Confusing anti-Gomez ad stirs up bitter acrimony
See:
Anti-Gomez ad by Markey
Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican - YouTube
by Ed Markey
uploaded may 2 2013
Vid Attacked by Markey ad
Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube
Published at youtube aug 15.
A bitter dispute has broken out between Gomez and Markey (candidats for MA senate) regarding a Markey ad that Gomez has labeled 'despicable'. The low-quality, confusing nature of the ad in question, seems to have produced an atmosphere allowing for bitter but somewhat confused denunciation of the ad.
Gomez and his supporters evidently believe the ad attempts to visually send the message that Gomez and Osama Bin Ladin have much in common.
Actually the ad's visuals do not send the Gomez=Bin-Ladin message, though they could seem to be doing so if someone was paying minimal distracted attention as is often the case when ads are observed.
During the ad,the caption-text argues that Gomez has attacked ('swiftboated') Obama. The video shows Gomez on left of screen, and first President Obama and then Bin ladin on the right of screen. The first scene is of Gomez and the heroic prez admired by the advertisement's sponsor; the second scene is of Gomez and the villainous enemy of everyone, Bin Ladin.
Hence, the ad is actually not following a rule wherein when person A and person B are both shown simultaneously on screen, the intended visually-based argument is that the two are similar. If the ad was following such a logical rule, the imagery would be delivering the message that Gomez, President Obama, and Bin Ladin, are all similar-- like the three stooges.
The ad follows a logical rule whereby photos of different characters involved in the story are simultaneously presented on-screen. Fact is, often on TV, two opposing characters or groups are presented on the screen, one on the left and the other on the right. The two juxtaposed entities could be two nations at war, two teams playing each other, two individuals fighting each other in boxing, two opponents in a debate, the military leaders of two armies at war.
Nevertheless, Gomez had grounds for grievance, because: the intro text quoted from the MSNBC announcer states, "A new organization, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund or OPSEC for short, is going after the President for one of the biggest achievements of the Obama administration, the capture and death of Osama Bin Ladin."; and, this is followed by, the showing of Gomez on one side of the screen and Bin Ladin on the other.
(this para added 12:24 PM 5/12/2013) Conceivably, the series of faces shown on screen could be interpreted thus: the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that first Gomez was aligned with Obama; the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that next Gomez was aligned with Bin Ladin. The feasibility of this interpretation, combined with the beginning words of the ad marveling at Gomez attacking Obama when Obama succeeded against Bin Laden, gives cause for concern-- a reasonable interpretation is that all this put together is an attempt to paint Gomez as an ally of Obama because Gomez criticized Obama with regards to the Bin Ladin raid.
The fact that party X criticizes the performance of party Y during military operation Z, does not mean that party X opposes the goals of military operation Z.
The ad seems to reflect a mindset wherein it is always wrong to criticize or to negatively judge the combat-type performance of one's countrymen (the ad derides such conduct as 'swiftboating').
My reaction: soldiers, battalions, regiments, divisions etc. being criticized, or praised, or ranked is nothing new in the military. Aside from the alleged wickedness or virtue of the world-war Two era German Waffen SS, it is interesting to note how the SS' reputation (and the reputations of other combat groups) in the eyes of the German military, rose and fell during the war. The Germans evidently did not see anything wrong with praising or criticizing the performance of soldiers, regiments, etc. German military performance during WWII has been generally admired, aside from the question of whether Germany was right or wrong morally speaking.
As for the criticism of a president, one suspects that if criticizing a president becomes something unacceptable, the performance of presidents will be impaired.
In sports we see how when players are allowed to frankly exchange opinions re the weaknesses and strengths of their fellow players, this creates an environment which makes it easy for players to improve (compared to the situation wherein players are not allowed to criticize each other).
Notes
1 The Markey ad is simple-minded in that, it's premise is that a) since Gomez' group was criticized by a top officer, Gomez is guilty; and, b) since Gomez' group criticized Obama, Gomez is guilty;
2 The ad appears infected with the idea that if a MSNBC announcer scoffs at Gomez' group, Gomez is guilty (as if MSNBC was headquartered on Mount Olympus).
3 The ad implies that it has been determined, beyond doubt, that those ('Swiftboaters') who criticized Kerry were false. Despite the fact that the ad's sponsors seek to attract the 'undecided' amongst the voters.
4 The ad implies that criticism of the performance of the President of the US, is the same thing as criticism of the field performance of a Navy Lt.
5 Bombarding the viewers of a short advertisement that cannot be stopped or replayed, and that is mentally attended to distractedly using only about half the mind, with: split screen images, ambiguous voice-over, and two different text captions all at the same time, seems to border on insanity, causes confusion.
6 The ad assumes that the people watching: know the meaning of 'swiftboating'; and, are able to mentally conjure up an understanding of the term quickly while at the same time being bombarded with text captions, audio, and video.
