Could the "Hillary 1984" ad forever change the MSM's influence on politics?

[RiverStone]

I really like this ad:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6h3G-lMZxjo

The creator of this ad was apparently NOT from Obama's camp or any known standard source within the MSM. I'm not sure of all the ramifications, but at first glance here we have an ad created by someone - an ad of the YouTube generation which is receiving tons of attention; and it is not on one TV anywhere! Could this be the beginning of ad's created by the people for the people with NO corporate connection or influence? Could this mean that someone without zillions of advertising dollars can still get the word out and compete on a playing field that is not pre-determined by how much money a candidate has?

Of course, this is all so new and certainly if this becomes a trend; we will see ads dissing DEMS coming from rethugs. Yet if we were to get into a battle of creative attack ads, I'd wager on the Blue team having both the upper hand in smarts and style anyday!

I do have a general concern that a person or persons could create an ad and attribute the source to someone who is not them (i.e. the Obama ad looks like the Obama camp did it). Can one assume it was even created by an Obama supporter at all? Some have suggested the ad was the work of a conservative group looking to diss Hillary. Who ever made it, it works for me. On disclaimer: I'm not a supporter of the MSM's anointed one in HRC and I happen to be a BIG fan of Obama.

I'm thrilled that just maybe a new art/advertising form from YouTube land just may make all those millions of advertising dollars in HRC's war chest a little less relevant.

I think this trend may be the beginning of something good, though it is a cautious optimism. Without knowing the source of an ad, who do you go after if said ad that is created is total b.s.? That could be a big problem. Lots to consider...it just feels like this is an opportunity for the voice of people to be heard above that of muti-million dollar corporations.

What do you think? :shrug:




RiverStone~

[rinsd]

1. I think its funny that an ad for "the new candidate" is ripping off a 20+ yrd old commercial! (nt)

[northzax]

2. sure, completely unregulated

kinda like the Swiftboat jackasses. no connection to the campaign at all.

[mdmc]

5. Obama could always say, "I don't like"

just like chimp refused to do...

Bring it on!

OBEY*HRC2008

[RiverStone]

6. Is total "regulation" what we want?

Regulated or not - there will always be Swiftboat jackasses. Even ads coming from well known and established sources within the GOP could be total bullshit.

My ponderment northzax is could there be an upside to taking the "regulation" out of the hands of the very corporate connected media? Yes, these You Tube ads are totally unregulated - as are our voices and opinions. I understand this makes many folks nervous, but I see the vast majority of what comes out of the FCC already as propaganda for the masses.

Could this not be the beginning of a refreshing shift?

[derby378]

3. Now if only some anonymous Democrat made this ad featuring Bush instead of Clinton back in 2004...

...Kerry would have been sitting pretty in the Oval Office.

[SteppingRazor]

4. I think it's actually going to cause more problems than do good...

like most forms of deregulation.

Here we have an unknown person, with unknown backers, posting more or less whatever they please, without any legal ramifications whatsoever.

There are campaign and election laws for a reason.

On edit: That said, I can certainly see how this could do worlds of good, when information is diseminated that is not otherwise available. Unfortunately, I think those times are few and far between.

[Craftergrl]

17. Yea that whole freedom of speech thing

keeps getting in the way!

People talking, expressing themselves...with out the government approving of any of it. :wow:

How absolutely un-orwellian of them. We should fix that immediately!! We must silence the opposition!! :mad:

It's utterly ridiculous to have unregulated speech!! If the other side says anything we should force them to give us equal time and they should pay the cost of it too.

I just can't believe we don't have laws governing the internet yet!! I mean what if someone with lots of money makes an ad slamming our candidate and people CHOOSE to go to that site and watch the ad. That's insane! Microsoft should be forced to put in filters in the browzer that stops certain material from being displayed or that's on an approved list.
Kind of like what Google was accused of doing! They had the right idea!! We should make it law! It's only fair right?!!!





We have met the enemy and he is us.:scared:

[SteppingRazor]

20. Oh, brother...

look, you won't find a bigger free-speech advocate than me. All I'm saying is that there are campaign finance laws, and I wonder who is behind these ads. That's all.

[Craftergrl]

21. There's a difference...

between blasting the air waves with campaign ads (well sorta) and creating material that people can search out and choose to view themselves. The first saves us from what eventually becomes a public nuisance. Passing laws on the second however, is a serious slippery slope that crosses over into the thought police category. I know that's not as articulate as I would have liked, but the point is made.

You can see a trail that leads to; ok who paid for those signs those people are carrying on the street corner? You want to publish a book? Does it mention anything about politics in an election year? If so who paid for it and no we won't allow you to publish that at this time.

As soon as people start calling for the regulation of published thoughts and ideas on politics this becomes your path.

[SteppingRazor]

22. So, leaving politics aside, you completely dismiss the notion...

of libel laws?

[Craftergrl]

25. errr

That's a bit vague. Would you mind giving the context in which you refer to the libel laws?

[RiverStone]

23. Actually, the thought police are alive and well...

Already - its called all the b.s. that floats across America's TV in the form of advertising. Almost all of it has multi-million dollar corporate/politically motivated stamps on them.

