Subliminal Racism in New McCain Ad
This hasn’t been posted anywhere yet, and I wanted to share it with you guys first.
Take a look at the new John McCain ad entitled “Special.” See if anything sticks out at you:
Yes? No? Well, take a closer look 11 seconds in. Here is a screen-shot:
Okay, that’s fine. He doesn’t have experience. But that is not what the eye is first drawn towards. The center line reading “lacks the” is formatted higher towards the line above it, and is indented.
Upon first watching this ad, my brain immediately saw the word “BLACKS” combining the “B” from Barack with the indented “Lacks” from the line below it. Happy coincidence? How about the fact that the word “The” never completely fades into equal brightness with the rest of the text in the advertisement, nicely highlighting the bright word “BLACKS.” Both were choices made in an editing room somewhere. There is no way, from an editing standpoint, that this happened accidentally. The choice to indent and to not brighten were conscious editing decisions.
Even from a graphic design standpoint there is no real need to indent that line like that. With six days left until the polls open, John McCain is showing his true colors. This is entirely outrageous.
[EDIT: Just saw this ad on television and the shading is much different. It isn't nearly as clear on television. Perhaps the shading is YouTubes fault.]
If you enjoyed this post, please consider to leave a comment or subscribe to the feed and get future articles delivered to your feed reader.
Comments
It’s not about what other words you can see. It’s the fact the your likely to put the b with lacks because of the indent and different brightness levels.
It’s not like racial attacks are unheard of in modern political campaigning. Willy Horton, the Jesse Helms “Hands” ad, and the Bob Corker “Call me, Harold!” ad from 2006 are all examples far less subtle than this one..
I think it’s pretty clear Republicans want voters to go into the booth questioning whether or not they should vote for a black man. It’s unfortunate, but it’s the truth.
barack obama blacks experience.
pat: willie horton (while racist) is a little old to be called modern. and the Corker ad was sexist, not racist. it WOULD have been racist to change a playboy bunny stereotype (which was white, because it is) to a black person just because some people think that only blacks should be allowed to date blacks.
travis: i know you know how to edit, so i’m surprised at your conclusion. We make political ads in my office — and lots of times they’re made very quickly or late at night. It’s entirely reasonable that somebody wouldn’t think “gee, i better go back and alter this to make sure that the word ‘the’ fully fades in. otherwise this will be racist.”
and i totally see why they didn’t want it left-alligned. that WOULD look weird.
and even still, how would including the word “Blacks” be a racist attack? You think people don’t know obama is black?
what about that brown background! and that brown tie he’s wearing! and the desaturated colors commonly used to depict people/food/products negatively — that’s less color and more BLACK and white! and his name starts with B and ends in K, JUST LIKE BLACK. and there’s a picture of him being black!
Crying wolf with the race card does harm to the obama camp and to the black community as a whole. People should be careful when they make claims like that.
Some comments this post has created on other websites:
“Agreed. I’ve worked in motion graphics; the highlight on Obama’s right side defines the B shape, while the large, bold font with gradient ramp pulls in the rest of the word. From a motion graphics perspective, they are subtly spelling out BLACK. To me it is clear as day.”
“Yep, it’s not just the alignment just under the ‘b’ in the first line. Obama’s silhouette makes a B. Dark, threatening, LACK pops out, B shape, oh my god he’s going to steal my bike.”
“Anyone who thinks there’s a “coincedence” in a commercial doesn’t understand the first thing about commercials.”
This reminds me of a Republican ad a an election or two ago (I’m forgetting it it was Bush v Gore or Bush v Kerry) in which the word “Democrats” faded in in such a way that the word “rats” was visible before anything else. This is to say, of course, that the Republicans are not above subliminal messaging.
Less subtley, but more recently, Elizabeth Dole (R-NC senator incumbent) released an ad likening Democrat challenger Kay Hagan to a godless heathen because she received money from the Godless Americans PAC, which supports atheist rights. Another Republican in fear of losing her job, resorting to non-issues in an attempt to woo voters.
The Republicans are constantly sinking to new lows, and I think that in the next few days we are going to be very disgusted (albeit not surprised) with what they come up with.
his silhouette makes a B? i’m not saying this is a coincidence. i’m saying it’s not there at all.
and i still don’t understand the central claim here that subliminally entering the word “black” would even be a racist attack. Seriously, does anyone have an answer to that?
