I agree that promoting things that are bad for you and the environment as healthy choices is deceptive. The fact that they are better than a worse alternative does not mean that they good choices that should be encouraged. "Clean coal" is not really clean, because the toxins are only filtered out of the waste to be disposed of later in a "safer" manner. High fructose corn syrup contributes to obesity and diabetes, among other health problems. It is still bad for you in small amounts. Small amounts are preferable to large servings, but there are many other healthier options.
These advertisements are clearly deceptive. At best, they omit vital information. For example, the fact that there is no real "clean coal" technology yet is never mentioned. By the same token, the advertisements for high fructose corn syrup never discuss the fact that doctors uniformly agree that it is incredibly fattening and unhealthy.
I believe commercials promoting clean coal and high fructose syrup are deceptive, because these ads are self-serving. First off, clean coal is an oxymoron. Some companies just use these "eco-friendly" words to create buzz. Secondly, there are a lot of articles stating that high fructose corn syrup is not healthy. Using this term in ads shows the company's poor integrity to providing quality products.
Consumers need to not take commercials literally. If someone is interested in what the commercial is reporting, then they need to do research on their own to see what is actually true. While I do support clean coal, I do realize there is some down sides to it. However, the benefits we reap from powering our country on coal are affordable and, right now, there is not another viable alternative out there.
The re-branding of certain industries as more "eco-friendly" or "green" is a cynical charade meant to trick people into supporting their business. The bottom line, not the environment, is paramount to many companies proclaiming the virtues of "clean coal". There are many alternatives to coal that are far more "clean" and, using the descriptor "clean coal", is like saying "least painless root canal". Hijacking buzzwords that once stood for morally good causes (e.g. green, clean, etc.) is one of the most insidious ways that savvy marketers present something as possessing the virtues it is diametrically opposed to. Shame on marketers everywhere.
If you were to type in "clean coal" or "high fructose corn syrup" on the Internet, you would be able to read viewpoints that greatly differ from these self-promoting ads. They are nowhere near as wonderful as the promoters of these two products advertise them to be. The disadvantages and negative results of these products are not mentioned in the ads.
These ads are clearly deceptive, as there is absolutely no such thing as clean coal. In addition to the polluting by products that are still released into the environment, there is additional pollution when coal is mined, transported and disposed of. As far as high fructose corn syrup, it has no benefits and is a direct cause of the increase in childhood diabetes and obesity and should be removed from most products.
The Oxford Dictionary definition of "commercial" includes: "intended to produce profits rather than to be of artistic or scholarly merit."
The sole purpose of a commercial is to influence the viewer/reader/listener to purchase or use the product being advertised. There is, in fact, a dis-incentive for the advertiser to present a balanced, truthful or unbiased case for his product or service.
In the specified cases of clean coal and high fructose corn syrup, the glut of advertising produced recently has been in response to criticism of these two products.
A case has been made that there is no such thing as "clean coal," and that additionally any method for extracting coal from the earth is environmentally destructive. The recent advertisements by coal interests have attempted either to deal directly with these objections or to deflect our attention through fear: if we don't use coal as a fuel source we are playing into the hands of "foreign interests."
In the case of high fructose corn syrup, regardless of the scientific evidence that our bodies process different forms of sugar differently, the commercials we see assure us that "don't worry your little heads, after all sugar is sugar, right?" Yes, this is deceptive.
MHD generators were proven decades ago. Google it. The Russians are using them. Our country is rich in coal and this technique would let us use this energy source with a LOT less pollution than conventional burning. It's not lack of knowledge stopping them. It's political crap. Ask your congressman where MHD generators for clean coal are. Ask why it's OK for China but not us. Ask why we should sign the Kyoto accords when North America is a carbon SINK?
Commercialism is and has been one of the biggest deceptive devices in this country. Every day people are fooled into purchasing products that are misleading as being one thing when they are another. Our government needs to start holding these companies responsible when it comes to adds promoting false advertisements. They have been getting away with it for way too long and the public has to pay in the long run.
Well, I can see why some may think they are being deceptive. However, take corn syrup, for example. They are simply telling you all of the positive things about it, instead of focusing on the negative. They are not claiming to be good for you, just that they are not going to cause any serious harm to you in moderation. It's the same with potato chips. Chips are not "good" for you, but they taste good and are fine, if eaten in moderation.
Every one knows that products high in corn syrup are not good for you. People also know that black smoke tar producing coal will never be safe to breathe. Tobacco and Liquor manufacturers market their products. Who doesn't know that isn't good for them? Once again this boils down to self accountability.