Science fiction

(nb. I am not the Devil's Kitchen)

Still no cure for cancer, then, but at least scientists aren't just fucking around with pointless bullshit...

People are more likely to turn to alcohol while watching TV if they see drinking being portrayed in films or adverts, a study suggests.

The BBC's words, of course. This kind of rubbish is grist to their mill, but even by the Beeb's piss-poor standards, this 'study' is pathetic:

Scientists in The Netherlands and Canada conducted a randomised, controlled trial...

Scientists, eh? A randomised, controlled trial? Impressive stuff. I bet they wore lab coats and everything.

...in which they allocated 80 male university students, aged 18-29, to one of four groups; 20 watched a film (American Pie) in which characters drank alcohol 18 times and alcoholic drinks were portrayed an additional 23 times, and a commercial break that included ads for alcohol; 20 watched American Pie and a neutral commercial break with no alcohol ads; 20 watched a film (40 Days and 40 Nights) in which alcohol appeared far less prominently (characters consumed it three times and alcoholic drinks were shown 15 times) and a commercial break including ads for alcohol; and 20 watched 40 Days and 40 nights and a neutral commercial break with no alcohol ads.

Jesus, how fucking scientific. No one could ever say that this handful of random students won't provide conclusive evidence. Strap yourself in for the findings:

Over the period of one hour, those who were exposed to alcohol in both the film and commercial drank an average of nearly three 200 ml bottles of alcohol, while those who watched the neutral ads and the "non-alcoholic" film drank an average of 1.5 bottles of alcohol.

"Nearly three 200ml bottles of alcohol" - what's that, one pint? One pint of beer in an hour! And these are University students? What a bunch of pussies.

And the "unexposed" group drank "on average" half a pint. Not much difference, really, despite the experiment being blatantly rigged to achieve a positive outcome.

Here's how the Bolshevik Broadcasting Corporation reported this quackery:

Researchers found those who saw lots of alcohol references drank twice as much as those that did not.

And before you have time to absorb that sweeping fucking statement, Auntie gets straight to the point:

Campaigners said there needed to be more restrictions on advertising.

As you would expect of a junk scientist, the twat who conducted this farce has a lot to say for himself:

Rutger Engels, professor in developmental psychopathology at the Behavioural Science Institute, Radboud University Nijmegen (The Netherlands), said: "This is the first experimental study to show a direct effect of exposure to alcohol portrayals on TV on viewers' immediate drinking behaviour."

No, Engels, your study shows nothing. You might as well have studied how many beermats these randoms could balance on their bell-ends. And although the BBC wouldn't trouble its audience with anything as confusing as facts, elsewhere we can see that:

"statistical sufficiency was limited for further analyses"

"the difference between groups for beverage switching was not significant"

This is maths-speak for "the study proved fuck all."

Here's an idea, Professor - do your little experiment again and this time leave the fridge full of beer but take out the television. See how much beer is left after an hour and then tell me that television makes people drink. I'll tell you what makes people drink, you daft cunt - free drink.

But, as ever, it makes no difference how these scam-artists arrive at their conclusions. All that matters is that they produce a figure for the lobbyists to stick into their fucking 'fact-sheets'. You haven't heard the last of this, I'll tell you now. You can be sure that from this day forth, every prohibitionist prick will be saying that "science has proved" that being "exposed" (note that word) to drinking on TV doubles the amount that people drink.

Then they will work out how many lives will be "saved" if consumption is halved and that will be the number of deaths that alcohol advertising will be held responsible for. No one will remember that the statistic was conjured up by offering free beer to a group of young, male students and showing them a film in which young, male students have a good time drinking beer. No one will remember, and no one will want to hear, because every one of them - from the 'scientists' to the politicians - are balls deep in the scam.

What makes this study a particular goldmine for the prohibitionists is - if you are mad enough to take its findings seriously - it not only "proves" that alcohol advertising increases demand, but that any portrayal of drinking on television or in films increases demand. Radical stuff, but that is indeed what these Dutch bastards are saying:

If other research confirms the findings of this study, then there will be implications for policy...

"Implications of these findings may be that, if moderation of alcohol consumption in certain groups is strived for, it may be sensible to cut down on the portrayal of alcohol in programmes aimed at these groups and the commercials shown in between."

Back! Back, you fuckers! Call off your dogs! The people aren't ready for that yet, but they will be once there are softened up with a kick in the knackers. To use a previous analogy:

1. The government feels like giving you a good kick in the bollocks.


2. You don't want to be kicked in the bollocks. You just want to be left alone.


3. A fake charity turns up wielding some bogus study and demands that you be kicked in the bollocks and pelted with turds.


4. The government conducts a bullshit consultation with some other fake charities and, in the spirit of compromise, concludes that you will be kicked in the bollocks but not pelted with turds.

Result: you get kicked in the bollocks. The government wins.

In this instance, banning booze advertising is the kick in the bollocks and censoring films and television is the turd-throwing. All they want, for now, is to kick you in the nuts (or the growler, if you're a lady). And doesn't the threat of movie censorship make a ban on advertising seem that much more moderate?

And sure enough, right on cue, comes the fake charity fuckwit to take aim at your crotch:

Alcohol Concern chief executive Don Shenker agreed an advertising ban was needed, suggesting a night-time watershed be created to protect children.

He added: "Unfortunately, alcohol advertising and promotion on film and television usually present drinking as a positive social ritual, while leaving out the potential harm that drinking can cause."

And it is also 'unfortunate' that Alcohol Concern present themselves as a fucking charity while leaving out the fact that they're a prohibitionist Quango. That aside, seriously, what exactly does this prick want? Of course "advertising and promotion" presents a "positive" image, you dolt. That is self-evident, and it's not as if we don't hear enough about the "potential harm" from Alcohol fucking Concern.

The government has already banned the drinks industry from advertising alcohol "as an aid to social or sexual success" even though - let's be honest - it is. In the future, will film-makers have to pretend that alcohol does not exist just to satisfy the morbid little minds of people like Don Shenker?

Crazy talk? I don't think so. After all, no one imagined that the people who wanted to ban tobacco advertising would also want to restrict or ban smoking in films until these screaming nut-jobs showed up in America:

Any film that shows or implies tobacco should be rated "R."

And the 'scientific evidence' to support this blatant censorship has a familiar ring to it:

a teen who has seen twice as much smoking on-screen is twice as likely to start smoking

Sounds a bit like:

Researchers found those who saw lots of alcohol references drank twice as much as those that did not.

Of course that's only in America. It couldn't happen here, could it? A quick look at the website of Smokefree Liverpool (funded by the Department of Health, natch) tells us that it very definitely could:

Policy objective no. 4 - Give future films with tobacco an 18 rating.

Yep. We're fucked.