Okay, so it seems you can't have the cake and eat it, too. So - what would you think is better? Effectively supporting the tigers even if that means using a cuddly mascot - or ineffectively supporting the tigers but representing them in an entirely sober way?
By the way, it's a pretty obvious fact that (as a species) they are incapable of surviving without our charity - because the decision wether there will be a natural tiger habitat in the future or not is entirely ours.
These spots lie less to you than the average insurance, food or washing powder advertisement.
So it's not that the claims of the PSA are totally without objectivity. They are merely simplified - which is something you have to do if 30 seconds is all you got to make your point. In india, tigers are often seen as something between vermin and evil maneaters - and these TV spots are trying to compensate the prejudice. I think that's totally legitimate.
Okay, so it seems you can't have the cake and eat it, too. So - what would you think is better? Effectively supporting the tigers even if that means using a cuddly mascot - or ineffectively supporting the tigers but representing them in an entirely sober way?
By the way, it's a pretty obvious fact that (as a species) they are incapable of surviving without our charity - because the decision wether there will be a natural tiger habitat in the future or not is entirely ours.
These spots lie less to you than the average insurance, food or washing powder advertisement.
So it's not that the claims of the PSA are totally without objectivity. They are merely simplified - which is something you have to do if 30 seconds is all you got to make your point. In india, tigers are often seen as something between vermin and evil maneaters - and these TV spots are trying to compensate the prejudice. I think that's totally legitimate.