9-11 Images for Campaign Ads
- Thread starter DRB
- Start date
I'll help ya get back on topic 
Remember, I think it's tasteless and inappropriate for anyone to use the images like Bush did; however, I think the presentation of said tasteless material was done in a tasteful and quick (~4 seconds?) fashion. I think only people looking for it or directly affected would actually see it.
Gonna disagree with ya there
Remember, I think it's tasteless and inappropriate for anyone to use the images like Bush did; however, I think the presentation of said tasteless material was done in a tasteful and quick (~4 seconds?) fashion. I think only people looking for it or directly affected would actually see it.
Come on why put it in there if they didn't think the majority of people were going to see it and react to it?Originally posted by LordOpie
I'll help ya get back on topic
Gonna disagree with ya there
Remember, I think it's tasteless and inappropriate for anyone to use the images like Bush did; however, I think the presentation of said tasteless material was done in a tasteful and quick (~4 seconds?) fashion. I think only people looking for it or directly affected would actually see it.
Most folks will see it and it will be the focal point of the add. I bet they focus grouped it until the point that people stopped noticing it as much and then that was the amount of footage they attributed to it. They aren't going to waste TV money without knowing that.
I think people will "notice" it and it has the potential to generate some positive emotional response, but I don't think the average person will come any where near the level of analyzing it that we do. I think it'll just sit in most people's subconscious.
That's exactly right and back to my orginial point, if you were to ask 100 folks that had seen it, they will remember the 9-11 footage. It is that poignant to most if not all Americans that its gonna stick.
Its like habaneros, you don't have to use a lot to get the affect.
That or it burns goin in and come'n out.
Rhino "I hate Tobasco" from WA
-yeah I am a spicy wimp....but I am an accountant so it all fits.
uhh, you keep saying "ask 100 people", but you don't say how many will remember. I'm thinking less than 30% would mention it if you asked them what they remember. I think maybe 2/3 will say they remember it if specifically asked. These numbers are based on everyone I asked here.
Given the recent SELF-SERVING nonsense in the media;
CLICK HERE
CLICK HERE
A few things:
The logic of not using the 9-11 attacks as a promotional tool does not pan out very well. How about this: should Kerry be able to use his Vietnam service record as a selling point in an ad? How many Vietnamese died in that war? 3 million or so? How many Amercians? 50,000 or so? If your answer is "No, he shouldn't be allowed to use it" then you are being consistent and ridiculous. 9-11 was a tragedy, Bush was president at the time and, according to him, he reacted well. Why can't he make specific visual and verbal reference to it?
Personally, I despise Bush but I also am clearheaded enough to know that 9-11 was not the worst thing to ever happen to the US or any other nation. I think there has been a large-scale overreaction to the entire event on a certain level and through certain actions. Yes, the international and domestivc policy implications were huge and, as a result, the US changed its ways. However, as a small example, take a look at how much money 9-11 victim families recieved. Is the death of someone in a terrorist attack any more difficult on a personal level than, say, someone getting killed in a bank robbery or a car crash? No.
Also, to suggest the 9-11 and Iraq are "two separate issues" is, in a strict (read: in make-believe land) sense, correct. In reality the two issues are tied. Not through money or where the terrorists came from or anything else. They are tied inseperably by the cause and effect of general US policy and executive changes. Bush did not invade (or necessarily want to invade seeing as he refused the idea when suggested) Iraq before 9-11. In my mind, no 9-11, no Iraqi Freedom. Even if you don't want to take it to that length, one must admit that the issues are not, as some have said, completely "separate".
The logic of not using the 9-11 attacks as a promotional tool does not pan out very well. How about this: should Kerry be able to use his Vietnam service record as a selling point in an ad? How many Vietnamese died in that war? 3 million or so? How many Amercians? 50,000 or so? If your answer is "No, he shouldn't be allowed to use it" then you are being consistent and ridiculous. 9-11 was a tragedy, Bush was president at the time and, according to him, he reacted well. Why can't he make specific visual and verbal reference to it?
