A liberal media group, Brave New Films, is producing anti-McCain ads and distributing them on the Internet. One, McCain’s YouTube Problem Just Became a Nightmare, is an example of what to do right – and what to do wrong – in pushing a message.
The ad is direct and clear – clips of Senator McCain making contradictory or false statements. For most of the ad there is no voice over, just clips of the Senator speaking and clips of reporters correcting him. A clean, clear and direct negative ad.
But at the close, over a black and white picture of Senator McCain red letters appear reading: “The ‘Straight Talk Express Has Derailed’ but the corporate media won’t cover the story.” This is followed by a black screen and the words, “It’s up to you to get the word out. Send this to 10 people and tell them to pass it on.”
The problem is that after 2 minutes and 49 seconds of McCain v McCain, I’m told the problem isn’t McCain at all but rather “corporate media.” This tells viewers the problem isn’t a specific person they can specifically do something about, but rather a nebulous entity that’s running a conspiracy theory of which we are all victims. By introducing a new element at the end the ad undermines its own argument, distracts from the point of what’s being said and by placing blame in a nebulous “them” it dis-empowers the viewer. In addition, the ad would have much more reach if “corporate media” ran it either as news or as a paid ad on broadcast or cable television. Removing the attack on “corporate media” strengthens the main message of the ad, so it shouldn’t be there. The ask at the end (send it to 10 people) is good, it tells me what to do next, easy and doable action. There should also be a second ask – to donate to a fund to put a 30 second version of the ad on the air in battleground states (ideally the clips of McCain saying he doesn’t know much about the economy).
So a plug for a good clean whack at McCain, but a whack for leaping off message and missing and opportunity to raise money to put the ad on television.
Depends on the point of the ad
Good points made, but I think the secondary message is deliberate on Greenwald's part. The point of the ad is to whack McCain, but the point of the series of ads, and most of his films, is to attempt to question why his populist messages (as he sees them -- and I tend to agree) are generally dismissed in mainstream venues (to which I only partially agree).
I think the point of the swipe at the MSM, and the ask for viral propagation, points out why an ask for media funding might be deliberately omitted. From the point of the view of the marginalized filmmaker, buying ad time has the effect of rewarding media outlets for putting his ideas out on the fringe. A moderate cable buy puts him in front of, what, perhaps a low six-figure viewership. Viral media can reach many more people at nearly zero additional costs... provided your video has the chops to go viral. And seeing as how he's at 5.3 million YouTube views, I'm thinking he's there.
Arguably a media has the advantage of reaching a more balanced audience; I'm guessing that the 5.3 million viewers are mostly already anti-McCain. But that's 5.3 million people who have these talking points laid out for them, and who have the ad available to show to others. Not schlect, even if the ad never goes anywhere past the Internet.
Best,
Jeff Porten
Thanks for the comment.
If the ad is a poke at mainstream media (defined, presumably, as anything that doesn't include this ad)it fails because it spends most of the time beating up McCain. If the ad is about beating McCain then is partially fails for the reasons in the initial post. The pieces mixes messages in a pretty jarring way.
5.3 million online viewers is great, but as you note they are largely self-selected - adding another couple hundred thousand on TV, and driving them to a website that has an anti-McCain and anti-MSM message could increase the number of folks who learn about how bad MSM is while furthering their dislike of McCain. In this way both goals could be met. You can both be viral and be on TV, and you can use both to support the other. MSM's interest is in money, they'll take his ad dollars to beat him up (just as McCain is taking Hollywood money to beat up on Hollywood).
I suspect that what Greenwald wants is viewers. If Greenwald's stuff were on NBC, I think he'd be fine with MSM.