Even if it is a small matter, if the public's desire for voyeurism is not satisfied, the result is often complaints about the lack of the right to know, and continuous public relations has become the most effective way to support a certain product. Different from the exaggeration of the big tobacco industry and the Senate in the movie, we did not hold a hearing on melon seeds, chili sauce, and whether SK-II should be affixed with the skull and crossbones, but we cannot deny that as the public we have been quite stupid to eat. Mineral oil, Sudan red that has been used for many years, and chemical poisons that have been used for many years. Each viewer can enjoy the two-party debates driven by housing loans and administrative rights in the movie, but as a third party to the public, should they continue to maintain a silly identity or a calm judge? It is a pity that human rights defenders have become foolish.
When it comes to consumer rights, everything becomes black and white. If you tell you to withdraw the dental defense team today, why do you continue to trust the Chinese Preventive Medicine Association tomorrow? Just like a sentence in the movie, if you have mastered the skills of debate, you will always be on the right side, even in the face of the nonsense that chocolate is best or vanilla is the best [but there are many audiences], you just need to prove Chocolate is not the best enough. Advocates of chocolate think that you don’t have the logic to persuade him—chocolate is not the best and is not a sufficient condition for vanilla to be the best—but the public doesn’t care about this logic of argument, as long as they think that chocolate is bad, vanilla’s greatest victory is. Maybe this two-headed model is not very realistic, because chocolate and vanilla are not completely substituted, there are creams, fruit ice and other things, but if two products or two concepts are each in strong opposition because of their advocates, Consumers must like to choose one or the other. So the public is not so much about discussing the argument and making a choice, it is more about being conquered by a certain party's publicist.
No matter which side of the public relations, they must find ways to leverage public sympathy, when you find that these public relations do not even use their own products, don't make a fuss, because they are only driven by housing loans. The lobbyist in the movie finally chose to jump out, and the lobbyist in life is still on stage. It is mentioned that the driving force of housing loans is greater than the driving force of social responsibility. I have to mention that in the movie, the female reporter who betrayed her body and put the male number one knife, in this black-and-white turn-based game, it is normal to lose miserably. .
View more about Thank You for Smoking reviews