“and i still don’t understand the central claim here that subliminally entering the word “black” would even be a racist attack”
Uh, I think it’s cuz we’re supposed to say “African American” now…
It is highlighting his race when many Americans are still uncomfortable with a black man leading the country.
but doesn’t showing a picture of him pretty well illustrate that he’s black? is there anybody unsure of his race until they get the subliminal word “black”? I mean i guess there were all those people about a year ago who were going on about how obama “isn’t really black,” but come on!
and does anybody else think it’s weird that they end the ad with “he’s not ready …. yet.” that’s the one thing i really don’t understand about this ad.
I think the word blacks, as opposed to black, is significant because it doesn’t point to just Obama. I’ve specifically heard family members tell me that they’re “not ready to be ruled by the blacks.” By highlighting blacks in the ad, it could heighten fears of an Obama administration resulting in policies that only advantage African-Americans at the expense of white Americans. Given that the nature of racism requires that you lump an entire group together, using blacks ties Obama to this type of racist, anti-white conspiracy theory.
I also don’t think Willy Horton is “too old” to be modern. Lee Atwater is the godfather of modern Republican campaign tactics and that ad was a coordinated effort on the part of the Bush campaign to stoke racial fears in America. I think the shift from overt to subliminal racial appeals in campaigns is “modern”, as opposed to when southern politicians could just go on about segregation, integration, etc. Thus, I think the Willy Horton ad is a relevant example.
The Corker ad had a white women telling a black candidate to “Call me!”. In the south (or anywhere I guess, but I feel like it’s especially salient in the south), the “black men always want white women” stereotype is pretty well established. Now, obviously the Playboy bunny aspect of the whole thing waters down the argument that the ad is completely racist, but to deny that it was appealing to the aforementioned stereotype in some way is naive I think.
After sending this link to the professor of racial studies at GW, he said the same thing immediately popped out at him.
I’ve also seen quite a number of videos of people saying that the blacks will run wild in the streets if Obama is elected. Dumb people are nervous that whites will suddenly become slaves.
okay, i think you’re right about horton, i see how you can count it as modern.
i still disagree with you about the corker ad, mainly on the grounds that there was no other legitimate way to represent a Playboy Bunny, and the possibility that racist people had racist thoughts when they saw it isn’t strong evidence that the ad itself was racist. I also don’t believe that the whole ad was created around the concept of the playboy bunny. I actually worked on an ad that included a playboy bunny, and it was something thrown in as a funny joke (but it did reflect an honest claim). From my limited experience, i just really doubt that anybody spent that much time trying to stoke latent racial fears with something so obviously purposed for other reasons. the ad was probably put together from concept to completion in 48 hours.
travis, did you send the link to this blog entry which tells people to see subliminal racism in the ad before they watch it, or did you send the video itself? I actually wonder what some of my old pcm professor’s would say. I know one would agree with me. And I’m pretty sure one would just make a horrible face and hold her mouth, but that might not actually mean anything. Kat, knows what i’m talking about! yeah. blacks.
…..yet.
Huh,
I watched it before scrolling down to see what you thought, and Blacks never jumped out at me. However, 6 seconds in there’s a white light over his head that reminded me vaguely of a white turban, as seen below:
http://www.shukronline.com/mh1701.html
No but really, there are some things worth pointing out.
I read somewhere that McCain’s campaign has used those bright and jarring flashes in many commercials to make the viewer as uneasy as possible, and also because they resemble explosions.
I also like how one of the last shots is just a line of suvs. Just saying.
the bright flashes probably have more to do with looking like camera flashes — the kind that surround celebrities — than they do with explosions. the lines of unsold suv’s probably have more to do with ohio voters and job loss due to the economic crisis and spending downturn thats causing car manufacturers to shut down factories.
You know how it’s bad that republicans try to call Obama a terrorist? you get how it’s ridiculous the lengths some people will go to try to make it look like he’s a terrorist? and you understand why some republicans would like to do it though– because what’s more stigmatizing in america than being a terrorist? Of course, a terrorist can’t win an election.
so you understand why the Obama campaign, or it’s fervent supporters, would love to make McCain look like a racist.
