You may have heard that CBS refused a Superbowl ad from the grassroots organization Moveon.org, because it dared to criticize the President. Where are we living, North Korea? The ad emerged from a competition among independent film and video makers called "Bush in 30 Seconds." The finalists from the competition are here. I haven't seen all of them but my favorite so far is "What Are We Teaching Our Children?" (high bandwidth) / (low bandwidth). In this parody of a junior-high school election debate, kids stand up and enthusiastically attack Bush's sorry record on the War, the environment, the economy, and so forth. Reaction shots from parents in the auditorium show the discomfort so-called adults feel at such bracing exercises of free speech in our current McCarthyite climate. This was CBS's reaction, too. I recommend watching the ads tomorrow and experiencing the exhilaration of still being free. I also suggest sending the links to a Republican friend with the note: "See, we can still do this!"
They way I interpret "What are we teaching our children?" is that the children are echoing back to their parents the arrogant ignorance they have learned from the Punk-in-Chief. The parents' shock is seeing that their pride and joy have become stepford children of the right wing.
That one is my favorite, but there are many good ones including "Childs Pay", "In My Country", and "Al Keyda". These are beautiful examples of propa ... um ... political marcom ... um ... political communication to a mass market.
Bill Maher's take in his latest "Real Time" is that CBS would rather have their audience stay fat, drunk and sexually aroused. Thinking about politics (MoveOn) or factory farming (PETA) would be a buzz kill.
But the children are speaking with wised-up sarcasm, espousing accurate criticisms of the Bush Administration ("I'll call myself an environmentalist and gut clean air standards!"). They're not arrogantly ignorant at all. A "Stepford child" would have no sense of humor, whereas these are little Saturday Night Live comedians. No, I think the horror is the parents are still living in the "eternal 1955" that, as Katha Pollitt suggests, all candidates must pretend to live in, and the kids are a lot more wised up than they are. "What are we teaching our children?" (i.e. coarse, Bushian political discourse) is cover for the real content. In any event, possible multiple readings of the ad take it out of the realm of propaganda: it's hard facts wrapped in layers of irony.
Also, I disagree with Maher. "Buzz kill" makes it sound like the network is being apolitical. That's what they'd like us to think--it's cover for playing political hardball. Besides, the ads are funny.
It's really great. Spent a long time looking through these with friends last night, and "What Are We Teaching Our Children?"' is my favourite, although "Brother Can you Spare a Job?" is really fabulous. My take on the kid one is that its about double-standards. We expect our (ie:society's) kids to be pure of heart and motive while we adults, in our sad pragmatic wisdom, shoulder the burden of cynicism. Idealism is for youngsters who don't have jobs yet. But this ad shows that A: kids absorb cynicism, and B: we adults need to protect our own idealism. The outrage on those adults faces is the outrage that should be on their faces when they listen to Bush, but isn't because they are innured and resigned. Nice wake up call!
I like that article by Katha Pollit. Got teary-eyed reading this bit:
I have no idea why Judith Steinberg hasn't slogged through the snow for her husband. Maybe she's nervous in public. Maybe she's busy. ("It's not something I can say, 'Oh, you take over for a month,'" she explained to Diane Sawyer. Imagine that, Tina, Diane, Maureen--a job where if you don't show up, it matters!)
and did some teeth grinding over this bit:
A lot of Democratic primary voters are looking not for the candidate they themselves like best but for the one with the best shot at beating Bush. If a candidate starts looking wounded, however unfair the attack, forget him--on to the next.
I agree with your interpretation, but it isn't just cynicism the adults are fighting, it's fear. In the herd/raging football fan/tribal/pull-the-wagons-in-a-circle mentality that broke out in the US after the trade center attacks, certain things weren't said in public without heavy caveats or apologies. "Of course, I love my country, but..." "We need to protect ourselves from terrorism, but..." are the usual qualifiers that precede criticism of our Blessed Leader. The kids in the ad aren't doing that, which makes the adults very nervous. Which they would be, not so much in the cynical big cities, but in small towns and suburbia. Parents there would take a lot of pressure from peers if their kids spoke out like that. That's why I see the "influencing our kids" issue as a smoke screen for what's really going on in this ad. Actually, in a way, the adult reactions are still a form of qualifier: "this is outrageous, but..."
oh. I get it. yike.
"The CBS networks still refuses to run our winning ad in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest during the Super Bowl. The MoveOn.org non-partisan campaign to get CBS to air issue ads continues, but we're not going to let CBS's censorship stop us in the mean time. That's why we're spending over $1 million to air the ad in our swing states and nation-wide on other channels -- starting with two spots on CNN that will air during the Super Bowl half time.
