Speaking of questionable advertisements...

If anyone read the latest edition of the Village Voice, they may have seen an advertisement from the organization reopen911.org on page 37, in the lower right corner, with the banner, "A Call to Reopen the Sept. 11 Investigation."

I don't have a link to the ad. As far as I know it's only in the hard copy of the Voice.

The bulk of the ad space is taken up with a photo of one of the planes on Sept. 11 in the moment it is striking the trade tower, before it explodes.

Within the picture is the text, "What Caused this Explosion?", with an arrow pointing to a grainy spot of light toward the nose of the plane, already partially impacted into the building. The black and white picture is captured from video, so the quality is poor.

If I were the editor of the Voice, I would have rejected this ad.

The agenda of reopen911.org is legitimate and respectable, whether you agree with them or not. This ad is not.

The Voice chose to run an ad featuring a photo depicting a situation in which hundreds or thousands of people are in the moment of their deaths.

They should have rejected the ad on the basis that the photo, in addition to potentially being indescribably offensive to family and friends of victims (or to anyone for that matter), is also unnecessary to the ad.

You can't discern any "explosion" from the photo. It's run just to get your attention.

It's run for shock value.

I'm sure there aren't a lot of ads the Village Voice won't run, and that's fine, but this should have been one of them.

Ryan McConnell @ October 17, 2005 - 4:50pm

I actually saw a TV ad for this organization (reopen911) and I'm not as prepared as you are to sign off on them as "legitimate and respectable." They're basically accusing the Bush administration of orchestrating the 9/11 attacks. The current leadership has deplayed a variety of characteristics --incompetence, stubborness, and recklessness first come to mind -- but there's no evidence to suggest they're capable of pulling off the 9/11 attacks, either from a moral perspective or a logistics/competency one. To believe Reopen911's claims, you basically have to assume that the administration is willing to kill 3,000+ Americans AND (maybe even more importantly) able to pull the wool over the eyes of all of the media organzations in the country, keeping the conspiracy a secret all the while. Regardless, the burden of proof is squarely on reopen911 to prove such explosive and criminal claims, something their (poorly designed) website fails to do.

(Also...not to nitpick, but "hundreds of thousands of people" didn't die in the WTC attacks. That doesn't take anything away from your overall point that the ads are tasteless, though)

James P Caldwell @ October 17, 2005 - 6:33pm

Ryan,

Did it seem I was giving conspiracy wackos too much latitude? Perhaps "respectable" was too soft a word. Although I don't necessarily consider their agenda disrespectful (maybe it borders on it); they're just wrong.

I don't agree with them at all (although more people than you might imagine are willing to swallow that garbage.) Yes - the burden of proof is squarely on people like reopen911. (And so is the burden of sanity.)

And as for your SLANDEROUS MISQUOTING (I am completely kidding here), I wrote "hundreds or thousands of people", not "hundreds of thousands of people." I was trying to be specific about the moment in the photo.

Although come to think of it, if we were to ask the experts at reopen911, they'd probably tell us both that it actually was hundreds of thousands of people, and that the government spirited the bodies away in the conspiratorial dark of night.

And then they'd tell us that we just don't understand. And they're right. We don't.

Ryan McConnell @ October 17, 2005 - 11:59pm

Whoops....poor reading skills. I think that's the second time I've misread someone's post and churned out a few paragraphs. Apparently I haven't mastered reading comprehension quite yet.

Anyway, no, you weren't giving the reopen911 guys too much latitude. Your purpose, obviously, was to focus on the tastelessness of the imagery used in the ads, which is certainly pertinent and worthy of discussion. I just didn't want their dubious agenda to be ignored, either. Either the lack of proof in their controversial claims or the imagery used would be grounds for rejecting the ad.

Recent comments

Navigation

Syndicate

Syndicate content