On the attack, on YouTube
THE FAMOUS AD featuring a woman hurling a hammer at the televised image of Big Brother was a marketing coup for
YouTube did not exist in 2004, the last presidential campaign. It played a role in the 2006 elections, with frequent rebroadcasts of Virginia Senator George Allen's "macaca" remark, which doomed his reelection campaign. The anti-Clinton video -- clever, nasty, and relying on manipulated images -- is far more sophisticated than a news clip and represents a breakthrough in political communications. As of mid-afternoon yesterday, it had been viewed 1,897,492 times.
Last year the Federal Election Commission codified rules for paid Internet advertising, which are similar to those for ads on broadcast and cable TV. Most important, a candidate must be sure to identify the source of the ad. But YouTube clips are cheap to produce, can be put up on the website at no cost, and have the advantage of anonymity. These videos are far more difficult to police than regular Internet ads.
The FEC is hesitant to regulate other forms of communication on the Internet, a sensible decision given the danger that any regulation there will impede free expression. The absence of official monitoring poses challenges for YouTube. It bans pornographic and hate-mongering videos or those involving dangerous actions, but relies on viewers to flag clips for review and perhaps removal.
The anti-Clinton clip falls within the boundary of acceptability. It makes a point in a witty way -- the runner is wearing an iPod, unknown in 1984 -- and is airing too early in the campaign to have a significant impact. The Huffington Post has unmasked the creator as a Barack Obama supporter, who denies the campaign was involved. Viewers can now evaluate the clip based on its source. And a Clinton supporter has subsequently doctored the video to put Obama in the Big Brother role, and put that on YouTube. Free speech has generated more speech to enhance the debate over who would make the best Democratic nominee for president.
But suppose it was two or three days before a close election, and a scurrilous, deceitful, anonymous clip was posted on YouTube and the other sites that specialize in homemade videos. Candidates should, of course, monitor all these sites and flag the offending videos. But doesn't YouTube have an obligation to make sure these ads are swept from its site before they can do harm? YouTube today doesn't have a policy against attack ads late in the campaign, but it should.