Personally, I despise Bush but I also am clearheaded enough to know that 9-11 was not the worst thing to ever happen to the US or any other nation. I think there has been a large-scale overreaction to the entire event on a certain level and through certain actions. Yes, the international and domestivc policy implications were huge and, as a result, the US changed its ways. However, as a small example, take a look at how much money 9-11 victim families recieved. Is the death of someone in a terrorist attack any more difficult on a personal level than, say, someone getting killed in a bank robbery or a car crash? No.
Also, to suggest the 9-11 and Iraq are "two separate issues" is, in a strict (read: in make-believe land) sense, correct. In reality the two issues are tied. Not through money or where the terrorists came from or anything else. They are tied inseperably by the cause and effect of general US policy and executive changes. Bush did not invade (or necessarily want to invade seeing as he refused the idea when suggested) Iraq before 9-11. In my mind, no 9-11, no Iraqi Freedom. Even if you don't want to take it to that length, one must admit that the issues are not, as some have said, completely "separate".
Nooooo....Nowhere did I say he can show graphic images of combat. That falls under other categories that the 9-11 images we are discussing do not. Did Bush's ads show the planes hit the towers? Did they show people jumping from windows? No. While I am mysef unsure of the strict moral state of that action, it would certainly be reprehensible and distasetful. The point I was making was this: by outlawing (or opposing) ALL visual (or other) reference to 9-11, other actions that have a similar character (mass death and destruction, contemporary relevance etc.) should also not be used. This would include the Vietnam War, Iraqi Freedom, Desert Storm and other conflicts. I see the root of this issue as a sort of "special treatment" and consideration given to 9-11 families and victims. I don't understand how one could condone images of Iraq wars, Vietnam or other things if 9-11 images are not allowed. If someone says that none of these things should referenced well, that's a different story. That person is wrong about things for other reasons. I feel that Bush did no wrong in including the 9-11 bits
As for PNAC, I don't know too much. In fact, I had not heard of it until now. So, I just read most of it. Tell me where it says that Bush had a clear objective of invading Iraq at the time of the writing of that document. The document was ridiculous, ethnocentric and reactionary but I do not think it showed an intent to invade without provocation or some other impetus outside of the events of the time of writing.
Bush had the cause and means to invade Iraq the minute he took office. The possibility of invasion was suggested to him and he refused for whatever reason. After 9-11, he went ahead. Granted, this does not establish causality, only some sort of vague correlation. However, when one considers the invasion of Afghanistan, general change in American public opinions and desires and the certainly revolutionary aspect of a foreign terrorist attack on the US, the case the 9-11 was part of the cause of Iraq is strong. I am simply not convinced that Iraq would have been invaded without 9-11. These events do not exist in a vacuum. At the very least, one must concede that public support for the war in Iraq was increased (possibly from the range of unacceptable to acceptable) by 9-11.
It's obvious that your pre-conceived notions are so rooted in you that you refuse to consider other viewpoints in this subjective topic. As such, it's pointless to respond. I suspected as much with your previous post...
However, my brilliant ex-g/f always said to take the opportunity to speak with someone if there's the slightest chance they'll listen. So...
What pictures from Vietnam could Kerry use, that'd be on the same level as the ones Bush used in his ad?
As for PNAC, search threads from nearly a year ago, it was discussed pretty heavily and you'll find your answers there.
I'm off to ski... fresh powder, w00t!
I'm gonna get in trouble for this, but the propaganda had me remind one of my history classes on WWII.
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering
Adolf Hitler's Reich-Marshall
- speaking at the Nuremberg Trials following WWII
"Naturally, the common people don't want war, but after all, it is the leaders of a country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag people along, whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a parliament or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. This is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in every country."
Hermann Goering
Adolf Hitler's Reich-Marshall
- speaking at the Nuremberg Trials following WWII
I find your post obnoxious; you are making assumptions that you cannot infer through what I wrote.
Just because I say someone is "wrong" does not mean I am not listening. Simply, it is a statement of my position and what I see as its relationship to reason. I read the entire thread before I responded and made up my mind. Maybe you are confusing my writing style with arrogance. My posts have been formal, confident and strongly stated. I do not ignore other positions. What are you basing your assumptions on? I find your attitude insulting.
