cruelty is everywhere on TV, especially on the news. Context matters. The ad is intentionally cruel in its creation while TV reporters usually only report the cruelty, they don't create it on their own to show you.

Heya soos!

Yes, you're on the point of my argument. I think it's ill-advised to torture fish in the name of making people more dramatically aware of asthma. Intent is the core of my argument and I thank you for making it clear I was clear! :)

i don't like dying fish either the death is slow and being film if done to end becomes snuff.

Hi tajuki --

Thank you for your comment. Your take on the issue is interesting and important. You have given me even more to think about on this matter!

Never seen it and hope I never do...I'm sure they could have gotten asthma awareness across without torturing a living breathing thing.

Hi Robin!

Yes, these PSAs may be shown on a regional basis so they may not be available in your area. I see the “Dying Fish is Like Having Asthma” one at least twice a week here in Jersey City.

They have a series of three or so commercials but the worst one features a goldfish in a bowl of water.

The water is slowly drained from the bowl.

The fish goes crazy trying to swim away to find more water but only ends up swimming in circles in the bowl as the water continues to drain away.

Finally, we get an up-close shot of a dying fish "gasping for air" and a child's voice is heard saying, "When I have an asthma attack, I feel like a fish with no water."

It's completely disgusting.

It turns your stomach.

Here's a direct link to their color print ad:

http://www.noattacks.org/Fish4C.pdf

i am to agree with you. Thank you.

Thanks for stopping by today, tajuki. It is a pleasure to meet you and I hope you will come back here again soon! :grin:

I remember thinking the same thing when I saw the goldfish ad. As the owner of several goldfish, I would never think of taking them out of the tank. It pains me to see the fish ad or the billboards.

I wonder if this is a trend in PSA filmmaking?

Recently, there were news reports about the "Smurfs" being blown up by bombs in a foreign PSA designed to raise awareness about children affected by warfare. The ad was disturbing to children and it is only aired in the evenings. The producers of the ad said that they needed to produce a spot that would get people's attention because images of starving kids would no longer shock people.

What happens when society isn't shocked by images of fish or Smurfs being threatened? What will PSA filmmakers do to get our attention next time?

thanks to you, too.

Hey Chris!

You make a beautiful and important comparison between the fish suffering and the improper use of the Smurfs in the PSA. I think the tendency in our current America is to get more cruel and "shocking" in order that attention be paid to what is being sold. The problem with that philosophy is the attention provided creates a retching in the giver.

My fear is we are tumbling down a narrow passage where we will be treated, but never thrilled, to even crasser and more craven images that will, sooner than later, result in the unwilling witnessing of intentional killing and mortal wounding for selling soap and asthma awareness.

The gruesome wonderment is -- who's idea was it to drain the water from the fish bowl? It was obviously someone unlike you and me -- someone who has never cared for a goldfish or loved a pet or had even the slightest inclination to love something other than the human.

I've said it here before and I'll mention it again now: Count Leo Tolstoy said in 1921, "As long as there are slaughterhouses, there will always be war."

Ooooooh, a new look here David! :)

Unfortunately, I've seen the fish commercial, and I feel it's totally unnecessary. There's no sense in harming another living being just to give an example of suffering.

Hi Carla!

Yes, there's a new look here. I will be addressing what's happening in today's post. :)

I'm glad you've seen the horrible PSA. It still boggles the mind.

You rationale in the above discussions are rediculous. A childs life verses a goldfish. I will take the fish life to save the child any day and if you disagree with that then you are seriously deranged.

The point that you are all missing is that they can't get the message out there to the people without a graphic representation. That is the problem. People dont understand that asthma kills.

If a fish has to endure a few minutes of gasping to get that point across to the masses then so be it.

I say its about time we shocked the community into recognizing a dangerous disease.

Gail --

Using a suffering fish to promote asthma awareness in a television commercial is cruel and hypocritical no matter how you slice it. It isn't like the fish is actually saving a child. You can animate the fish or find another way to get your message across than to purposefully cause suffering.

