Jordan/OK! Magazine SMA product placement images

[mamamea]

Page 52 (large, deliberately and carefully displayed SMA label)
img20.imageshack.us/img20/4623/p1it4.jpg
Page 53 (opposite page - her giving baby bottle)
img179.imageshack.us/img179/5029/p2nf1.jpg
Page 54 (SMA ad)
img166.imageshack.us/img166/6416/p3zv6.jpg
Page 55 (bottle bottom right)
img166.imageshack.us/img166/9365/p4hv1.jpg

Text (page 61):

Are you breast-feeding, Katie?

No, it's brilliant I have 20 crates of teats and bottles -- I don't have to sterilise or heat anything, you literally take the teat out of the pack, screw it on, throw it away. I don't care what people say - you don't have to breast-feed. They gave me a tablet that dries your milk up so my boobs haven't hurt or leaked or anything.

Peter: Junior didn't breast-feed and he's turned out fine.

So why did you decide not do breast-feed?

I don't want a baby drinking from me - the thought of it makes me feel really funny. I think only a certain person could handle my knockers.

oh good grief, lissie - send her to the stocks, then! burn the witch!

piece in today's Guradian

i dont understand your reaction.

jordan is a canny businesswoman. she will have got something out of this stunt. she is endorsing fm and advertising fm is illegal. im not sayin fm is bad or jordan is a witch (as i said before i ff ds) im saying that they have knowingly broken the law and thats not right.

I can assure you I am not couching my vitriol in niceties
I said she is a stupid fucking bitch.
this has aboslutely nothing to do with her decision to ff. WHY would you think it has??? bizarre non-sequitur.
it is her decision to take a bribe to do some tacky product placement and thereby break the law.
the law is there for a very good reason.
and to use no exploit her tiny newborn baby to make some easy money and undermine positive messages about bf in the process.
also because of her breathtakingly mindnumbingly stupid bitch comments about bf.
if she wants to ff her baby that's her business. I could not care less.

I'm referring to the level of personal abuse aimed at her that I listed a couple of posts ago.

This isn't about the illegal aspect either. There are tons of ways that people break the law every day, that wouldn't provoke this level of opprobrium. Breastfeeding/bottlefeeding is a tremendously emotive issue, that has taken on an increasing moral dimension. The thing is though, even apart from the women who try and fail to breastfeed, lots of women just don't want to. Beyond giving them all the information you can about the implications of their decision, there's jeff all you can do about that.

harpischordcarrier

Saying this is about formula feeding is not a bizarre non-sequitor. A bizarre non-sequitor would be if I said: "I fancy a cup of tea. What do you think about pineapples?"

This is all about formula feeding. The law is about promoting formula feeding. The vitriol aimed at her is because she's perceived to have broken that law. If she'd got a parking fine I doubt you'd have called her a "stupid fucking bitch" - you called her that because she formula feeds and then talks about it, which basically is all she's done.

im pretty sure that if you went onto a driving forum you would find emotive debates about congestion charges. you debate things you care about and affect you personally, of course mums will get irate and passionate about news stories on feeding babies.

there's nothing wrong with getting passionate about something, lissie. I've already gone on about great and tedious length about what I think is wrong with this thread, I'm not going to bore you even more by restating my position.

this article says it better than I can (apart from the phrase "militant lactivists" which I think is rather pejorative and unfair)

www.spiked-online.com/index.php?/site/article/3705/

"That breastfeeding has become a moral crusade is clear from the language that is used to promote it. The message that ?breast is best? is strengthened by stringent bans on the advertising of formula milk for infants under six months of age, and by harsh judgements against those, such as Katie Price, who admit publicly that they bottlefeed. Indeed, it?s hard to escape the conclusion that what really upset the militant lactivists about Price?s spread in OK! magazine is not just the SMA photo, but also what Price herself says about breastfeeding."

no, lazyemma, she broke the law and I consider it to be a very important law indeed, not really comparable with parking fines because imo it is a law that preevtns the exploitation of women and seeks to protect the health of women and newborn babies.
I could not care less about the choices she makes for her own babies. but I don object to her making comments in a very public forum that undermine bf.

