News about advertising about politics.

What if every actor or model or musician whose work is licensable commented on each eventual use of their artistic contribution to our media culture? It’s not an idle question but an extrapolation after reading this story about Casey Knowles, who as a child appeared in stock footage securely asleep in her bed, footage used in a Hillary Clinton commercial. Now, as she closes in on voting age we learn from a news story (Well, not just a news story, but a segment on Good Morning America.) that she is an Obama supporter, though it’s unclear from the text in the link exactly how “her identity was revealed.” One presumes that once the girl recognized herself she alerted the media.Political advertising is fair game as news, no doubt, but where is the line? What about advocacy, for instance? Suppose a model in some stock footage appears in a commercial for a corporation that’s being criticized by an advocacy group, an advocacy group that includes the model as a member. Does that advocacy group then send out a press release explaining that the person in the spot is in fact opposed to the practices of the corporation? Should media outlets run with that story as news? Will the media reporters dig to see if others in the footage are supporters of the corporation’s policies?At a minimum, political advertising is a unique form because it is often simultaneously advertising and news, and that even includes the cast, right down to the citizen-generated stuff. But our streams of news, PR and advertising seem to be crossing almost everywhere we look. It reminds me of the Ghostbusters scene:

Spengler: Don’t cross the streams.Venkman: Why?Spengler: It would be bad.Venkman: I’m fuzzy on the whole good/bad thing. What do you mean, “bad?”Spengler: Try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.Stantz: Total protonic reversal.Venkman: Right, that’s bad. Okay. All right. Important safety tip. Thanks Egon.