By Stephen C. Rose
Since I write a political blog and have no particular brief to write about TV advertisements, I thought long and hard about doing anything at all.
But Huff offers an ideal platform for the sort of piece where one hangs a bit of personal umbrage on a cultural phenomenon that almost everyone knows about -- I am referring to the AT&T advertisements that offer a window on forms of petulance and juvenile behavior and sheer unattractiveness that bother me immensely.
Right up there with the overheated hawking of Andrew Sullivan, which now necessitates changing the channel.
But then I noticed that AT&T has evidently decided to keep throwing this stuff at us. Developing more and more of these ads.
The typical form of this ad is to begin with a lament about there being no bars. I do not drink or visit bars so am not in their demographic But I am tolerant.
The ads typically disintegrate into spoiled and rude rants about being stuck in a social setting one abhors. It is a fast burn.
But my reaction is that Americans are still ugly.
Ironically, this advertising has nothing to do with whether I would patronize AT&T. Which makes me wonder what the purpose of these ads is.
If the purpose is to be funny, they are not funny. They are pathetic. More or less like filming us in our worst moments. Maybe they could be called attack ads -- diss the ones you're with.
Whatever the idea. I cannot figure out why it makes good business sense to run demeaning ads.
But then a light went off in my beleaguered mind.
Where better to find answers than in the knowing precincts of Huff Post?
I am sure that I, like Rachel, can be talked down on this. Or better yet, educated in the arcane cynicism that gave rise to these sad ads.
Follow Stephen C. Rose on Twitter: www.twitter.com/stephencrose