Bob Herbert offers a psychological analysis of McCain’s Britney Spears/Paris Hilton advertisement. I was always wondering why some people said that this ad was similar to the Harold Ford ad the GOP ran against him which stirred racial tensions between Black men with White women but now I can understand why.
When I saw this commercial this is not what came to mind at, all but after looking at it again I do see the subliminal messages which are similar to the Harold Ford ad. Of all the famous people like Tom Cruise, Katie Holmes, Brad and Angelina they chose two sleezy famous women. Paris appears to be posing at a destination and Britney is arriving at a particular destination as she is getting out of a car. Next you see the large crowds, which are supposed to be attributed to Obama, but the Washington Monument is in the background.
So is one of the many messages that these two very rich, famous, sleezy women would not have been interested in appearing at an Obama victory rally until after he has won in Washington? And if he doesn’t win then you don’t have to worry about these two women or women like this showing any interest in him? (or others like him)
I believe that the rise of interracial relationships that include lower class whites is due to the popularity of Rap and R&B. Through heavy commercialization of the Thug Image through the media, politics, world class musical awards the black thug has increased it’s appeal world wide. But what does that leave out? The black educated. Usually the educated black is pushed aside because the thug fetish is not there. Calling him uppity or too white. Even some lower class black women have a turn off from the Educated class of Black men. They may try it out for financial stability but sexual the attraction is still for the thug.
There isn’t a commercial thrive to push the educated black mans status to the same level of the thug rap artist. But like Rap it took a flood of the 70% White sales and a lot of acceptance in the pop culture to acquire it’s current status.
But now you have Sen. Obama, an educated Black man who has both charisma and oratory skills, causing some people to cry and even pass out in his rallies. He is threatening the suppression of the appeal for the Educated Black man and if he gets all the way into the Oval office not only will it set an example for others to possibly follow but the psychological effect of seeing lots of young WHITE women screaming over an educated black man display of his intellect is something SOMEBODY doesn’t want to happen. The spot light will be on the part of the black community which the media pays little attention to and the negative stereotype will take a major hit.
What better way to instill those fears? The inclusion of Nicole Richie would have been counter productive because she is bi racial. Or maybe she was left out because the intent of the message would have been TOO obvious or it would have taken away from the effect of two blond rich White women who are now showing an interest in someone who is not a musical artist. And you know what other thoughts lead from that with the two women they selected.
You know what they say the difference is between a whore and a bitch? A whore screws everybody. A bitch screws everybody but you! Now of all the people Paris has been with have you ever seen her with a Black guy? How about Brittney? Well the subliminal message is ( or could have been) Vote for Obama and you will possibly transform them from being the bitches to equal opportunity whores.
If you didn’t see the ad here it goes. Notice all the flashes and images:
Herbert explains his piece in these two videos.
Bob Herbert on Morning Joe Part 1
Bob Herbert on Morning Joe Part 2
Now let place these comments in this context
“You’re not supposed to see them consciously. This is marketing 101. Every tenth of every second of a high-profile advertisement is scrutinized by those who create them. You want some evidence? Look at about any beer/cigarette ad in existence, and you will find suggestive shadows, angles the beers are set in the ice to look like spread legs. It’s more overt in ads for those things but this is basic info if you have taken a high-school level psychology class. No detail is accidental in an ad.
Mr.Herbert’s so called “drivel” is clearly obvious to anyone who knows anything about marketing. I am serious. This is literally public high-school level psychology. This is settled science. There is no detail too tiny to scrutinize in an advertisement, and absolutely nothing in a high-price advertisement is accidental. The reason everyone “didn’t see it” is that they weren’t supposed to “see” it. It’s all about back-ground and subtext. The business of influencing the public is an exact science.”
Click here for the Bob Herberts piece.
And for more info on subliminal ads look up Harold Ford’s run for senate and the ads run against him, and then compare the two.
The editorial board apologies for the delay in this guest commentary by Dreadsen, which was supposed to be posted on August 9, 2008. Any dated information is the fault of YD2008 Editorial Board, and not the writer.