Isn’t ludicrous name calling based on patently outrageous claims bad no matter what side is doing it? Isn’t it irresponsible (even dangerous?) to try to stoke false controversies like that? Isn’t it obvious what’s actually going on?
If McCain really wanted to bring up the race issue… why doesn’t he harp on Wright? Despite the fact that Wright is the PERFECT example of the kind of black person old white people are scared of, McCain hasn’t touched him. Wouldn’t that be an almost perfect way to do it, actually? Why, if he had that opportunity, would he ignore it in favor of outrageously imperceptible “subliminal messaging.” My guess is that it’s because he’s not racist and he’s been very conscious to make that clear to the american public.
I disagree. From a graphic design POV, it helps to have “LACKS” indented, because, as a practical matter, you’re dealing with a typeface in all caps. The text follows the line of his jaw, as does the background gradient shading.
People are more likely to read advertising text that is set asymmetrically. The fact that “THE” is partially shaded out isn’t corroboratory evidence of anything. McCain supporters have been reciting this talking point, verbaitim, for months — phrased both with the definite article “the”, and without it. Shading out “THE” is simply done for parsimony.
More than one person, probably, in the cutting room noticed the coincidental spelling of “BLACKS”. But do you believe the McCain people thought this racial “dog whistle” would convince anyone who wasn’t already voting for McCain to swing Republican. I don’t think so.
There are SO many ways the McCain apparatus could have racially shaded this ad — if that really been their original intent. A background of ghetto-fabulous purple, for example.
A distinction between John McCain and and the “McCain appartus” must be made. I don’t think John McCain is a racist.
Did the person who made this ad know what he or she was doing? Yes, I think they did.
[...] “Also, putting a “B” in front of “lacks” isn’t very subliminal, John McCain.” — The Colonialist [...]
The lighting in this version of the ad was very different then the version that played last night after Obama’s variety half-hour. This version is much darker and more ominous than the one last night. My mind definitely saw the word black immediately and in this version it seemed to imply a darkness and fear connected to that black, but last night’s version did not do that nearly as much.
What bothered me more was the “…yet” at the end of the ad, which was weird and confusing. Not yet? When? Tomorrow? Next election? It completely undermined the argument. Just say he’s not ready, don’t say he’s not ready… yet. The first way is ten billion times more effective.
It isn’t very apparent at first, but once the wall of text finishes filling the screen, your brain can’t process it all at once. However, the first letter “B” and the largest text “LACKS” are the first thing that your brain picks up on, and naturally will combine it together.
I caught this on the second viewing of that commercial. No way this is unintentional. The idea is to undecided voters “do you really want a black man as president?”
I’m surprised so few have picked up on this. Why should we give the McCain campaign the benefit of the doubt on this one? They’ve proven that they are willing to stoop to anything.
Fer sure - this is don’t with intent - it was the first thing that poped out at me when watching the ad - i think the ad producer made it a little too obvious… as well as the Ex-American line up. To the idiots posting here that think it wasn’t intentional - have a read about NLP type programming - its a fact and a reality, and McCain is trying to make use of it… the scary thing is - it just might work.
So. Let’s get this straight: John McCain is “outrageous” for an indentation that some people have senselessly extrapolated out to explicit racism, while Obama’s actual relationships with criminals and extremists like Rezko, Ayers or Rev. Wright are considered out of bounds in discourse. The double standard being set by Obama supporters is the only outrageous part of this blog post. Drink too much of the Obama Kool-Aid, Travis?
And no, I’m not a pissed off McCain voter… I have never supported John McCain and never will. But I will defend a baseless attack on his credibility.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122533157015082889.html
“The morning after the election, the disappointment will begin to settle upon the Obama crowd. Defeat — by now unthinkable to the devotees — will bring heartbreak. Victory will steadily deliver the sobering verdict that our troubles won’t be solved by a leader’s magic.”
AJ,
Of course it’s arguable as to whether this ad was done with intent, but if it was, this double standard you are describing is completely ridiculous. Is it even a double standard? It doesn’t make sense. Are you saying that it shouldn’t be out of bounds to subliminally point out Obama’s race as a negative attribute? Or that it SHOULD be out of bounds to accuse McCain of racism, with evidence? I think there really is no double standard that can compare having relationships with extremists to being racist.
