tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post7609104351299910955..comments2024-03-15T20:32:39.815+00:00Comments on On An Overgrown Path: Major opera house and singers take tobacco moneyUnknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-11924149805735385632011-12-28T13:48:51.914+00:002011-12-28T13:48:51.914+00:00Tobacco display ban reminder for supermarkets - ht...Tobacco display ban reminder for supermarkets - http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16342906Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-90044767042417321582011-12-27T17:48:47.480+00:002011-12-27T17:48:47.480+00:00Thanks for that Laybl. I have been called many thi...Thanks for that Laybl. I have been called many things over the last seven years of blogging and am quite happy to add "well intentioned busybody" to the list.Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-48337373917297280572011-12-27T16:42:10.429+00:002011-12-27T16:42:10.429+00:00he issue of accepting money from "poisonous&q...he issue of accepting money from "poisonous" sponsors is a tricky one. For example, Elie Wiesel, backed out of a seminar financed by Bayer, explaining that he had toiled as a slave for that corporation in a Nazi prison camp.<br /><br />Similarly, the Nobel prizes are awarded by the maker of dynamite. If one scans the benefactor lists for cultural institutions, we find companies engaged in all manner of invidious enterprises, from chemical poisons to weapons of war.<br /><br />I never smoked, but I drank Jack Daniel's, knowing, in retrospect, that it was harmful to my health...at 75,and after a double bypass, I continue to eat meat, love bacon, and remain determined, as S.J. Perelman once wrote, "...to go to Hell in my own fashion...", while working strenuously in our garden.<br /><br />I pray to be saved from well-intentioned busybodies.layblhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18239429370851066412noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-57639406007494987872011-12-27T08:26:39.327+00:002011-12-27T08:26:39.327+00:00Simon, thank you for the further comment that you ...Simon, thank you for the further comment that you have submitted. Debate is welcome but circular arguments which burden posts with repeated restatements of two differing points of view must be avoided, which is one of the reasons why comments on this blog are moderated. <br /><br />It is clear we are going to amicably differ on the subject of tobacco sponsorship. So, having given your viewpoint an airing, I am going to end this particular line of debate while leaving the thread open for others to contribute.Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-40113631596378849902011-12-26T17:03:26.191+00:002011-12-26T17:03:26.191+00:00Simon, sorry but I totally disagree.
If "it&...Simon, sorry but I totally disagree.<br /><br />If "it's up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to smoke and increase their chance of enduring the health risks associated with it" why has tobacco advertising and sponsorship being almost universally banned?<br /><br />The reason why advertising and sponsorship of cigarettes has been banned elsewhere is that it encourages people to smoke.<br /><br />British American Tobacco and Japan International Tobacco are not corporate sponsors because they want to help classical music. They are corporate sponsors because it is one of the few ways left that they can enhance their corporate image with opinion formers.<br /><br />Let us not mince words - tobacco companies sell death. They have been prevented from advertising, promoting and sponsoring elsewhere, and they should be prevented from sponsoring classical music. As a commenter pointed out on a previous post, in Australia tobacco sponsorship of cultural events was banned in 1992. The UK is out of line on this one, which is what prompted me to write this series of posts.<br /><br />As for "the problems would start when the agendas of corporate sponsors start to influence and compromise the artistic integrity and/or choice of subject at these opera houses" we already have British American Tobacco awarding scholarships to singers, which means they are making artistic judgements.<br /><br />Then of course there is the power of corporate sponsors to stop adverse coverage appearing. Is it a coincicidence that I wrote this piece and am not on the ROH review ticket and access to artist merry go round?Pliablehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10616598845886342325noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8060605.post-54947716575286386202011-12-26T16:21:37.755+00:002011-12-26T16:21:37.755+00:00It's up to individuals to decide whether or no...It's up to individuals to decide whether or not they want to smoke and increase their chance of enduring the health risks associated with it. Moreover, I highly doubt that people would be any more or less likely to smoke if such companies did not fund opera. Therefore I do not believe this is a question of ethics. The problems would start when the agendas of corporate sponsors start to influence and compromise the artistic integrity and/or choice of subject at these opera houses. As far as I'm aware this hasn't happened.Simonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14392068636747491137noreply@blogger.com