Not sure I agree with you that advertising was never so publicly scrutinized before these times. Calvin Klein ads always provoked the pearl-clutchers. And Outpost.com fired gerbils out of a cannon in 1998 to much scrutiny.

What has changed is our reactions to anything put in front of us now. Online life has made us so used to trolls dropping online bombs that even when something is made with sincerity we choose to believe otherwise. I have no idea whether this particular ad was or wasn't meant to troll, in that sense, mind you. I do think it's presumptuous to assume so.

I agree that everyone may be an audience now. Potentially. Big wide world or no, one thing hasn't changed when it comes to advertising. The majority of people out there actually do not care about an ad's message, one way or the other because they don't care about advertising. They aren't paying attention. 62% of the America's population ignore the ads on social media. 144 million people use AdBlock plus globally, and that number is growing daily to the point where 1 in 7 people in the UK are ignoring ads. If this is the case with online ads, it is fair to assume they're being ignored in other media as well.

And yet now there is a cottage industry of online trades who profit from constant outrage. And maybe, just maybe, in some instances, the outrage may be a touch warped.

Case in point: Protein World. An ad it is fair to believe was definitely meant to provoke strong opinions although I won't use the word troll here as in my mind the word troll should be reserved for certain dire instances only. Perhaps the UK agreed with my assessment. Because in a country of 60 million, just 374 people complained to the ASA about the Protein World ad. To put that in context we're talking about .0006% of the UK's population who took umbrage with it. The ASA ruled Protein World Beach Body ad wasn't socially irresponsible. Knuckle dragging humor? Sure. Sexist? If you must.

But does every ad we don't personally agree with in terms of our social or moral center need to be taken out back and shot with such vitriol? I don't think so. Do we have to look at every last ad or thought or word we don't agree with as something that needs to be shut down, removed, banned and torched? No, I really don't think so.

Lest you think I'm arguing against strong criticism, let me assure you I am not. I am however, arguing in favor of more objectivity when it comes to analyzing ads. I am deeply disturbed by the closed-mindedness, dismissiveness and extreme air of moral superiority that is being used to discuss an ad whose message we disagree with. I'm also disturbed by the hypocrisy that allows us to call out the National Guard when we see a piece of culture we take offense to, while ignoring other messages that offend other people. When this happens, you live in a world where The Dukes of Hazzard is preemptively pulled from Viacom-owned TV Land, because of the confederate flag is seen on a car, while MTV, also owned by Viacom, happily shows videos that some have complained glorify violence against women.

Perverted American Apparel ads and Indian Hitler ads aside, when the ad comes to hot button culture issues (abortion, Christianity, pro gun ads whatever) we'd do well to at least try to start by answering the question "Does this ad work," or try to understand the intention before we inject our personal opinion into it--if we have to at all. Remember, journalism is actually supposed to be objective. If we've passed the point of no return on that ideal, then at the very least I would prefer some modicum of nuance in the analysis.

In other words, understanding the broader social environment needs to go beyond those we agree with. If you're gonna write about Catholicism in the United States as that article did, at least know what the hell you are talking about to make a better point. To suggest Catholics have never been persecuted in this country as that author did is flat out stupid. We can always agree to disagree. But there is never an excuse for ignorance.

In the end, I think it's hilarious the advertising sites now have a weird mission statement to eviscerate advertising based not on the idea but the message. And the more successful they are, the more publicity they give to the ad. Far more than the authors think it deserves. And many of these advertising-hating sites are ad-supported. One must love the irony.

One must also love the irony that in the 80's America rallied against the PMRC because it symbolized the culture police, but now we are happily engaging in the same tactics to silence anyone who disagrees with us. The only difference is, the PMRC never told us we were standing on the wrong side of history by listening to music. They never called for a boycott of all music. They never wanted to ban music and silence anyone who liked it. Exactly what's going on today.

Interesting times indeed.

Agree-- the most scientific part of this is the visual. But wow-- part of me wishes I was still teaching portfolio school so I could assign this. "Okay kids-- come up with a way to sell a product that does absolutely nothing." Hell it's not really that much different from Coke or Pepsi selling Dasani and Aquafina when you think about it....