Quote:
Originally posted by Mmmm, Burger (C.J.)
Why would it destroy it, as opposed to merely poisoning further the system as it stands? Do you really want a string of tell-all movies timed to coincide with elections, purporting to reveal the policy missteps, or perhaps even personal moral errors, of the candidates?
Instead of 30 second attack ads you'll have 2 hour attack movies.
|
I doubt this "nightmare: scenario pretty highly.
First, attack movies have been around for a long, long time, and have come from both the right and the left. Moore's movie is noticeable because Moore is an extreme rarity -- a guy who can make a 2-hour documentary that millions of people actually want to see. Unless that can somehow be bred -- and I don't it can -- then we won't be seeing a string of high-profile pre-election documentaries.
Second, the reason people use 30-second attack ads, and not 2-hour documentaries, is because the attention span of anyone who lingers in the "undecided" column five months before the election is, well, about 30 seconds.
Documentaries like Moore's, and like many other low-profile ones that have come before, don't change people's minds so much as they motivate the base. People get pissed off enough about the target to make damn sure they vote, tell their friends to vote, give money, volunteer, etc. Moore's movie might have a widespread effect in that regard. It's not going to sway a whole lot of undecideds.
Final point: Ross Perot self-financed a whole bunch of 30-minute and 1-hour Rossumentaries, that were primarily attack ads. Whatever effect those had, they didn't exactly start a trend.