Anti-Gomez ad by Markey
Meet Gabriel Gomez: Just Another Republican - YouTube
by Ed Markey
uploaded may 2 2013
Vid Attacked by Markey ad
Dishonorable Disclosures - YouTube
Published at youtube aug 15.
A bitter dispute has broken out between Gomez and Markey (candidats for MA senate) regarding a Markey ad that Gomez has labeled 'despicable'. The low-quality, confusing nature of the ad in question, seems to have produced an atmosphere allowing for bitter but somewhat confused denunciation of the ad.
Gomez and his supporters evidently believe the ad attempts to visually send the message that Gomez and Osama Bin Ladin have much in common.
Actually the ad's visuals do not send the Gomez=Bin-Ladin message, though they could seem to be doing so if someone was paying minimal distracted attention as is often the case when ads are observed.
During the ad,the caption-text argues that Gomez has attacked ('swiftboated') Obama. The video shows Gomez on left of screen, and first President Obama and then Bin ladin on the right of screen. The first scene is of Gomez and the heroic prez admired by the advertisement's sponsor; the second scene is of Gomez and the villainous enemy of everyone, Bin Ladin.
Hence, the ad is actually not following a rule wherein when person A and person B are both shown simultaneously on screen, the intended visually-based argument is that the two are similar. If the ad was following such a logical rule, the imagery would be delivering the message that Gomez, President Obama, and Bin Ladin, are all similar-- like the three stooges.
The ad follows a logical rule whereby photos of different characters involved in the story are simultaneously presented on-screen. Fact is, often on TV, two opposing characters or groups are presented on the screen, one on the left and the other on the right. The two juxtaposed entities could be two nations at war, two teams playing each other, two individuals fighting each other in boxing, two opponents in a debate, the military leaders of two armies at war.
Nevertheless, Gomez had grounds for grievance, because: the intro text quoted from the MSNBC announcer states, "A new organization, Special Operations OPSEC Education Fund or OPSEC for short, is going after the President for one of the biggest achievements of the Obama administration, the capture and death of Osama Bin Ladin."; and, this is followed by, the showing of Gomez on one side of the screen and Bin Ladin on the other.
(this para added 12:24 PM 5/12/2013) Conceivably, the series of faces shown on screen could be interpreted thus: the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that first Gomez was aligned with Obama; the scene showing Gomez on the left and Obama on the right indicates that next Gomez was aligned with Bin Ladin. The feasibility of this interpretation, combined with the beginning words of the ad marveling at Gomez attacking Obama when Obama succeeded against Bin Laden, gives cause for concern-- a reasonable interpretation is that all this put together is an attempt to paint Gomez as an ally of Obama because Gomez criticized Obama with regards to the Bin Ladin raid.
The fact that party X criticizes the performance of party Y during military operation Z, does not mean that party X opposes the goals of military operation Z.
The ad seems to reflect a mindset wherein it is always wrong to criticize or to negatively judge the combat-type performance of one's countrymen (the ad derides such conduct as 'swiftboating').
My reaction: soldiers, battalions, regiments, divisions etc. being criticized, or praised, or ranked is nothing new in the military. Aside from the alleged wickedness or virtue of the world-war Two era German Waffen SS, it is interesting to note how the SS' reputation (and the reputations of other combat groups) in the eyes of the German military, rose and fell during the war. The Germans evidently did not see anything wrong with praising or criticizing the performance of soldiers, regiments, etc. German military performance during WWII has been generally admired, aside from the question of whether Germany was right or wrong morally speaking.
As for the criticism of a president, one suspects that if criticizing a president becomes something unacceptable, the performance of presidents will be impaired.
In sports we see how when players are allowed to frankly exchange opinions re the weaknesses and strengths of their fellow players, this creates an environment which makes it easy for players to improve (compared to the situation wherein players are not allowed to criticize each other).
Notes
1 The Markey ad is simple-minded in that, it's premise is that a) since Gomez' group was criticized by a top officer, Gomez is guilty; and, b) since Gomez' group criticized Obama, Gomez is guilty;
2 The ad appears infected with the idea that if a MSNBC announcer scoffs at Gomez' group, Gomez is guilty (as if MSNBC was headquartered on Mount Olympus).
3 The ad implies that it has been determined, beyond doubt, that those ('Swiftboaters') who criticized Kerry were false. Despite the fact that the ad's sponsors seek to attract the 'undecided' amongst the voters.
4 The ad implies that criticism of the performance of the President of the US, is the same thing as criticism of the field performance of a Navy Lt.
5 Bombarding the viewers of a short advertisement that cannot be stopped or replayed, and that is mentally attended to distractedly using only about half the mind, with: split screen images, ambiguous voice-over, and two different text captions all at the same time, seems to border on insanity, causes confusion.
6 The ad assumes that the people watching: know the meaning of 'swiftboating'; and, are able to mentally conjure up an understanding of the term quickly while at the same time being bombarded with text captions, audio, and video.
posted by David Virgil at 3:27 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home