I thought you did a good job Craftergrl of expressing your views on the slippery slope of more regulation. :) As we know, regulation or not, will not stop the GOP from peddling lies and manipulation. Regulation did not do a damn thing to quell the swift boaters.

So it gets back to We The People having a greater voice - a greater "unregulated" voice. And that scares the shit out of alot of folks in positions of power in the MSM!

[Craftergrl]

24. And that's why...

I don't watch TV. Way too much trash. Aside from The Discovery Channel and Animal Planet which are very cool! :)

I thought you did a good job Craftergrl of expressing your views on the slippery slope of more regulation.

Thank you for your kind words. :)

So it gets back to We The People having a greater voice - a greater "unregulated" voice. And that scares the shit out of alot of folks in positions of power in the MSM!

You are so right. I know they are scared of sites like this and others. The MSM becomes irrelevant the more we share information among ourselves and they know this and their advertisers know this. -They should be scared.

I'm going to go a little farther with this "unregulated" thread...and I hope I don't get in trouble with the mods. ahemm...

First off, I choose not to be offended by other people. It's a choice. I can talk with anyone with different beliefs and never raise my voice and never get offended. So if you see this from my perspective you can understand better where I'm coming from.

I like talk radio. *qualifiers incoming*

I do like Rush. I like his professionalism -he's very polished. He makes me think in different ways and I like that...however (like I said I'm very mellow). When he starts belittling the poor I turn the radio off. When he starts denigrating the environmentalist movement I tell him that I hope a big fat duck bullseyes the hood of his expensive car and then I really turn the radio off. When he starts talking against the anti-smoking movement I tell him where he can stick his cigar and then I really really turn the radio off. So on and so on. Rush gets regulated with my radio's power button.

Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter are the poster children for air wave regulation. He's like a rabid chihuahua that has nothing good to say about anything. And she's...well... I don't like to engage in ad homenim. But should we regulate them? For speaking their opinions publicly? You reap what you sow right? What goes around comes around. So no matter how much money they get and from what source the answer is still..no. Obviously to keep the air waves free for everyone.

Now everyone's going to hate me for saying the "R" word. :scared:

[demobabe]

7. We were doing this for years on Take Back The Media

Symbolman and American Stranger created the first "political attack ads" using flash animation in 2001 and they went on national TV a number of times regarding their efforts. Other DUers have created flash presentations and attack ads, like Eric Blumrich of BushFlash.com and then most recently Ava.

[Hardrada]

8. It's good because it will lessen the influence of Wall Street

and Big Media and multinational banking and corporatists on the election since they have to rely on big $$$ to push their agenda (and Hillary).

[RiverStone]

11. V for Vendetta!

Somehow this speaks to me about our government's control over TV and the HUGE influence of corporate America on what is being dished out to the masses.

Maybe this is the beginning of taking it back! Reminds me of V.

Just food for thought....:think:

[Hardrada]

15. That's a good point!

[NashVegas]

12. Really? What Does the Ad Say About Wall Street?

I'm not catching that.

[Hardrada]

16. Big biz control of MSM mostly,

Wall Street is just shorthand for that.

[Captain Hilts]

9. The Ad backfired during the SuperBowl ['Skins lost] and probably will now. nt

[emulatorloo]

13. 1984 ad did well. You are thinking of the 1985 superbowl ad, "Lemmings"

People liked "1984" People got freaked out by "Lemmings"

1985 -- Lemmings

(sorry I don't know how to embed a YOUTUBE video)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6nAB871b4M

[NashVegas]

10. Brilliant Concept, Very Simplistic, Very Misleading

The ad shows an individualist (meant, of course to represent Republicans) smashing old socialist Hillary, who wants us all to be uniform for our own good. This is, at its core, the traditional Conservative Republican argument against Dems and Liberals.

For most of us Dems who would not look forward to a President Hillary Clinton, although we understand the concern expressed, it's because of her ties to the economic elites we loathe.

We know the uniformity that is wanted from us is not for our good, but for business interests' good.

The misleading factor is that Republicans also want us to sit in a row for Wall Street's sake.

On edit: Oh my, I hadn't even seen this was an Obama ad. I guess he's looking for the conservative vote.


PS - IMO, ParkRidge47 is either a professional political strategist, works for one, or someone who is obsessed with Hillary and not much else. The account appears to have been created for the sole purpose of posting this video. He/she has watched no more than 8 YouTube videos, ever? Fishy.

[rebel with a cause]

19. I suspect this is either someone who is wanting to start a hilary X barack war

or a over enthusiastic Obama supporter who should not be doing this without acknowledging that it is done without Barack's knowledge or consent.

I support the idea of allowing free speech, and I support freedom of creativity. But when things like this are done that can cause repercussions to people who had no part in posting them, this is what makes them dangerous.

[Orangepeel]

14. would it be having an impact if the "old media" wasn't playing it over and over?

As another poster in this thread points out, grassroots ads posted on the internet are nothing new. This one is all over the airways because traditional media is playing it.

:shrug:

[SoCalDem]

18. Yep.. Pay millions for "focus-group" bullshit ads, and the "webbies' will just make their OWN ads

Time marches on:)