Slate's Bizbox
ad report card: Advertising deconstructed.

The Ads of WarMartin Sheen vs. Tom Ridge in a battle of commercials.

By Rob Walker
Posted Monday, Feb. 24, 2003, at 11:43 AM ET
Martin Sheen acting the part

The official word from the U.S. government, as I understand it, is that there is no connection between a potential war with Iraq and the recent uptick of terror fright. The Ad Report Card has a different take and believes it is perfectly valid to use one column to look at two current campaigns: one that opposes war in Iraq, and one that encourages you to "be ready," in a calm and rational way, for terrorist attacks.

Win Without War is a "coalition" of groups "that aim to Keep America Safe by advocating alternatives to pre-emptive war in Iraq," according to its Web site—where you can view three related TV ads. In the most recent spot, actor Martin Sheen touts the "virtual March on Washington," which apparently means sending anti-war faxes and e-mail and so on to relevant government officials. "Don't invade Iraq," Sheen declares. "Inspections work. War won't." In an earlier ad, comedian Janeane Garofalo informs viewers of a U.N. estimate of half a million casualties "if we invade Iraq." She asks, "Do we have the right to do that to a country that's done nothing to us?" The question is answered by Bishop Melvin Talbert of United Methodist Church—"President Bush's church." And a still earlier ad shows a little girl picking petals off a daisy. As she does, a grave-sounding voice-over wonders what might happen if a war in Iraq does not end quickly. "Maybe extremists will take over countries with nuclear weapons." There's a countdown, an extreme close-up of the little girl, and a cut to a mushroom cloud. "Let the inspections work," the narrator implores.

That last ad is of course an homage to—or a straight rip-off of—one of the most famous and most effective political ads ever (you can see it here, click "Daisy"), from the 1964 presidential campaign in which LBJ thumped Barry Goldwater. Although the new and warmed-over Daisy ad is not as cleanly executed or as effective as the still-chilling original, it's probably the best of the anti-war spots that have aired so far. One simple reason is that it is celebrity free.

Garofalo has complained that TV news shows book actors to voice the anti-war line "so they can marginalize the movement." Maybe so. But if the famous-face factor devalues the message, then what are celebrities doing in these ads? If I'm going to hear, say, Martin Sheen talk about foreign policy, I'd rather hear him in an actual debate (where we could judge whether he knows what he's talking about) than listen to him airily declare that an offensive on Iraq won't work and tell me I should write my congressman because he says so. This is how old-school celebrity endorsements were thought to work—viewers soaked in the famous person's aura and bought whatever he or she said. But there's a reason you don't see many ads like that anymore.

Anyway, it seems that the message that the anti-war crowd really wants to get out is that lots of your fellow Americans have doubts about the direction our Iraq policy seems to be headed. If that's the case, hearing from some of those folks would have been a lot more effective than hearing from the man who plays a president on TV. (I mean Sheen, not Dubya.)

The government, meanwhile, has gone more Main Street in its "Be Ready" campaign. (Production costs for these were actually covered not by the government but by a private nonprofit group called the Sloan Foundation, which counts bioterrorism threats among its pet issues; free airtime is being sought by the Ad Council, whose site has all the spots.) In one called "Every Family," Tom Ridge, against a plain gray backdrop and speaking in no-nonsense tones, says, "Every family in America should prepare itself for a terrorist attack." He suggests visiting www.ready.gov or calling 1-800-BE-READY for a brochure. But in other ads, like the longer one called "Plans," featuring New York City firefighters, "Security is not always a given," as one of them says. Another suggests rounding up a radio, flashlight, and so on. Ridge chimes in to say, "You'll have done something to prepare. You're in control, you had a choice. We're asking America to be ready."

Ridge has had a bit of a rough time recently, what with his early advice about duct tape transforming itself into a coast-to-coast punch line overnight. "It's not always easy to know the right thing to say," he commented recently. Yet that sentiment has not stopped the current barrage of "readiness" information and warnings. It was shrewd to use firefighters, who have a good deal more credibility these days than either actors or politicians. But the campaign still seems more than anything else to be a replay of the Cold War "civil-defense" plans that David Greenberg assessed in a recent Slate piece: The real point is simply to make you feel as though, whatever happens, you can do something.

It's easy to spot one theme that links these two campaigns: fear. The new "Daisy" spot scares you into opposing war, the security spots scare you into making a survival kit. The line "Every family in America should prepare itself for a terrorist attack," for example, could be part of either campaign. And actually, it's not hard to imagine the anti-war crowd borrowing, and challenging, a line from one of the readiness ads: "You're in control, you had a choice."

