Now this is pretty funny. Democrats are accusing the Bush campaign of using subliminal messages in their advertising. Seems unlikely to me, but the demographic that believes in such things should not be underestimated. After half a century of semiologists teaching us to read the deep structures in undisguised messages, you'd think we'd know better, but some folks would rather smell a rat than see one.
why is it unlikely if they have proof? i just posted about this too. its unlikely that they didnt do it. these are the same people that denied some nasty pushpolling in south carolina against john mccain after all their bullshit about not goin negative, etc. bush will do anything to win that is pretty certain but as his campaign progress you see what a bunch of mean spirited bunglers they are.
I've got to go with Dave here. Did you read the Times article? (side note: I never read the Times on line because of their clue-less log in policy, but I really wanted to see this one, so I went through the hassle of making an account. First I tried to make the helpful cypherpunk/cypherpunk account, only to be told that the name was already taken, then I opted for the less subtle fuckyou/capitalistpig account, only to be greeted with this somewhat humerous statement from the Times: "The Subscriber ID fuckyou is not available. We suggest fuckyou707 instead." Is the 707 random, or have 706 people before me choosen that name? In any case I'm probably the only 65-69 year old woman from Afganistan making more than $150K a year.) Anyway, knowing a little bit about video editing, I totally agree with the statement in the article: "Almost every advertising professional interviewed said that given the
technology by which commercials are assembled frame by frame, it
was virtually impossible for a producer not to know the word was
there." These things are assembled frame by frame. The editor knows what is in every frame. For sure. The larger question as to whether this is an effective form of mind control is still open. As is the possiblity that the Times is not telling the truth, and the frame shown does not really exist (harder for me to believe.) But in any case, the one thing we can be sure of: nobody really cares too much. Rats? Sure, they're both rats.
Well, I suppose you're right, at least about bungling. What's amazing is that anyone could think that hidden messages work. Push polling does work, and these guys have results that prove it. But, as the Times points out, nobody's been able to demonstrate the efficacy of subliminals, and you'd think advertising people would know better. I fully expect all politicians to be hypocritical, and to do anything to win. Does anyone take those "no negatives" pledges seriously? Demonizing the other guy is a political tradition older than America, but why risk backlash over something that doesn't even work? I guess what worries me is the target audience: who are these people who don't know who they are going to vote for? Most people in my circuit have well-formed political viewpoints, but I get the idea that lots of folks decide on the basis of some nebulous feeling which is much more susceptible to advertising. This is probably the group that decides the election. Is that good or bad? Are our leaders chosen out of ignorance, or do these voters practice a sensitivity to content (as opposed to ideology) which may in fact reveal the better candidate (or at least the lesser of two evils (oh, why glorify it, they ain't even evil, just lesser and lesser))?
I like the little old lady who said, "oh, I don't vote; it only encourages them".
|
- alex 9-12-2000 3:19 pm
why is it unlikely if they have proof? i just posted about this too. its unlikely that they didnt do it. these are the same people that denied some nasty pushpolling in south carolina against john mccain after all their bullshit about not goin negative, etc. bush will do anything to win that is pretty certain but as his campaign progress you see what a bunch of mean spirited bunglers they are.
- dave 9-12-2000 4:10 pm [add a comment]
I've got to go with Dave here. Did you read the Times article? (side note: I never read the Times on line because of their clue-less log in policy, but I really wanted to see this one, so I went through the hassle of making an account. First I tried to make the helpful cypherpunk/cypherpunk account, only to be told that the name was already taken, then I opted for the less subtle fuckyou/capitalistpig account, only to be greeted with this somewhat humerous statement from the Times: "The Subscriber ID fuckyou is not available. We suggest fuckyou707 instead." Is the 707 random, or have 706 people before me choosen that name? In any case I'm probably the only 65-69 year old woman from Afganistan making more than $150K a year.) Anyway, knowing a little bit about video editing, I totally agree with the statement in the article: "Almost every advertising professional interviewed said that given the technology by which commercials are assembled frame by frame, it was virtually impossible for a producer not to know the word was there." These things are assembled frame by frame. The editor knows what is in every frame. For sure. The larger question as to whether this is an effective form of mind control is still open. As is the possiblity that the Times is not telling the truth, and the frame shown does not really exist (harder for me to believe.) But in any case, the one thing we can be sure of: nobody really cares too much. Rats? Sure, they're both rats.
- jim 9-12-2000 4:37 pm [add a comment]
Well, I suppose you're right, at least about bungling. What's amazing is that anyone could think that hidden messages work. Push polling does work, and these guys have results that prove it. But, as the Times points out, nobody's been able to demonstrate the efficacy of subliminals, and you'd think advertising people would know better. I fully expect all politicians to be hypocritical, and to do anything to win. Does anyone take those "no negatives" pledges seriously? Demonizing the other guy is a political tradition older than America, but why risk backlash over something that doesn't even work? I guess what worries me is the target audience: who are these people who don't know who they are going to vote for? Most people in my circuit have well-formed political viewpoints, but I get the idea that lots of folks decide on the basis of some nebulous feeling which is much more susceptible to advertising. This is probably the group that decides the election. Is that good or bad? Are our leaders chosen out of ignorance, or do these voters practice a sensitivity to content (as opposed to ideology) which may in fact reveal the better candidate (or at least the lesser of two evils (oh, why glorify it, they ain't even evil, just lesser and lesser))?
I like the little old lady who said, "oh, I don't vote; it only encourages them".
- alex 9-12-2000 5:15 pm [add a comment]
NYT say it pops up in one frame for 1/13th of a second and is the largest piece of text in the 30 second spot. Does video have frames ?
- anonymous (guest) 9-13-2000 12:09 am [add a comment] [edit]
Video has frames. 30 of them a second. I believe the text in question was in 1 frame (visible for 1/30th of a second.) I didn't mention before, but it might be interesting to note that the word choosen was 'rats.' I know it somehow morphed out of 'bureaucRATs' in the video, but I can't help thinking 'democRAT.' In fact, all day I've been seeing the rat in democrat. I never saw that word within that word before. I'm not saying there is any proof about subliminal images working, but if they could work, that was a pretty good choice of words I think. Did anyone see it? I'd be curious to know if the voice-over was saying the word democrats when rats was flashed.
- jim 9-13-2000 12:34 am [add a comment]
Is this really hardball politics? I seem to remember "rats" as Charlie Brown's favorite curse. Or was it Jimmy Cagney's favorite epithet? Maybe it does reflect rePUblican values.
- alex 9-13-2000 1:45 am [add a comment]