There are companies who are sensitive to animal suffering and I celebrate their newfound humanity:

http://www.caringconsumer.com/products_welchs.asp

I totally agree.......they could have easily used a cartoon. Far from helping, it really makes me question the organization. I donate to a lot of causes but to torture a helpless animal to make a point about a child suffering is just inexcusable.

I don't understand the logic of the person who said that torturing that fish saved a child's life. What is she thinking????????????

Hi Carolyn --

I am inclined to agree with you. A cartoon provides the same effect as a real fish. Then child and fish do not have to suffer together to help make an important point.

Having that poor goldfish flop around painfully gasping for breath is a totally unnessecary and completely vruel way to promote and get a point across about asthma. People know perfectly well that astma involves an inability to breath. That goldfish is a living too and it was in total pain and stress during that stupid commercial. "No fish were harmed during the making of this public service announcement"? How can they say that? Of course it was harmed! A flopping goldfish is not in any way, shape, or form needed to illistrate an asthma attack. Just disgusting!

I'm with you all the way Myles, and welcome to Urban Semiotic!

I was disgusted to see the noattacks.org ad tonight, in the middle of an infomercial... I was sipping my tea and ... bang! That awful image of the poor little goldfish gasping for air, and belive me readers, it was no one second experience! This is not even about the fish, though I feel for those poor little creatures... This is about using shocking tactics to make a point... And you know what they achieved, those idiots who created, financed and approved the ad? That I will NEVER, I mean NEVER, donate a cent to the organizations who created, financed or even just approved of the ad. I will literally turn my back on the problem. I am very sorry for those human sufferers of this terrible condition. But my attention will NOT be caught through animal cruelty. You have only provoked my disgust towards you and my indifference towards the problem; and my children cannot bear watch the ad or anything depicting or reminding me of that ad. There are better ways. Find them, otherwise the very people you are trying to help will suffer. A word for those idiots running, creating or financing that campaign: compassion is the first step to true social advancement.

I was very disappointed to see that animal cruelty was used, no matter how they wish to justify it, to make a point (re: noattacks.org asthma ad). I do not want my children to learn that the end justifies the means. Nonsense! You have lost a supporter, rather than an advocate. SHAME ON YOU.
To others: we should complain directly to the organization/s commissioning that ad. Any ideas? Write to me and let’s write to them together.

I walk by a billboard of that everyday going into work. Being asthmatic, I thought that the analogy of the "fish without water" is extremely accurate and effective. Seeing the actual television ad... well, it's intentionally shocking. You can feel the fish's desperate struggle to get oxygen and its suffering, and the voiceover clearly explains that this is what the viewer's child feels when s/he isn't able to breathe.

I suppose the ad is effective, which is why the goldfish is the key imagery for the campaign. It probably will get a few parents to wake up to what their child is going through if they've never had asthma.

At the same time, I've had the idea that this is a very ironic way to sell the message (which is why I googled the topic and found this page). I'm surprised that they have gotten away with tormenting a fish for a shoot. I'd imagine that they didn't get the whole thing just perfectly in just one take... since I work in video production.

I'm not an animal rights type... I think that nature itself is already cruel and the interests of humans are reasonable to place first, but I also don't think we should needlessly cause suffering. I'm not coming out against the concept of the ad itself, but the noattacks.org people should not kid themselves. They wanted to show a suffering living thing in order to shock people.

Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Bryan, and I thank you for your thoughtful and caring comment. It means a lot that a person like you -- who suffers with asthma -- can feel for the fish who suffered throughout the filming of an advertisement that is supposed to make your case to those who don't understand your condition.

I also have never seen such a disgusting ad. I have to change channels when it comes on. Perhaps we should be sending these complaints to the TV channels instead of advertisers. A typical Ad agency will consider complaints as positive evidence that someone is taking notice.

Welcome to Urban Semiotic, Jon!

I like your idea of going directly to the TV stations to complain. Perhaps that sort of local, grassroots, action would get these disgusting ads removed forever.