What "preconcieved notions" are you talking about? Certainly, I had some opinions and ideas before I started reading this. Who did not? I do not blindly make up my mind. I educate myself and try to reason things out.
In that vein, I quickly read the PNAC document and now I have read the threads that came up in a search for it and the links you provided in that thread. I still do not see evidence that Bush wanted to invade at the time of the writing of the document. I think to make that leap requires a reader to make assumptions that are not explicit and to invoke some creative interpretation. Based on what is there, I find your position on PNAC, at the least, to be overstated. The burden of proof is on you: show me where these plans were laid out. There is general talk of troop strength, spending, deposing dangerous aggressors and the like but I found nothing along the lines of what you seem to be advocating. Further, it is inconclusive whether that document would be any proof of intentions anyways. But, even if it were, I cannot find what you want me to see. If it's there, show me. There's a good chance I missed something as I read quickly.
Also, it is important to note that I am not denying the genuine nature of the emotional reaction of families. What I am contesting is their right, in the hypothetical or the concrete, to demand that Bush not use the images.
As for your question about Kerry, I am unsure of how to answer. In my mind, a video of him walking through a villiage would suffice. I am not sure how to anwers; I don't know what you're getting at here.
Didn't Ebay shut down sales that tried to profit off of the 9-11 attacks? I'm pretty sure that a lot of people looked down on those who used the tragedy to promote business and make money. How is it then that Bush, or anyone for that matter, is allowed to use images from 9-11 to benefit him/herself?
I'm not sure I think what Bush is doing is "wrong", distasteful perhaps, but I do know that there was a lot of outrage at people who tried to profit off of 9-11. Is there any difference in what they are doing and what the Republicans are doing with these ads? Would it be like saying that it is ok to sell pieces of the WTC as collector memorabilia, or is that going to far?
The Ito
I'm not sure I think what Bush is doing is "wrong", distasteful perhaps, but I do know that there was a lot of outrage at people who tried to profit off of 9-11. Is there any difference in what they are doing and what the Republicans are doing with these ads? Would it be like saying that it is ok to sell pieces of the WTC as collector memorabilia, or is that going to far?
The Ito
Just curious: what were people trying to sell on ebay? Was it pieces of the WTC? I don't remember hearing about it.
Anyways, it's a good point. Also, you distinguish between wrong and distasteful (moral vs. social obligation type of conflict). I think some of the disagreement on the issue might come from a misunderstanding of these two concepts: people not knowing which one they mean or not knowing which one someone else means.
I don't think you really went too far in your analogy but I'd have to think about it more. In response, one could point out the utlimate differences between the two situations. There are similarities but I think there are also important differences specifically regarding the relationship of the event to the one who profits (Bush/ebayer), the purpose/medium of the profit, the fact that one is selling a physical object and one a message (one is more directly profiting from the disaster) and other things.
I didn't hear about pieces of the WTC being sold, though it may have happened(as it did with the fall of the Berlin Wall), but shop memorabilia started hitting Ebay shortly after 9-11. I heard some other stories, but not sure of the validity. Tried to find the piece on Ebay sellers, but as soon as you type 9-11 into a search engine you get a million different things to scroll through.
N8, thanks for the link there, pretty incredible. Here's another similar one:
http://nyc.gov/html/fdny/media/tribute/tribute.html
The Ito
i was looking for that for a while.
its very true, and been like this since the romans.
the romans, according to themselves, never fought an offensive war. all their wars and conquest were defensive.
To me, its like boasting, "Hey, look at us! We are reactionairy instead of proactive! We didn't stop it, but we sure as hell realize now that we f*ed up!"
With all the crap about a complete lack of interagency cooperation that came out afterwards, I find the ad out of place to say the least.
With all the crap about a complete lack of interagency cooperation that came out afterwards, I find the ad out of place to say the least.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A price paid not just so you and I can vote and pray, but also so we can sit on the couch, watching TV, having 30 minute pizzas delivered to our doors. Even if you don't vote or pray, there is still plenty left worth fighting for.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
30 minute pizzas are worth invading other countries for?