Surprise dans la pr\u00e9-campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle US : des publicit\u00e9s n\u00e9gatives fabriqu\u00e9es par des personnes individuelles, contre des candidats. On n’arr\u00eate pas le progr\u00e8s. On s’en sert m\u00eame d’une fa\u00e7on inattendue.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
\tExplication de The Independent<\/em> de ce jour<\/a> :<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00abIt is the most striking, perhaps most powerful advertisement to come out of the US presidential campaign to date: a 74-second spot in which Hillary Clinton, recast as Big Brother in George Orwell’s 1984, spouts platitudes from a giant screen as her worker-drone supporters march in lock-step to offer their support.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe advertisement is a dramatic pitch for Mrs Clinton’s strongest rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Barack Obama, and quickly became the talk of the political punditry.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbBut the most striking of all is that the ad did not originate with the Obama campaign and required no political campaign money either to produce or distribute. Rather, it was made by a single unknown Obama supporter working with a laptop and a suite of video editing software, who posted his handiwork on YouTube, the video-sharing website.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbThe ad is a clever mash-up or re-edit of a famous television spot for Apple computers which ran on network television during the 1984 Superbowl, the culmination of the annual American football season.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/p>\n \t\u00bbIn the original, directed by Ridley Scott (fresh from making Blade Runner), a young woman athlete hurls a hammer at the Big Brother screen and causes it to explode, symbolising the way in which Apple hoped its then new Macintosh computers would smash all orthodoxies. In the ad’s revamped form, it is the image of Hillary that explodes, and the young athlete sports an Obama 2008 logo on her shirt<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tBien entendu, cette initiative individuelle fait courir un vent de terreur dans le monde politique US (y compris chez Obama, certes). C’est le cauchemar de la perte de contr\u00f4le par ce monde d’un des aspects essentiels de l’activit\u00e9 politique, portant qui plus est sur ce qu’il y a de plus pr\u00e9cieux pour l’homme-femme politique d’aujourd’hui : l’image, la bonne r\u00e9putation, le conformisme moral et ainsi de suite. C’est ce que l’article exprime avec cette remarque : \u00abWhether it changes any minds, the advertisement marks a radical departure in the way politics is conducted in the United States and suggests that the 2008 campaign could be an uncontrolled, and uncontrollable, free-for-all in which ordinary citizens could hold as much sway as fancy consultants and advertising agencies lobbying the main candidates for their business.<\/em>\u00bb<\/p>\n<\/p>\n \tTerrible situation au pays du laisser faire, de la libre entreprise et du lavage permanent du cerveau standard. La perspective de voir le citoyen se servir du progr\u00e8s avanc\u00e9 du syst\u00e8me pour attaquer vicieusement les repr\u00e9sentants du syst\u00e8me est terrifiante. D’une certaine fa\u00e7on, c’est une orientation semblable, quoique plus technologique et plus individuelle, donc plus am\u00e9ricaniste, \u00e0 celle qu’on distingue<\/a> en France. Comme on vous dit, il y a quelque chose de sp\u00e9cial entre France et USA.<\/p>\n<\/p>\n <\/p>\n \tMis en ligne le 20 mars 2007 \u00e0 08H24<\/p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Surprise dans la pr\u00e9-campagne pr\u00e9sidentielle US : des publicit\u00e9s n\u00e9gatives fabriqu\u00e9es par des personnes individuelles, contre des candidats. On n’arr\u00eate pas le progr\u00e8s. On s’en sert m\u00eame d’une fa\u00e7on inattendue. Explication de The Independent de ce jour : \u00abIt is the most striking, perhaps most powerful advertisement to come out of the US presidential campaign… <\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"neve_meta_sidebar":"","neve_meta_container":"","neve_meta_enable_content_width":"","neve_meta_content_width":0,"neve_meta_title_alignment":"","neve_meta_author_avatar":"","neve_post_elements_order":"","neve_meta_disable_header":"","neve_meta_disable_footer":"","neve_meta_disable_title":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[2],"tags":[3278,3879,6208,3341,6529,2804],"class_list":["post-68641","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-bloc-notes","tag-hillary","tag-individualisme","tag-obama","tag-orwell","tag-pub","tag-usa"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68641","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=68641"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/68641\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=68641"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=68641"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/new.dedefensa.org\/index.php\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=68641"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}