The Irony of Pete Brown's "Neo-Prohibitionist" Series

(This is part of a series of short analytic blogs from students in Sociology of Drink. I credit the authors by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

By Scott Nelson

In Pete Brown’s blog series, “Answering the Neo-Prohibitionists,” there are elements which can be very useful in helping media consumers cut through the anti-drink rhetoric and recognize the true motive behind the content.  However, Brown himself is guilty of doing the same thing which he criticizes his opposition of doing.  The term “neo-prohibitionist” is the greatest example of this.  This is a loaded term, designed to entice his readership into a combative mentality which villainizes his opposition.  Ironically, his methods do little more to support his cause than those of the contrary.

Pete Brown seems particularly concerned with The Daily Mail, and Alcohol Concern.  These are examples of the so-called “neo-prohibitionists.” The following lays out the ten proposed policies of 

The Alcohol Concern organization in the UK (from alcoholconcern.org.uk):

• A minimum price of at least 50p per unit of alcohol 
• A phased ban on alcohol sponsorship of sports, music and cultural events
• Alcohol advertising content should be restricted to promoting just factual information
• Public health should be introduced as a statutory licensing objective
• The sale of alcohol in shops should be restricted 
• At least one-third of every alcohol product label should be given over to an evidence-based health warning specified by an independent regulatory body.
• The tax on every alcohol product should be proportionate 
• The legal limit for blood alcohol concentration for drivers should be reduced
• All health and social care professionals should be trained to routinely provide early identification and brief alcohol advice to their clients.
• Access levels to specialist alcohol treatment should be increased from 6% to 15%

One might consider these policies unreasonable, but the fact of the matter is nowhere is the organization asking for legal prohibition.  For Brown to use this term is to invoke the radicalism of the United States Prohibition movement of the early twentieth century.  This is a misrepresentation for the sake of inciting a certain kind of reaction.  Namely, a combative reaction.  Fair enough, except Brown is criticizing these organizations and publications for doing exactly the same thing: misrepresenting statistics and using scare-tactics.  This, then, is a contradiction which does not serve his argument well.

In his 2/20/2014 blog, “6 ways to spot if anti-drink stories are trying to mislead you,” Brown does a good job breaking down the components of a scare-piece, pointing out ways in which statistics can be skewed or outright lie by omission, and the way in which language can frame the message in a misleading manner.  "Use of language is an immediate giveaway as to whether the piece is impartial or not,” he writes.  Agreed.  But he will then turn around and use language in a way which has the same effect (even if he is doing it a little differently).  In his 11/20/13 blog on Sir Ian Gilmore and Alcohol Concern, he uses language tactics from the very start to frame his message, calling the Daily Mail “hateful, and fear-mongering.”  This are strong, divisive words.  He does the same thing, less eloquently, in his 4/20/2011 piece, “Britain still refusing to drink itself to death – despite media insisting it.”  The opening line is “A few weeks ago various shitty newspapers picked up on the shocking rise in binge drinking among women.”  To call his opposition “shitty” immediately discredits him, even if he’s right.  It makes him sound juvenile and emotional, which means anything following that statement is suspect to partisanship, something of which he himself is very suspect.  Again, he is doing himself a disservice. 

But perhaps it is not his fault, entirely.  In this day in age we expect news coverage and opinion pieces to be exciting and entertaining.  Take American politics and the news media for example.  We see increasingly more partisan bickering and extremism because this is what news consumers want.  A thoughtful conversation between two moderates on either side of the isle lacks action.  We’d rather see seven idiots screaming at each other.  That’s fun.  So maybe Brown is just trying to give his audience what they want.  The problem is he seems to be interested in an honest discourse.  In his 3/22/2012 piece he asks, “So what is it that makes poor drinkers in the north more likely to drink themselves to death than affluent drinkers in the south, who on average drink more?  Oh, that's too hard.  That might involve addressing the societal, cultural and economic problems that are the REAL reasons some people drink harmfully” (From If you really care about the rise in liver disease, read this).  His sarcasm points to his true desire; that being an honest look at alcohol’s role in society. 

The term “neo-prohibitionist” is not only exaggerated and combative, but entirely antithetical to Brown’s point.  If he seeks honesty, and thoughtful discourse, he is going about in the wrong way.  This term and some of the other language he uses makes it seem as though he is more interested in a spitting contest.  To his chagrin, putting this type of material into the world will likely only result in more of the same from his opposition. 

Questions:

• Am I wrong?  Are Brown’s argumentative tactics inherently different from those of the anti-drink organizations and publications?  If so, how?
• Is Brown right to use such combative tactics? Is it too idealistic to imagine an honest discourse, free of exaggeratory rhetoric, which is aimed to flesh out the truth of the role of alcohol in society?
• If “neo-prohibitionist” is indeed an exaggerated term, what would be a more fitting term to characterize the anti-drink groups and why?