Lazyemma,you're a really sloppy thinker aren't you?
It's a shame for you.
With some work you could probably be helped...a bit.

I think that the nutrition and health of babies and the mental health of mothers is important.
I am not sure why I should apologise for that or indeed why you feel it is necessary to repeat other people's insults in this respect.

"I don object to her making comments in a very public forum that undermine bf."

Of course the law isn't comparible with parking fines - I made that point to try to bring your views out a bit more, as you started by claiming this is about Jordan breaking the law and nothing else.

So - we're getting to the crux of the issue now. Basically, it's OK to privately decide not to breastfeed, but not OK to talk about that in public?

To be fair not every one is being abusive about her.

To FF is her decision (as it was mine). My anger is directed at SMA who have used her to advertise their product against all the agreed codes of marketing infant formula (a code SMA/Wyeth signed up to). Jordan may not even be aware that this agreed advertising code exists - she's a business savvy lady and if a company says "Hey - get photographed feeding your baby our milk and we'll supply you with all the bottles and teats which are usually only available to hospitals - oh and a fat cheque to you or your favourite charity" she is likely to agree. The people in the wrong are SMA/Wyeth and OK magazine who must be well aware of the money aspect of product placement.

Jordan/Katie Price is not in the wrong for choosing to bottlefeed - she's not even in the wrong for allowing the product placement to occur if she was genuinely unaware of the code for marketing infant formula.

This is not about Jordan - this is about greedy, multi national companies who sign up to an agreed code then spend their time taking the piss by underhand methods of advertising - this is a prime example - use a well known celeb - get well known celeb photographed endorsing your product and bingo - you have a really good advert.

there's no need to get personal, moondog, although it seems that's the order of the day round here. If you've got an issue with what I've said, please explain what that is, and I, in turn, will do my best to respond.

er lazyemma, I am presuming yuou are being deliberately dim rather than unintentionally
I have never said it is was just about her breaking the law.
I think your paraphrasing is so grossly inaccurate as to be insulting and possibly libellous so I shall do the decent thing and ignore it.
slightly tired of making the same points over and over to someone who refuses to even read my posts so I will retire now.

That is my issue.
You are a sloppy thinker so can't get to grips with the crux of the argument.

theclosetpagan, I agree entirely with your post, apart from the last line where you say that this is not about Jordan. That might not be the case for you, but it clearly is for a lot of people here, which is what I'm talking about really.

le sigh

OK moondog. Why am I a sloppy thinker.

The fact that you are unable to read over what has been written (and reiterated on several occasions) by some extremely eloquent people further proves the point.

It reinforces your reputation as a sloppy thinker if you can't be bothered to review.

Breastmilk is still the best way to feed your baby - all the research proves it again and again.
Bottlefeeding is there if you choose not to breastfeed (as I did) but lets not kid ourselves it's the ideal. Some people have no choice about how they feed or recieve too little support. Hence I would never, ever feel guilty for bottlefeeding my baby but these companies are completely underhand in their approach.

We need a ban on advertising (the companies have proved again and again they unable to regulate themselves).
We equally need much more support for breastfeeding mothers in the form of breastfeeding counsellors and better training for midwives, health visitors and public education.

Personally I feel one without the other will make sod all difference to the breastfeeding rates in this country.

alright, fair dos, I read the first line of your initial post and nothing else. If you read this, harpsichordcarrier, please explain why, in your view, it is OK to privately decide not to breastfeed but not OK to talk about that decision publicly. I don't think that's too inaccurate a summary of what you've said.

here here closetpagan.

Very nicely put Pagan.

moondog, I've stated and restated exactly what I have a problem with on this thread, and it's not SMA's illegal promotion of formula. I might have missed a couple of sentences here and there, but I don't think I've wildly misinterpreted anyone. Jordan is a stupid bitch - check. Jordan shouldn't talk about her decision not to breastfeed - check. Anything else?