The double standard is that it is perfectly acceptable to openly accuse McCain of being a racist while it is considered dirty politics when people ask questions about Obama having relationships with extremists.
No one can actually prove McCain is a racist, but it is a fact that Barack Obama has had relationships with people mainstream America find extreme and unacceptable.
The same people who criticize McCain and his “dirty politics” for bringing up Bill Ayers are quick to call McCain a racist without solid evidence. That is a double standard.
My argument is also in no way critical of Barack Obama. He has not once accused McCain of running a subliminally racist campaign. Probably because he has moved past this kind of childishness.
Seriously? There’s repping your candidate, there’s being on the lookout for inappropriateness, and then there’s crying wolf. Get over yourself.
I watched it through, even saw that screenshot beforehand so I’d know what frame to look for. Wasn’t until I read your description that I had an inkling about what you saw. Even then, I still think you’re deluding yourself.
AJ,
here’s what you just did:
you brought up something that has no direct bearing on he topic at hand, which concerns whether or not this McCain ad contains racist overtones.
then you argue that a double standard is in operation because no-one else has brought up this completely different campaign issue, which isn’t relevant to the present discussion.
That’s a really weird way to argue.
I just watched it again. Not only is “lacks” indented for no reason, not only do other words never even fully come into light, but the text as a whole fades in from the upper left hand corner to the bottom right hand corner. In other words, the B fades in and then the “lacks” in order. If you follow the “curtain” being drawn (this is sort of what a fade-in effect is mimicking), you inevitably read “blacks”
More specifically, your double standard makes no sense. You say that we think it’s dirty politics to mention Obama in the same sentence as Ayers. But no-one here ever said that. So who is operating this double standard? It begins to sound like you’re arguing against yourself, which makes you look neurotic.
You seem to completely miss the point of this discussion, which is to debate whether or not McCain is playing on people’s racial fears to get votes (which is a subtle condoning of racism). Your solution is that we shouldn’t talk about this openly? That’s silly. Perhaps you think we should talk about Obama being a terrorist instead (which is really what you’re implying). But you dont make a very sympathetic argument, because your first motion is to act condescendingly towards travis, an editor of this blog.
In other words, what you’re really doing is complaining about the fact that there aren’t colonialist articles linking Obama to a terrorist from the 1960s who is now a respected academic. And you’re also insulting the people who determine the content of this website.
Again, that’s a really weird way to argue.
I keep commenting because the psychology behind this is so fascinating. AJ, have you been really frustrated in general by this whole election? You must feel like you’re the only one who gets it, while the people around you run around not paying any attention to what seems like a huge problem to you - the fact that Obama served on an education board with Bill Ayers. Then you mention this fact to people and they shrug it off, as I just did.
Why would we just shrug it off? Because we’re stupid? Because we operate under a double standard? Why would we operate under a double standard? Because we’re unfair and manipulative? Perhaps you think we’re blinded by our love for Obama, and this blindness makes us unconcerned with notions of fairness. Or perhaps we don’t think it’s a problem that Obama knows Bill Ayers, because we know Obama is not a terrorist and do not question his patriotism. Let’s be charitable and assume we shrug off your concerns because of this last reason. If you are in a counter position, you have to hold that Obama is a terrorist, or is in some problematic way not interested in protecting this country. Do you really think that? Why? If you answer: “because he has had associations with terrorists”, then you fall into several logical fallacies. First, you make the guilt by association fallacy (frequently employed by republicans). The fallacy is as follows:
Person A makes claim P.
Group B make claims P and Q
Therefore, Person A makes claim Q.
It should be obvious how this fits. Another example of this fallacy is when people call Obama a communist or a socialist, because they, like Obama, believe in redistribution of wealth.
Second, I think your argument is circular.
Do you have any actual evidence of Obama being a terrorist or unpatriotic? I don’t think you do. Most people don’t. That’s probably why we dismiss your concerns so easily, because they are a product of faulty reasoning designed to monger fear. Speculatively, I think you operate under the assumption that if you act mad enough or loud enough about an argument you’re making it automatically gets some validity. Well, it doesn’t. It’s still a stupid argument.
First off, there never was the word “the” after lacks.
But second off, WHAT THE FUCK? Are you fucking kidding me?
I also see the word RAP, and KK and KIKE…
WOW.