Attention, political video makers: the year is *2012*.

You know how we were promised a future that never showed up?  Well, that’s because we were actually working instead on a future where virtually everything that got published for public consumption – particularly video – would end up on one or more social media sites for the perusal of all.  And we have that future, only not everybody’s really thought through the implications yet.

Still…  since the technology has changed, so must professional habits.  For example: in this post’s comments section it’s suggested that the reason why the increasingly infamous Joe Soptic is apparently wearing the same shirt in two supposedly separate videos is because the same people did the filming and provided a shirt picked for its emotional message.  Not being an expert in projecting meaning via subtle visual cues, I have no way to assess whether such things actually work – but I do know this: if you’re a filmmaker working on the assumption that critics can’t easily compare two video clips, and easily present that comparison to the public, you’re running a huge risk of being burned.

Hey, I’m sure that the people who did illustrated manuscripts had a lot of trenchant criticism of moveable type, too.

Moe Lane


8 thoughts on “Attention, political video makers: the year is *2012*.”

  1. Occam’s Razor reduces the explanations to two:
    1) Both videos were shot the same day
    2) That’s his best shirt, and he wore it for both interview because of that

    1. Jeff: “Reasonable doubt?” This ain’t a courtroom: Soptic’s not going to go to jail because he did interviews, even if it turns out that the same people did them both and one right after the other. This is a question of public opinion, and the public does not trust political campaigns as far as they can throw them. 🙂

  2. True, Moe. In the short term, public opinion is what matters. However, if this DOES go to court (and it should, as a warning to others), it’s a plausible enough excuse for these slimeballs (the Obama campaign and the PAC, not Soptic – I could care less about him) to slither out from under sanctions. If nothing else incriminating is found, anyway.

  3. Jeff:
    They’ll need to provide timestamped evidence of when those were shot, should there be a court case. If they destroy the evidence or are unable to come up with it, the civil fines should be entertaining.

  4. I think everyone is missing the obvious implication: Mitt Romney’s cruel disbanding of the steel company so impoverished Mr. Soptic that he can only afford a single shirt to wear.

Comments are closed.