The dimensions of political campaigning are transforming yet again as tech-savy activists exploit Youtube as a forum for posting cheap, provocative campaign ads. If you haven't seen it yet - here's the link for the new "1984" Anti-Hillary Youtube ad.
Whether you support Hillary or not, I think, is pretty irrelevant to the discussion over this ad. What is most fascinating is what it says about the changing landscape of campaign politics. It used to be that big money was the key to winning an election. More money meant more ads. While money still is essential (hence all the campaign laws), Youtube has now opened the door for an increasing number of grassroots organization to make thier voices heard to millions of online users. All they need is a tech-savy geek who can digitally manipulate film and post it on Youtube. Cost and copyright infringement don't seem to be much of a deterrent - especially for Youtube users (see previous post on Viacom lawsuit), and once the media picks up the clip exposure is inevitable.
Certainly this new forum for broadcast is a triumph for free speech and equity in campaign politics, but yet also it raises questions about how these ads might cross the line. How do they fit into current campaing laws? How must these ads be attributed? Do they even? Who can track this attribution? How do "take-down" requests from copyright holders apply? Can Apple request that this ad not be shown? What about the politicians? What sort of an impact will these ads actually have on the opinions of voters? Does this mean that a smaller candidate has a greater chance of being heard?
Keep an eye on the web to see if more of these sorts of ads pop up as the campaign trail continues. The discussion should be interesting - and more than likely some sort of scandal will arise.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment