How could using that video even be comparable to using two kids who aren't old enough to know what they are doing to advocate for something they, with good probability, will be ashamed of doing when they are adults, let alone the 'same level of class' ?
Patti is spot on. I felt the same way watching this as the two kids below. If you have a point to make then make it, leave dead people and kids out of it.
American Presidents are quoted all the time for all sorts of purposes, using their words for all and sundry purposes.
Are you saying that every use of a dead President's words is invalid if it isn't in support of a position he advocated when he was alive? Or are just videos verboten?
To classify dead Presidents in terms of using their images and words in the same category as generic dead people is beyond silly.
There is no just comparison in my mind between the two uses, except that they are both exploitive -- one epsilon, given standard practice, and one almost infinite, given standard mores.
so are all public people fair game? I imagine no one would be upset if a Republican 527 found some footage of MLK that seemed to back up a position of McCains. MLK is as much in the public domain as Reagan no?
You have done a pretty good job this election season shining light on various and sundry foibles, bad ads and other crap. This one at least to me fails the OK test.
Public people are fair game, yes, much more so than non-public people. Courts have always held this to be the case, and you know it as well as I.
MLK is almost as much in the public domain as Reagan. Presidents, by virtue of their unique position, are obviously the people MOST in the public domain.
And if some ad used footage of MLK to support a McCain position I would most certainly not say that it was equivalent to using two little kids to support positions they have no clue about. No way. No how. No such standard.
We're not arguing whether the ad was in good taste here; I don't think it was particularly. The argument was about the equivalence of using a video and words of a towering figure out of history and American politics to support a person and a political position he probably wouldn't have supported, versus using two completely unknown kids as pawns.
Click to view
Comments 13
Reply
Reagan's soliloquy is part of Americana now.
How could using that video even be comparable to using two kids who
aren't old enough to know what they are doing to advocate
for something they, with good probability, will be ashamed
of doing when they are adults, let alone the 'same level of class' ?
Reply
Reply
Reply
American Presidents are quoted all the time for all sorts
of purposes, using their words for all and sundry purposes.
Are you saying that every use of a dead President's words
is invalid if it isn't in support of a position he advocated
when he was alive? Or are just videos verboten?
To classify dead Presidents in terms of using their images
and words in the same category as generic
dead people is beyond silly.
There is no just comparison in my mind between the two uses,
except that they are both exploitive -- one epsilon, given
standard practice, and one almost infinite, given standard
mores.
Reply
You have done a pretty good job this election season shining light on various and sundry foibles, bad ads and other crap. This one at least to me fails the OK test.
Reply
people. Courts have always held this to be the case, and you
know it as well as I.
MLK is almost as much in the public domain as Reagan.
Presidents, by virtue of their unique position, are obviously
the people MOST in the public domain.
And if some ad used footage of MLK to support a McCain position
I would most certainly not say that it was equivalent to using
two little kids to support positions they have no clue about.
No way. No how. No such standard.
We're not arguing whether the ad was in good taste here; I don't
think it was particularly. The argument was about the equivalence
of using a video and words of a towering figure out of history
and American politics to support a person and a political position he probably wouldn't have supported, versus using two completely
unknown kids as pawns.
The former is politics; the latter is sick.
IMHO
Reply
Leave a comment