COM 150: YouTube hit artist 'fesses up

The advertising creative who made an attack ad comparing Democratic presidential candiate Hillary Clinton to "Big Brother" in 1984 has been outed. He outed himself, but only when it was clear he was about to be outed by others. Characteristically, he confessed by posting an intem to the liberal political blog Huffington Post. There's a whole 'nother story on how the interactive blog, hosted by San Francisco political activist Arianana Huffington, challenged its readers to smoke out who was responsible for the YouTube ad. One of them did, and the perp posted an item to the Huffington Post confessing up.

(I'll post something about it to The 'Wrapper later today, as soon as I find out a little more about how Huffington's blog works. I think this Hillary Clinton ad is a minor political snit that will be forgotten in a few days, but what it demonstrates about the Inernet, and what's sometimes known as "Web 2.0," is important.)

Carla Marinucci of The San Francisco Chronicle, who has led the print media in birddogging the story (and in trying to figure out what it means for the use of new media in politics). Here's how Marinucci wrote it up:

The political whodunit of the presidential campaign season was solved Wednesday after a strategist with an Internet consulting firm -- which has ties to candidate Barack Obama -- stepped forward as creator of the controversial "1984"-style Internet ad that depicted Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton as a "Big Brother" figure.

Philip de Vellis, a strategist with Blue State Digital, the firm that designed Obama's Web site, acknowledged that he is "ParkRidge47,'' creator of the ad. De Vellis resigned from the firm after hearing he was about to be reported as the creator by the Huffington Post blog."

Marinucci's column in The Chronicle a couple of days ago suggested YouTube will be huge in the 2008 presidential race. That's partly because citizens, not to mention anonymous political operatives, can use it for attack ads without the accountability of disclaimers and responses from the other campaign. In other words, it makes possible an end run around the gatekeepers.

This morning Marinucci quotes Peter Leyden, head of the New Politics Institute, a San Francisco think tank that deals with Internet and political issues, on some of these political implications:

"It's disappointing to hear that he's associated with a firm that is associated with Barack,'' [Leyden] said. But "it shows that someone who has a decent amount of talent and basic tools can do meaningful political video. If he did it on the side in his day job, then he's one of hundreds of thousands who could do the same.''

We'll see, we'll see. I agree when he suggests the ad is damaging to Obama's campaign, and it hurts Blue State Digital's image, even more. It suggests a lack of message discipline on the creative side.

But I'm not sure the pols are going to start flocking to YouTube with anonymous negative ads. And if they do, they aren't going to have much credibility.

That's mostly because there isn't much gatekeeping going on at YouTube. If anybody can post whatever they damn well please without the accountability that comes from putting your name to it, the postings aren't going to have much credibility. At least not among political creative types who know ads are required by law to carry a disclaimer saying the candidate approved this ad.

So, if my hunch is correct, the YouTube hits will have about as much impact as somebody's personal blog with entries about who I had lunch with today and here's a really cute picture of my cat. Great for self-expression, but not so good for reasoned discourse about public policy issues.

Howard Kurtz, media columnist for The Washington Post, this morning had a very brief item ... with one comment only: "How long before [DeVellis] hits the talk shows?" Here's DeVellis' statement, quoted at length with Kurtz' comments interpolated (they're the short grafs outside of quote marks):

"Hi. I'm Phil. I did it. And I'm proud of it.

"I made the 'Vote Different' ad because I wanted to express my feelings about the Democratic primary, and because I wanted to show that an individual citizen can affect the process. There are thousands of other people who could have made this ad, and I guarantee that more ads like it -- by people of all political persuasions -- will follow.

"This shows that the future of American politics rests in the hands of ordinary citizens.

"The campaigns had no idea who made it -- not the Obama campaign, not the Clinton campaign, nor any other campaign. I made the ad on a Sunday afternoon in my apartment using my personal equipment (a Mac and some software), uploaded it to YouTube, and sent links around to blogs.

"The specific point of the ad was that Obama represents a new kind of politics, and that Senator Clinton's 'conversation' is disingenuous. And the underlying point was that the old political machine no longer holds all the power.

"Let me be clear: I am a proud Democrat, and I always have been. I support Senator Obama. I hope he wins the primary. (I recognize that this ad is not his style of politics.) I also believe that Senator Clinton is a great public servant, and if she should win the nomination, I would support her and wish her all the best."

Right. That's why I depicted her as the droning voice of the establishment and had her blown up.

"I've resigned from my employer, Blue State Digital, an internet company that provides technology to several presidential campaigns, including Richardson's, Vilsack's, and -- full disclosure -- Obama's. The company had no idea that I'd created the ad, and neither did any of our clients. But I've decided to resign anyway so as not to harm them, even by implication."

How long before he hits the talk shows?

The jury is still out on the political repercussions of this incident, as far as I can tell, but what it says about the interactivity of the Internet is fascinating.