Written by: Fernando Rea
There has been some uproar in the media lately about the Call of Duty:Black Ops commercial which Kobe Bryant appears in firing an automatic weapon in a urban, warlike setting. Jimmy Kimmel and a few regular folks appear in the ad as well with guns and other weapons in hand. To the well-sensed observer the ad is just a visually creative and fun way to grab the attention of viewers for the purpose of selling a video game. However, a few in the media, such as Tim Keown and Skip Bayless, have decided that this ad is dangerous and irresponsible because it glorifies gun use and military combat which both result in tragedy regularly.
In Tim Koewn’s article he evens writes about speaking with a few that have been affected by violence and tragedy that guns bring. Death and violence by guns on American streets or on a battlefield in war is something that affects many people’s lives and needs to be addressed and discussed in its own forum.
How are we connecting the dots from the horrible incidents that happen in the streets which cause carnage and tragedy to an advertisement for a video game? They say it’s insensitive and celebrities shouldn’t take part it in because of their notoriety and influence. If that’s the case, so would ads for fatty foods at fast food chains to those that have died from eating disorders and weight problems.
Celebrities that advertise Beer and Sprits are uncaring to those that died from the hands of alcoholism or a drunk driver. Why isn’t someone taking shots at the Most Interesting Man in the World?
Next: The Constant Search for Attention
Shame on these writers, like Tim Keown, that try to use Kobe and other celebrities as their vehicle to get attention for unrelated causes or their own selfish agendas. They hop on the status of the celebrity and the attention they receive to push their own agenda like getting their own name out in the public in hopes of furthering their career or for a rise in ratings or web hits.
I wonder if Tim Keown would have been equally disturbed to the point of writing an article and speaking with people affected by death in the streets by guns if say Jerry Stackhouse or Rudy Fernandez was the one toting the automatic weapon in the ad? Of course not because he would have received as much attention as the furniture setting in a hard core adult film; his website would get as many hits as a joint filled with potpourri and rat arsenic.
Young children, men and women being killed by violent acts on the streets are a tragedy in and of itself; rather it be with guns or not. It should get the attention it deserves without linking advertisements or forms of entertainment as causes and/or contributors because it is just not one of them. Unlike the perpetrators in many of the violent acts using guns, the intent to hurt, harm or kill is not there with the Call of Duty ad. The ad is neither irresponsible nor inappropriate in the context that it used and how it is presented. It portrays the fantasy aspect of the game that players feel when playing the game; the key words in this description are fantasy and game.
For the fact that there are people that have a hard time understanding that is probably the reason why they can’t think of better ways of addressing this problems with guns and violence in the streets.