Keith Olbermann called it "a signal moment in the history of American television". In the fight to respond to George W. Bush's address Thursday night, John Edwards decided to cut out the middleman by, well, paying a different middleman. Edwards hedged his bets and, in an unprecedented move, purchased two minutes of commercial airtime devoted solely to responding to, and in most cases rebutting, the president's address.
This subversion of traditional information channels is a hallmark of Joe Trippi, the Democratic strategist whose reinvention as an Internet-savvy campaigner is credited with the early successes of the Howard Dean campaign in 2004. Trippi, who now serves as a senior strategist with the Edwards campaign, is known for pushing the envelope. However, this most recent move by the Edwards camp brings up serious questions regarding the ever-changing role of advertising in politics.
In the days of the 24-hour media cycle and highly focused online campaigning, traditional political advertising may be facing an "adapt or perish" situation. Edwards' latest move seems to support this. With broadcast channels on the decline, television advertisements may become more specialized. In Edwards' case, his commercial granted him a guaranteed forum in which to express his ideas to a wide audience. Though his move may be out of need rather than the spirit of innovation (Edwards currently sits in a distant 3rd in the latest AP poll, behind front-runners Hilary Clinton and Barack Obama), it's intriguing nonetheless.
Personally, I'm ambivalent towards the idea of advertising as a form of discourse. While the idea that anyone's free to take out a commercial and express their views, the prohibitive costs (the New York Times article linked above notes that Edwards' two minute spot cost upwards of $100,000) mean that it's still the rich who dictate what goes on the air and what doesn't. However, it would be interesting to measure the effectiveness of highly focused, targeted advertising in local elections where candidate airtime might come at less of a premium. What doesn't work for John Edwards might prove might effective for an alderman or councilwoman near you.
Another thing that bothers me is the idea of lending gravity to commercial airtime. Edwards' choice of a commercial medium as the forum for disseminating his message seems to bestow a sense of credibility that may not be completely warranted. Whenever the line begins to blur between serious discourse and this...:
...the ramifications could be far-reaching.
Also, feast.
1 comment:
#1- those Snicker commercials are ridiculous and i always laugh out loud in spite of myself; cheers.
#2- your point about commercial spots as being a new medium to reach audiences is a good one. and sadly, those candidates with larger budgets can afford to make better and more credible looking spots. i know there is a great difference between nationwide commercials (like the Snicker's one) and local spots for your neighborhood car dealership. if the new Mercedes-Benz can make a shiny/sleek/sexy national ad champaign, i'd be more apt to dream about then in my sleep rather than Bob McDeals who can get me a used Chevy pick-up truck with a free blender. i wish there was a way to obtain an even playing field in politics, but i also know that Santa does not exist.
Post a Comment