Can you buy a copy of this video?

$50 billion per year on just the front of overt advertizement of the prescription drugs biz? (not to be confused with covert "illicit" drug biz). That looks to be a fairly hefty amount of $$ having been spent, recurring, on something, anything. Think of how many schools could be rescued from being shut down; how many roads could be paved, bridges built, "public works" yada yada yada with that kinda dough?; how many hungry people legitimately fed instead of poisoned with pills?; how many clothed instead of stripped naked & hollowed out by the healthcare industry?; how many genuinely educated instead of systematically dumbed down?

Between that figure and a little bit of math conservatively projected across the entire cumulative annual advertizing (of everything - drugs, booze, cars, et al), overt & covert, staged by way of the entire collective media spectrum - tv, print, radio & hollywood, music, publishing, and theme parks, this should lead a thinking person to wonder about many other statements made in the past by way of, coincidentally, the collective media.... "the media does not unduly influence people" tops on this list of wonderment.

I seem to recall that over the past 10 to 15 years alone, the media industry used it's very own infrastructure - broadcast networks, movie theaters, print-houses and the like, as a platform from which to renew operation of an ongoing program, campaigning by instructing it's audience that "based upon our studies, media does not negatively influence people". Just to be clear, this is to say, these are the same cretins who own all the bleepin cameras, microphones, wires, satellites, projectors, buttons, switches, movie sets, offices and copyrights physical and "intellectual" (so-called) therein, plus all the actresses, actors, personalities, shills, newscasters and mouthpieces. This is the same collective industry who then brings all these players together to artfully exploit this infrastructure to host their own bought-and-paid-for "expert personality" opinion -"the media does not negatively influence people".

I seem to recall that one of the most recent spates of the media industry dusting off and renewing / re-airing this particular programmed spiel was not long after a given movie released, I don't remember the name, something like Ass Hole, Jack Rabbit or the like, itself acredited with giving rise to the phenom of teens across this country ending up injured or dead after trying to mimick - because it seemed cool or bad, some of the scenes from that particualr media offering...the same media that according to the media itself, does not unduly influence people. I wonder if those children dead after having attempted to surf or skateboard while propelled upon or beside moving motor vehicles look back at those antics as having been the result of positive media influences upon their cut-short lives?

In the present environment of ever uncertain corporate AS WELL AS individual fiscal, financial times, another thing to wonder about is, why on earth would any entity - overt drug biz or other, spend $50 billion per year all just to have their name associated with not influencing people? Correct me if I'm wrong but a drug-pushing pharmaceutical corp is tops among those often on the look out for ways to save money. Why does one suppose they don't save themselves $50 billion per year by not paying to advertize via the media what the media itself proclaims does not unduly influence their audience?

From the media industry's point of view, I can almost understand them ducking the question with their conveniently arranged legal disclaimer along the lines of "it's not for us to say, besides, even though their views are being broadcast over our media infrastructure, legally speaking, this does not mean that their views represents ours". I guess it's easy to assume where and what the media's views are since they are - disclaimer or not, benefiting to the tune of $50 billion per year by broadcasting "somebody else's views".