Quality, Tradition and Masculinity in Beer Ads

(This is part of a series of short analytic blogs by students in the Sociology of Drink. I credit students by name when they have given me permission to do so.)

By Abigail Kiefer

When looking at the role of alcohol advertising in today’s culture, there are consistent messages that are conveyed in a variety of contexts.  I chose to examine television commercials of a few of the most popular beer brands in the United States: Budweiser, Miller Lite, Coors Light, and Bud Light, and how they relate to gender.  Although there are differences in how these companies approach their advertising strategies, each of them emphasize at one point high quality, whether through the brewing process or types of ingredients. Throughout each commercial, it is clear that beer is a social drink, that is meant to be consumed with friends and peers in a relaxed and fun setting.  Other typical “American” values such as hard-working, freedom and tolerance had an undertone in each of my selected advertisements as well.  When looking at the role of women in these ads, it was clear that women do not play a key role, and they are featured only with a group of men, never alone. I believe that goes back to the ideology that beer is a “man's” drink, and advertising against that would be contrary to popular opinion.

The advertisement for Budweiser begins with images of the brewing process-showing a man’s hand holding some barley and showing images of a brewery plant.  As the ad progresses, bold words emphasize how Budweiser is the only beer that is Beechwood-aged since 1876, with images that evoke a quality, wholesome beer that has been around for almost a century.  It then uses the phrase “The people who drink our beer are people who like to drink beer.”  During the brief period these words appear, they share the screen with groups of men that are toasting saying “cheers” and drinking their beers in different types of bars looking happy and relaxed. When looking at this advertisement for Budweiser, I noticed that consistently throughout the ad, women are never seen drinking a beer or showing intent to drink a beer.  Instead, they are waitresses serving men beer or just opening beer.  Also, women are never seen being involved in the brewing process of the beer.  Although it may appear to be “gender neutral” at first, it is clear that there a masculine undertones throughout the advertisement.  Besides the fact the women are rarely seen, this ad also uses words that evoke masculine thoughts that suppress feminine associations,  such as “Let them sip their pumpkin peach ale.” Along with the images and clips that are shown with the video as well as the music playing throughout, this ad shows that this beer is for people who deserve “beer that is brewed the hard way” and that seemingly excludes women.

The next advertisement that I analyzed was for Bud Light Lime,  which was promoted for summer 2015.  In this ad, women are featured as equally as men, and both men and women are seen lounging in their own personal pools (it was a “bring your own pool” party).  One thing I noticed,  when browsing through all the ads by Bud Light, is that women will only be shown with men, there are no shots of just women.  There are shots of only men,  and men with women, but never women alone. Also, each time women are featured, they are either relaxing with the men in a party setting (like this advertisement), or they are doing more of a masculine activity, such as participating in aggressive contact sports or in a sports bar. There are never women shown doing more feminine activities.  This commercial also did not mention the history, tradition, or quality of the beer itself, and I think that is because this beer is targeted for a younger audience who aren’t as interested in the craftsmanship or process of the beer itself, they are just looking for a light, refreshing, summer beer.

The third advertisement that I analyzed was for Miller Lite, featuring a new bottle.  In this ad, there is only one woman, and she is with a group of men at a bar.  She is briefly shown, and then the commercial goes to just the actors hands doing a “cheers” towards the end of the commercial in which a woman briefly appears.  Also, when employees are featured in the commercial, they are exclusively men and it is a man narrating the commercial, not a woman.  Other points to note in the commercial are the “tradition” aspect of the beer, and the long history of Miller.  The commercial ends with the classic catchphrase “It’s Miller Time.”  The commercial itself is about the return of the classic “Steinie” bottle, which invokes feelings of nostalgia and tradition.

The final advertisement that I chose to analyze was for Coors Light.  This ad is about the quality of the beer and the tradition of how it is made.  This advertisement compares the process of making Coors Light to that of a mountain, and how a mountain uses the “cold” to sift and refresh everything.  Although there are no actual people shown in this advertisement, I did notice that the narrator of this commercial was once again a man. In fact, when looking through the other Coors Light ads, I noticed that there weren’t any women narrating the commercials.  

One of the things I thought of during the analysis of these advertisements relates back to the Corzine reading and that was “Changes in consumption patterns, Schudson concludes, are rooted in social, cultural and political changes that advertising responds to, but rarely creates.” That had me wonder, do advertisements reflect society or is society impacted largely by what the advertisements showcase as “normal” or “successful?”  I think that it is a mixture of both, not an either/or situation.  I think when looking at beer and gender roles in advertising, the dynamics of gender and alcohol are influenced by other factors, such as the opinions of family, friends, and peers.   I also think, however, that advertising is a proponent in the maintenance of those ideas, and continues to instill gender norms in the minds of citizens today.  Without advertising to those family members, friends and peers, how would those specific ideas about gender norms exist?

Links:

Budweiser ad

Bud Light Lime

Miller Lite

Coors Light