What a Surprise: Nobody Is Responsible

OF COURSE you know the difference between America Online and a computer virus: A computer virus works.

I was musing over this minor truism as I tried vainly to connect with just about any Web site, encountering the unsurprising message that Internet Explorer couldn’t open the site: A connection with the server could not be established.

Now, my mood didn’t darken because Internet Explorer couldn’t open the Internet site at which I aimed it…or any site that day. I hadn’t wanted Internet Explorer in the first place, but when it comes to AOL I am a stranger in a strange land. No, my reaction was to the standard technique of responsibility-avoidance we’re seeing at millennium time: “It ain’t my fault.”

Note the passive no-fault voice. Whoever wrote the line is either a member of Congress ora public relations hack: “A connection with the server could not be established.” Not, “America Online doesn’t have enough capacity to connect you” or even “We’re sorry, but we can’t connect you with the server” or “Internet Explorer explores with a blind eye and a club foot.” It’s the Bill Clinton syndrome: “Mistakes were made.” By whom?

Nobody takes responsibility anymore. People ignore the surgeon general’s warning and then sue the tobacco companies, whether they get lung cancer or not. “It isn’t my fault that I started smoking. It was their fault.”

Mistakes were made? By whom? Not me. I’m passive. It was the famous “They.”

Sure, why not? Passive voice is the classic way to avoid responsibility. A financial planner sent me a mailing: “Your portfolio will be analyzed.” By whom? Hey, buddy, don’t you see the difference in power between “I’ll analyze your portfolio” and “Your portfolio will be analyzed”?

The worst I’ve heard was a fisherman who was caught in a sudden squall and drowned. His family sued the Weather Channel.

And here’s the family that sued the Jenny Jones television show, not for terminal sleaze but because their son appeared on her show, together with another guest who showed up to meet “someone who had sexual fantasies about him.” The admirer was their son, and the other guy shot his unrequited admirer to death.

Just a second: Both these guys agreed to be on the show. They weren’t dragged there, kicking and screaming. So why sue the show and not the shooter? Because that’s where the bucks are. That’s whose fault it was. It couldn’t have been the fault of the fellow who pulled the trigger, because he’s judgment-proof. And of course it isn’t the show’s fault, because they didn’t force either man to appear. A murder whose perpetrator is once removed? Sure, because it’s nobody’s fault, except whoever has the most money.

But the most disgusting examples of the “They did it” syndrome are closely tied to advertising. Now, I don’t smoke. Well, maybe a cigar now and then. And I don’t like smokers. Well, maybe whoever gives me a good cigar.

But anyone who, in the middle of the year 1999, says he or she (or in the case of these suicidal lowbrows, “it”) doesn’t know cigarettes are deadly just doesn’t read the advertising.

Or do they? All cigarette advertising has to include the surgeon general’s warning. Yet, repeatedly, lung cancer victims blame cigarette advertising for getting them hooked. And bear in mind, we’ve had the surgeon general’s warning for 32 years.

So here’s a guy who smoked three packs a day, never even pausing when the warnings were posted everywhere, including directly on his cigarette packages. Three packs a day. He died of lung cancer in 1997. What a surprise! For thirty years he ignored the warnings. So, quite naturally, his family sued Philip Morris. Quite naturally, an Oregon jury awarded his family $81 million. After all, the folks in Portland weren’t going to be outdone by the San Francisco jury that awarded more than $51 million to a Marlboro smoker who still was alive, but barely.

Now, the point isn’t whether cigarettes cause cancer. Of course they do. The point is that nobody is responsible. They want the world-especially those “stick-it-to-the-big-boys” juries-to know it wasn’t their fault. They weren’t responsible. Many of these self-caused victims didn’t even start smoking until after the warnings were all over the place. But no, it isn’t their fault. After all, if we don’t agree with an advertising message, we certainly shouldn’t pay attention to it…until we need it to file a lawsuit.

Here’s a 23-year-old Miami woman who got a birthday card that read, “Happy birthday from your friends at Marlboro.” Should we fire the list broker and the direct mail moron who dreamed this up? Hold it until the story unfolds.

The recipient’s mother called the Miami Herald, which in a story with a four-column headline took a gratuitous slam at our noble profession:

Maria Weener usually tosses junk mail. But she couldn’t ignore the birthday card a cigarette company sent her daughter…

All right, all right, we have to ignore the ignominy of a mother opening her 23-year-old daughter’s mail. All right, we have to ignore the logical gap of wondering how, if she usually tosses junk mail, she even opened the envelope. We’re stuck because Marlboro’s siren song was misdirected. Happy database, guys.

Here’s a 15-year-old who boasts he has no trouble lying about his age to get the Marlboro catalog of gifts available to smokers who rack up points while wracking up their lungs. He lied to get the catalog. And the cigarette company, that malefactor of great wealth, didn’t even check his birth record or give him a polygraph test.

Now the coda to those last two examples: Marlboro says Kim Weener had sent in a card stating that she was over 21, smoked, and was interested in receiving material. Mom, better check your daughter for smoker’s breath.

Here’s the point of all this: Just about every kid who starts smoking says he or she (or it) saw ads that made smoking seem “cool.” Bull. They see other kids their age smoking and decide-note that word “decide”-smoking is cool. Only when their cool lungs turn to toast do they say they didn’t decide anything. They were seduced by advertising. Yeah, make that partial advertising, because they ignore what they don’t want to see.

But hasn’t that been the history of advertising and marketing since Year One?