I linked the FoxNews article due to it's linking to the YouTube film on the subject.
If this is an indicator of where politics is going in the next election, I'm thinking it's not an improvement.
It's an interesting piece. I'm wondering why it hasn't been pulled for copyright infringement. You'd think Apple would want to stay out of the political game, unless they approve.
Personally, listening to Hillary on the big screen with the setting is a bit creepy.
If this is an indicator of where politics is going in the next election, I'm thinking it's not an improvement.
The ad, an example of a "mashup," in which old and new elements are combined to create a new message, uses footage from the "1984" Super Bowl ad produced by Ridley Scott for Apple Computer but splices in footage from Clinton on the presidential campaign trail.Of course all the usual suspects deny any knowledge of this. Funny how Hillary isn't bellowing for Obama to condemn the add like she wanted him to part ways with Geffen when he made the comment about the Clintons being liars.
Borrowing the themes in George Orwell's book in which Big Brother forces conformity among the masses, the updated ad shows Clinton's face on a large video screen as she talks about holding conversations with the public. Human drones mindlessly watch until a female athlete carrying a sledgehammer races into the room and smashes the screen.
The end of the ad takes some of the language from the original commercial but changes part of it to say, "On January 14th, the Democratic primary will begin. And you will see why 2008 won't be like '1984.'" The screen then fades to an updated Apple logo showing a rainbow colored O and the Web address BarackObama.com at the bottom.
It's an interesting piece. I'm wondering why it hasn't been pulled for copyright infringement. You'd think Apple would want to stay out of the political game, unless they approve.
Personally, listening to Hillary on the big screen with the setting is a bit creepy.
3 comments:
> If this is an indicator of where politics is going in the next election, I'm thinking it's not an improvement.
I would say you just need to look harder. See if you find this helpful...
www.ExpertVoter.org
With the internet, is't in YOUR hands...
gary
"I would say you just need to look harder."
Horse SHIT.
I've used the web for many years and if you actually bothered to read for comprehension you'd have come to the realization that the topic refers to political fighting rather than debate. Mudslinging and plain old deceptive marketing isn't improving anything. Not to mention the partisan guerrilla warfare that is occurring even within the parties themselves.
As for the linked website, nothing like cherry picking convenient or inconvenient interviews or news clips to distort the facts and realities of a candidates positions in politics. Should I even mention the fact that the topics chosen are so extremely limited that they tend toward a deception in themselves? What about Gun control? Abortion? And then, how does what they say actually stand against their voting records?
I can see any of these interviews on line or on TV when it happens, it doesn't mean that it actually gives the voter a useful understanding of the realities of the candidates positions nor how they've evolved over time. It may be a tool, but a very limited one.
Hi Nylarthotep,
In the past coverage of the campaigns was rigidly controlled by mainstream media...you only heard what a few powerful entities allowed you to hear. The internet is rapidly changing all that as I'm sure you'll agree. As far as I'm concerned that's the best thing that's happened to democracy since parchment & pen. The result is that you as a voter have more choices on where you get your information than ever before. You can chose to focus on silliness like this Hillary video. Or you can look further...listen to what the candidates have to say themselves. Like my website.
One point of clarification...I did indeed choose most of the videos, but only to get it started. My policy is to let the candidates chose which videos represent their positions (which is just starting to happen).
I agree with you that candidates can lie or contradict prior positions, but for me to try and interpret or argue with candidates goes against what I'm trying to accomplish. I leave that level of research to others to tackle. My goal is to remain politically neutral.
On your second point about the choice of topics, I agree that it's a clear source of bias since I get to select the issues, But I don't claim that my website covers ALL issues or that the viewer shouldn't look beyond just my website. I would encourage that. But I don't agree that a selection of topics like Iraq, immigration, healthcare, etc qualify as "extremely limited" as you put it. I believe most people consider these to be among the more significant issues. I don't include gun control or abortion because I'm simply not very interested in those subjects. If you search YouTube I suspect you will find that the candidates don't have much to say on these issues as well.
You said "It may be a tool, but a very limited one." I agree.
gary
www.ExpertVoter.org
Post a Comment