Was It News?


A-Channel News today presented it’s viewers with a story about a Woodstock firm called Luminous Media that manufactures what it describes as outdoor & large format ‘single skin EL posters.’

Derek Rogers delivered a story which undoubtedly left most viewers with an impression of “Oh, that’s cool!” On it’s website, A-Channel bills itself as “London’s News Leader. The News You Need, From the Team You Trust.” But this story didn’t contain a hint of any critical thinking, which some of us still expect from a so-called ‘news’ source.

Was it news, or was it simply disguised advertising?

I’m upset by the story which I saw. It undermines the efforts which I’ve made to combat the intrusion of such technology into our community.

I’m going to attempt to contact Mr. Rogers and persuade him to cover the other, more serious, newsworthy side of the story. But in the event that I’m ignored, I suggest that you check out the links below.

Other Links:
2008/01/24 – FMBS: Say ‘NO’ to Jumbo-trons
2008/02/15 – FMBS: Adversaulting
2008/02/18 – FMBS: The risk of mobile advertising


Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,

10 Responses to “Was It News?”

  1. John Leschinski Says:

    That is pretty cool. Although it’s probably cost prohibative, as a designer I’d love to give it a try.

  2. fowgre Says:

    As a pedestrian-rights advocate concerned about the current problem of inattentive and reckless drivers, outdoor interactive advertising displays represent a huge additional danger that our community doesn’t need. So I hope that you don’t get a chance to try it.

  3. Pat Says:

    I thought it was a great story. As a graphic designer involved in marketing, I was greatly interested in this technology.

    I understand where you’re coming from, Greg. However, I do not personally believe that an abundance of advertising is the cause of reckless drivers. Lower standards in driving education and licensing are to blame, in my personal opinion.

    Do you have statistics that show that outdoor advertising causes driver/pedestrian accidents?

    I should also add that whenever possible, I am a pedestrian. If I did not currently live in Dorchester, I would be living closer to downtown with the intention of walking/biking as my means of transportation. So, please do not think that I am against pedestrian rights. I just think that Canada (and other North-American countries) are great at slapping band-aid solutions to much larger problems.

  4. fowgre Says:

    I understand where you’re coming from too. You’ve invested time and effort to learn and improve your craft and you want as many opportunities to practise it. That’s entirely natural.

    Today’s drivers are reckless and inattentive and deliberately break the law (red light runners, speeders) in order to shave seconds off their total trip time. Anything that further compounds that problem by offering the potential of further distracting them is something that I will oppose.

    I don’t need stats to know that outdoor advertising is one of those things. It’s a logical conclusion. Also, my life experience tells me that we’re being increasingly assaulted by ads. We can’t escape them any more. They’re so pervasive that, as a defensive mechanism, we’ve learnt to tune many of them out. Consciously. But unconsciously they’re still negatively impacting us. That constant bombardment wears us down. There’s no escape from it. No peace, no tranquility.

    This new technology promises to be even more intrusive by employing a kind of AI profiling to worm it’s way past our defences. That, plus the movie-like interactivity makes it even more probable that it will be an agent for greater driver distraction.

    You refer to my opposition of further outdoor advertising as a band-aid solution. I’ll simply respond by saying that there is currently so little respect for pedestrian rights that I’ll use every opportunity to raise awareness of the problem and to influence increased pedestrian safety.

  5. David Gough Says:

    I know where you’re coming from Greg.
    I was in Toronto and the jumbotrons are creeping everywhere.
    While the posters and jumbotrons are annoying don’t even get me started on those signs that businesses have on their front lawns. I’ve had a couple close calls due to those things blocking my view coming out of a driveway. I wouldn’t shed a tear if they became illegal under a bylaw.
    You look down a busy street and that’s all you see. It looks tacky and ugly in my opinion.

  6. John Leschinski Says:

    How does outdoor advertising negatively impact us?

  7. Pat Says:

    I can understand your point (even if I don’t 100% agree).

    However, just because you don’t like the story doesn’t mean it’s not news.

  8. fowgre Says:

    The negative impact is the constant assault on our senses. The increasing difficulty of obtaining peace and tranquility. Everything is 24/7 work, sell, buy, consume, repeat…

  9. fowgre Says:

    What was newsworthy about this Pat? What quantified it as news as opposed to advertising? Are they setting up shop in London and hiring people? Was there any attempt to cover the other side of the story, the opposition to this technology by people like myself? The fact that Planning Committee recently turned down a request for a Jumbo-tron? I didn’t hear any of that. It was simply a free promo.

  10. John Leschinski Says:

    I disagree and agree. I don’t find ad’s all that bad, and I don’t think it was newsworthy.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: