Philip de Vellis, aka ParkRidge47, has arrived. He is the individual claiming responsibility for the video on Youtube showing Mrs. Hillary Clinton as "Big Brother". This is his claim to fame. According to himself, he produced the video at home on his own computer with no input from his employer, Blue State Digital, who happens to be working for the Barack Obama campaign.
Part of me feels that we should just laugh heartily at the whole spectacle (which I will be talking more about here!) - that would be the part of me that is not enrolled in BECA 702. But a part of me (that which is enrolled in BECA 702) is "compelled" to analyze this whole spectacle.
What has happened here? A well produced political video/advertisement has been shown to the public (in the millions). At first "the people" did not know the identity of the creator. There was a big search (mostly by the political groups) for the creator's identity and then he came forward and said that he was proud of it. Then he resigned his position. He said, "The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication."
Whether he was fired or resigned or resigned by "encouragement" the question is why. Why would this individual be jobless as a result of being creative and democratic?
Barack Obama said on "Larry King live" that this phenomena is the "democratization of the campaign process." While it seems to be media access for "the people" I wonder if Obama feels that the individual's joblessness as a result of this post is a democratic result.
Other sources (www.patrickruffini) suggest strongly that this production is too professional to be a creative project at home. This source has posts suggesting more of a conspiratorial organization working on behalf of the Obama campaign. Kinda like a "Big Brother" behind the scenes operation!
Already we have Hillary shown as "Big Brother" (sorry Hillary) and now we have the Barack Obama campaign being likened to the "Big Brother" idea.
Let's see if the individual instigator (if he did work as an individual) can be "Big Brother" too. I won't bore you with all the definitions of "Big Brother" in my Merrian-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary but indulge me for one definition - "an all-powerful government or organization monitoring and directing people's actions." Taking a page out of de Vellis' book we can be creative and see a way to arguing that he is "directing people's actions."
One may even argue that de Vellis is THE "Big Brother" in this instance. His creation has directed a lot of action. But he did become jobless as a result either by choice or design. We need more investigation in this "information age" to determine who is suffering here and who is really directing. (We will ignore the suffering of "the people" listening to the whole affair for now.)
Hillary Clinton suffered by being portrayed as "Big Brother" in a negative ad. Barack Obama suffered by having his campaign associated with a negative ad campaign. Philip de Vellis suffered by becoming unemployed (possibly as a result of trying to be "Big Brother").
On the other hand: Hillary Clinton may have gained popularity by "the people" seeing that she is being victimized by political ads. Barack Obama may have gained popularity by being seen as not interested in this kind of negative ad.
Philip de Vellis may have gained... - we don't know yet. He might get a great job. He might be the "Big Brother" that has gained popularity. We all know who he is now and we didn't know two weeks ago. Maybe he'll be famous for being famous. Maybe he's going to join the race! Who knows?
All three can be identified in this case as "Big Brother" (sorry Hillary). Maybe they are. If they all are "Big Brother" then equality exists. By all the players being "Big Brother", all the players are equal. If all the players are equal then are we not moving towards a Marxist situation?
Or is it a mix of Democracy and Marxism? In this case we can see "Access to the Media, "the people's" media" as the acting government in a democracy where every individual has real potential access to the media i.e the government. Have we attained that which many have sought for generations - A Democracy for the People - A Marxist Society - A Democracy for the people by the people - Equality?
What we have here is true democracy in the guise of "Big Brother" through democratic technology. The democratic media technologies are giving voice to all sides.
A marxist result is apparent.
Who would've guessed this if they just laughed heartily at the whole spectacle. Thank you BECA 702.
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2007/03/22/MNGDROPM7G1.DTL
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/22/us/politics/22hillary.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
http://www.huffingtonpost.com on 3/21/07 and go to "I made the "Vote Different" Ad"
http://www.patrickruffini.com
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Interesting issue, though nobody can be sure of the behind-the-scene intention of this guy. It just reminds me the fake White House reporter from a Republican website. However, I really can't understand the connection between this case and "Big Brother," and Marxism. Have I read different books?
The democratic technology I speak of lets an unknown become powerful. This power, I argue, can lead us to be confused as to who is recognizable as "Big Brother". Indeed we can ,I argue, identify the three characters as "Big Brother". If everyone is Big Brother then everyone is equal. If everyone is equal we have a marxist society.
Post a Comment