As is our Wednesday habit, we dined at Chez ParentsOfVirge last night. This is one of the few times in the week when I watch that new-fangled picture-box the young'uns call television. When I do watch TV I try to avoid current affairs programs since they recycle the same plots with monotonous regularity. The well known chorus goes:
1. [ small business / pensioner / hard working bloke ] being screwed by [ big business / government department / ruthless con-man ]
2. miracle [ disease cure / diet / guide to eternal happiness ] that has been rejected by a hidebound establishment with a hidden agenda
3. new insidious threat to our [ children / freedoms / right to remain ignorant ]
4. time-slot filler glurge about a pet that [ saved the family / sings the hallelujah chorus / helped disadvantaged diminutive Donnie through the dark days of his disease ]
Last night was no exception. We had a rousing rendition of #3. Fortunately the reporter was prepared to place tongue in cheek at least once during the article. The issue in question was alcohol in chocolate biscuits. Singing the droning pedal point we had Geoff Munro from the Alcohol and Drug Foundation. It's not that the Tia Maria and Kahlua flavored biscuits had any serious alcohol content. With 0.1% alcohol you'd need to eat your body weight in biscuits every hour to get near the legal limit for intoxication (hmmmm what shall I do for my next birthday?).
The whole basis for his argument was "There is no need to be telling children that they should be interested in the flavour of alcohol well before they would be thinking about drinking alcohol." Yes, it's the thin edge of the wedge! It's the first step on the slippery slope of alcohol addiction! I had to wonder what non-prescription drugs Munro had been taking. I wondered how I had missed his public outcry against liqueur chocolates or rum & raisin ice cream being sold in supermarkets. Where were his attempts to educate the public about the dangers of grandma's trifles and brandy puddings?
Could he really have been so blind? Could Munro really have been so outraged at new drink flavours that he contacted a reporter? It's possible. I think there may be a better explanation. Consider the following game plan:
1. Biscuit manufacturer releases a new product with a catchy hook - making naughty chocolate treats even naughtier,
2. Biscuit manufacturer contacts current affairs program with a generous sweetener offer to get them to promote a little controversy,
3. Current affairs reporter contacts known militant anti-alcohol campaigner and presses his buttons,
4. Wind-up-and-let-go campaigner blows his mouth off in front of a camera,
5. Current affairs reporter places tongue in cheek and distances herself from the carefully constructed controversy, then
6. WifeOfVirge buys two packets of biscuits this morning so we can see how yummy they are.
It's a win-win-lose-win situation. The manufacturer wins - the money they spent on advertising will have been recovered in the next day's increased sales. The current affairs program wins - they got funds, a slot filler where they could talk about eating chocolate (sells almost as well as sex) and they can pass it off to the public as a serious issue. Geoff Munro and the Alcohol and Drug Foundation lose credibility. I win. I get an excuse to sample some new chocolate biscuits. Without seeing that program it may have taken a couple of weeks before WifeOfVirge noticed the new products and realised the crying need to test them.
What can we learn from this? Let's formulate a game plan.
1. Write a book for children and get it "vanity published".
2. Take some sentences out of context from the book.
3. Write letters to various gullible "moral guardian" community activist groups quoting the sentences with a few button-pushing distortions. Sign it "Concerned Parent".
4. Wait.
It's probably not as effective as paying a current affairs program to create a furor, but it just might work.