Print This ArticlePRINTDiscuss this in The FrayDISCUSSEmail to a FriendE-MAIL
Share on FacebookPost to MySpace!Share with MixxDigg ThisShare with RedditShare with del.icio.usShare with FurlShare with Ma.gnolia.comShare with SphereShare with Stumble Upon
Rob Walker writes the Ad Report Card for Slate.
Still © 2003 Win Without War.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?
POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES

Remarks From The Fray:

Sheen spends his days in L.A., making decisions on public policy based on no more or less info than you and I have every day.

Ridge spends his days in Washington, with access to info you and I just don't have.

Whose word will YOU take as being better informed?
-- Shelia

(To reply, click here.)


Ridge is told what to say by the Bush regime.
Sheen is told what to say by his conscience.
I think I'll go with Sheen.

-- AnneMarie-2

(To reply, click here.)


Whose word would I take at being more well informed?

I suspect that I would make up my own mind based on all available information.

Though I like Tom Ridge's humility when he said, "It's not always easy to know the right thing to say." But it is kind of scary from a guy who is supposedly in the "know," that he does not know the right thing to say. I also like Tom Ridges sense of humor about the duct tape issue.

As for Martin Sheen, he is no better than you, or I, or your next door neighbor with respect to his opinion. Sheen just has a platform from which to speak. In fact we all have a platform and it is this bulettin board. Celebrity has it's own rewards and costs. Celebrities sold War Bonds some time ago. Was it a mistake to listen to them? Or, does it depend on the message they are delivering and if you agree with it or not?

So, who would I trust? I would trust myself, because both men give me pause.

-- zyzzyg

(To reply, click here.)


Let's ask Sheen this question: The group he helps lead says this about its mission:

"We are patriotic Americans who share the belief that Saddam Hussein cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction. We support rigorous UN weapons inspections to assure Iraq's effective disarmament. We believe that a preemptive military invasion of Iraq will harm American national interests."

OK, but if you believe (as patriotic Americans) that Saddam "cannot be allowed to possess weapons of mass destruction." did you express this belief in any way prior to three months ago when as a result of the US buildup of military forces in the Gulf and the US-sponsored resolution in the Security Council, which passed 15-0?

And is it not the transparent that the only reason there are inspectors in Iraq who might, if you're right, be able to assure Iraq's effective disarmament is that the US is threatening an attack?

And given what happened to the inspections process in the past, what is it about the new inspections regime that gives you any confidence that it will succeed more than its predecessors -- unless it is the threat of US military action?

It would seem, therefore, that the mere "preemptive" buildup of US forces has accomplished, to date, the very purposes that you, Mr. Sheen, proclaim as your own.

So, if it were to become the case -- and I know this is difficult for you to consider -- that no further progress toward the agreed-upon goal of Saddam's disarmament were to be made (and this is an empirical question), why would you not contemplate the escalation from preemptive buildup to preemptive military action?

Again, that's a question that presupposes further delay and non-compliance from Saddam. At what point does his non-compliance justify action? At no point, ever? You'll forgive me, but that is how it seems. Oh, is the answer that preemptive war would be OK if it were approved by the Security Council? If so, how can you reconcile your proclaimed interest in US national interests with your insistence on a process that can be vetoed by Russia, China or France purely for reasons of their own?

--Publius

(To reply, click here.)


Personally, I find nothing wrong with actors giving their viewpoint on the war and supporting the anti-war movement. Don't marginalize their political views simply because you think they're "Follyhood" idiots or "Hollyweird" gloryboys. As Janeane Garofalo said during cross-fire, the actors in the anti-war movement are not professional political scientists. They don't claim to be. They are, however, in the unique position (because of their fame) to be able to broadcast their views to a larger audience. They never claim to have superior position in this political debate ("debate," as in it's legitimate to disagree) merely because of their celebrity status.

While nobodys like ourselves are forced to post our scathing, common-man viewpoints and brilliant political insights in the Fray, famous actors are able to star in television ads and get onto cnn. Fine by me. Just because Garofalo is a comedian doesn't mean that she can't have intelligent, respectable views on political matters. The same goes for the high school sophomore, the public accountant, and the U.S. army private first-class - -they can all have good things to say regardless of their background.

I know it's unfair that these Hollywood names get to be on TV when you and I don't have that opportunity, and maybe we're a little jealous. But these figures never claim to have exclusive rights as "the voice of the people" - they merely act (pun?) as vocal supporters of a legitimate anti-war movement. Disagree with the anti-war movement. But don't get all self-righteous when you see Carrot-top telling us he's in favor of more U.N. inspections - you, after all, have the Fray to say the exact opposite.

-- slims

(To reply, click here.)

(2/25)

Washington Post