The "Hillary 1984" viral ad that was created by an employee whose company did digital media work for the Obama campaign has received a lot of publicity from traditional media. This ad was not endorsed by Obama or his campaign. What you do think about traditional news organizations paying attention to ads for certain candidates that did not originate from that candidate?
Here's a link to the ad, if you haven't seen it.
Hillary 1984
Wednesday, March 28, 2007
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
I don't think there is anything wrong with that, as long as they do make note of the fact that it is not endorced by them. The organization that paid for that ad is just as qualified to receive free publicity as Obama's organization. If media want to talk about other ads, there shouldn't be anything wrong with that, as long as they don't give viewers the wrong perception.
I don't think it does any harm. Most of the viewers on youtube left comments on how stupid they thought it was to begin with. I don't really get the "1984" reference because I've never seen it.
It is part of freedom of speech. As long as they are identifing they are not affiliated with who the ad is about. I think they should not be able to make up false information either. But this commercial doesn't seem to falsify information. So there is nothing wrong with it.
News organizations have always been known to focus on irrelevant aspects of a story or issues that just spark controversy but lack any substance. I don't feel there was anything particularly wrong with them paying attention to this ad. They made it a point to notify the public that the Obama campaign did not endorse it, and that is the most vital point.It stirred up controversy, but what election has existed without it? The Clinton party could only gear their backlash at the digital media company that created the ad.
Post a Comment