This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of people who participate -- you can sign up here:"
-MO
|
You may have heard that CBS refused a Superbowl ad from the grassroots organization Moveon.org, because it dared to criticize the President. Where are we living, North Korea? The ad emerged from a competition among independent film and video makers called "Bush in 30 Seconds." The finalists from the competition are here. I haven't seen all of them but my favorite so far is "What Are We Teaching Our Children?" (high bandwidth) / (low bandwidth). In this parody of a junior-high school election debate, kids stand up and enthusiastically attack Bush's sorry record on the War, the environment, the economy, and so forth. Reaction shots from parents in the auditorium show the discomfort so-called adults feel at such bracing exercises of free speech in our current McCarthyite climate. This was CBS's reaction, too. I recommend watching the ads tomorrow and experiencing the exhilaration of still being free. I also suggest sending the links to a Republican friend with the note: "See, we can still do this!"
- tom moody 1-31-2004 10:13 pm
They way I interpret "What are we teaching our children?" is that the children are echoing back to their parents the arrogant ignorance they have learned from the Punk-in-Chief. The parents' shock is seeing that their pride and joy have become stepford children of the right wing.
That one is my favorite, but there are many good ones including "Childs Pay", "In My Country", and "Al Keyda". These are beautiful examples of
propa... um ...political marcom... um ... political communication to a mass market.Bill Maher's take in his latest "Real Time" is that CBS would rather have their audience stay fat, drunk and sexually aroused. Thinking about politics (MoveOn) or factory farming (PETA) would be a buzz kill.
- mark 2-01-2004 3:56 am
But the children are speaking with wised-up sarcasm, espousing accurate criticisms of the Bush Administration ("I'll call myself an environmentalist and gut clean air standards!"). They're not arrogantly ignorant at all. A "Stepford child" would have no sense of humor, whereas these are little Saturday Night Live comedians. No, I think the horror is the parents are still living in the "eternal 1955" that, as Katha Pollitt suggests, all candidates must pretend to live in, and the kids are a lot more wised up than they are. "What are we teaching our children?" (i.e. coarse, Bushian political discourse) is cover for the real content. In any event, possible multiple readings of the ad take it out of the realm of propaganda: it's hard facts wrapped in layers of irony.
Also, I disagree with Maher. "Buzz kill" makes it sound like the network is being apolitical. That's what they'd like us to think--it's cover for playing political hardball. Besides, the ads are funny.
- tom moody 2-01-2004 4:52 am
It's really great. Spent a long time looking through these with friends last night, and "What Are We Teaching Our Children?"' is my favourite, although "Brother Can you Spare a Job?" is really fabulous. My take on the kid one is that its about double-standards. We expect our (ie:society's) kids to be pure of heart and motive while we adults, in our sad pragmatic wisdom, shoulder the burden of cynicism. Idealism is for youngsters who don't have jobs yet. But this ad shows that A: kids absorb cynicism, and B: we adults need to protect our own idealism. The outrage on those adults faces is the outrage that should be on their faces when they listen to Bush, but isn't because they are innured and resigned. Nice wake up call!
and did some teeth grinding over this bit:I like that article by Katha Pollit. Got teary-eyed reading this bit:
- sally mckay 2-01-2004 5:59 pm
I agree with your interpretation, but it isn't just cynicism the adults are fighting, it's fear. In the herd/raging football fan/tribal/pull-the-wagons-in-a-circle mentality that broke out in the US after the trade center attacks, certain things weren't said in public without heavy caveats or apologies. "Of course, I love my country, but..." "We need to protect ourselves from terrorism, but..." are the usual qualifiers that precede criticism of our Blessed Leader. The kids in the ad aren't doing that, which makes the adults very nervous. Which they would be, not so much in the cynical big cities, but in small towns and suburbia. Parents there would take a lot of pressure from peers if their kids spoke out like that. That's why I see the "influencing our kids" issue as a smoke screen for what's really going on in this ad. Actually, in a way, the adult reactions are still a form of qualifier: "this is outrageous, but..."
- tom moody 2-01-2004 8:52 pm
oh. I get it. yike.
- sally mckay 2-01-2004 9:11 pm
"The CBS networks still refuses to run our winning ad in the Bush in 30 Seconds ad contest during the Super Bowl. The MoveOn.org non-partisan campaign to get CBS to air issue ads continues, but we're not going to let CBS's censorship stop us in the mean time. That's why we're spending over $1 million to air the ad in our swing states and nation-wide on other channels -- starting with two spots on CNN that will air during the Super Bowl half time. This Sunday, during the Super Bowl half time show, join us in changing channels on CBS. At 8:10pm and 8:35pm EST, switch over to CNN to watch "Child's Pay" on a channel which doesn't censor its ads. We'd like to keep a tally of the number of people who participate -- you can sign up here:"
-MO
- bill 2-02-2004 1:39 am