This doesn't mean what you seem to think it means. The point of this test would be that people see different things. It wouldn't work right if one person said "I see a nocturnal animal that flies and lives in caves" and the other said "I see a rodent with wings that is often associated with Vampires!" They both saw the same thing, but they use different words to describe a bat. Malkin and Moore, on total opposite sides of the political spectrum, saw the same thing; an endorsement of the Obama bailout of Detroit. They just used different language to describe it.
In this case, someone who sees political messages or bias where there are none. To me, this is just people reading too much into something and finding meanings and messages that aren't there.
Maybe it was Pro-Bush. After all, he did sign TARP into law, and authorize an emergency bailout for the auto companies. I just take Chrysler's advertising the last couple of years as remembering what happened, and how they are bouncing back, while encouraging you to buy American, despite being majority owned by Fiat.
Sorry, took me too long to post my response so you've already replied to someone else. So your classification here is hyper political / non-hyper political and you are going to ignore the fact that people from polar opposite ends of the political spectrum read the same political message in an add as being relevant. You will also dismiss that everyone in this thread sees it the same way, that columnists are seeing it the same way, that the Obama admin sees it the same way, that Rush Limbaugh's brother sees it the same way...all that is just "seeing what you want to see." OK cool. I'll go ahead and give your contrarian opinion the nod for a minute. The average viewer didn't think political when they saw it. Regardless of that, when campaign season comes around for the average American (primaries don't get the attention of average voter) the message that ads like that carried will resonate.
there is a bias. you're being silly. anyone who knows the issues can see, not being hypersensative, gaining a message that was sent for that person. the person whom the ad was sent for read it correctly
I feel like you are being incredibly blind on this. I don't believe there was an INTENTIONAL pro Obama message here. But that isn't the point.
I don't dismiss that at all. I just say that doesn't make it "true" that it was a politically inspired commercial. I think it reflects more on the people watching than it does on Chrysler, really. It may resonate with some voters, but I don't think that was the intended consequence or goal. I think the goal was to sell cars.
Maybe I missed something, but is anyone here suggesting that Chrysler did this commercial to endorse Obama and not to sell cars? If that is what is being said, I'll stand with you and say that is not likely. Next question, do you think people can intend to send one message and send another one as well as a side effect? If I am known to have a weight problem, ballooning up to 400 pounds and the whole country knows about it, and then I take "miracle drug" and show up on a commercial for a pair of jeans weighing 185 talking about how I lost all this weight because I'm a "rugged individual who never gives up." If the goal was to sell jeans, do you think people would also take away from that "hey, this drug works?" even though I never mention the drug by name and the "intent" of the ad was not to sell the drug?
Well, by the looks of it, the Malkin/Moore crowd think so. Absolutely. Unintentional things happen all the time.
A few things: 1. I don't think Chrysler is coordinating with the Obama campaign or making the ad with the intention of supporting Obama's re-election. 2. That said, I think the Obama election staff are quite happy to see the ad, because it has the effect (intentional or not) of making people think that (a) the country is recovering from hard times, and (b) bailing out the auto industry was a good thing. I also think that the former message (that the country is recovering) perhaps has more of a pro-Obama election effect than the latter. Most Americans like having GM and Chrysler (and other companies in the U.S.) alive and kicking. Most people are not really ideologues who, for example, either favor or oppose government involvement in industry as a categorical matter. 3. What I don't see is anyone who reads this ad as having a pro-Romney effect (intentional or not). Can you find any?
by that logic, any ad that says we're back and building great cars is an endorsement for Obama?? I watched it again..after reading the noise...and was left with the same impression. Ram tough. Perseverance. Triumph in the face of adversity. American spirit. Buy our cars if you love America, capiche.
if chrslyer made the ad i'm sure they are thankful to their creditors who saved them. come on guys, this is a silly debate
I can't watch their videos, but did they actually say this was an intentional endorsement of the bailout policies being good for America?
yes every ad for chrysler is pro obama the more money chrysler makes they can pay more taxes more back on the loan whatever the ad is meant to make money see the logic game set match
