There’s a fundamental rule of PR, that says you don’t run a campaign supporting your opponents. As such, you don’t e.g. bring together in one video all the strongest arguments against your own view and then hope that people will magically agree with your own viewpoint (which you don’t tell them).
What’s this all about?
What is “NOT A scientists”? Or is this “nutter scientists”? Or is this a republican spoof and the arrow goes above so that it real “The not a mad scientist(s)”. It’s bonkers. It’s like some school kid had an idea for a school project and then got the presidential campaign backing to make it!
All it tells me, is that the person making the video is either extremely sloppy or can’t speak English at all (actually most non-English speakers would spot the problem with this).
So, what is this crazy video! (please tell me it’s a republican spoof!)
Just a few simple points to those school kids making this video. If you want the electorate to vote for your “Nota” Clinton:
- Don’t remind them about the pause
- Don’t remind them about the lack of evidence
- Don’t remind them just how many important & intelligent people are on the other side
- Don’t remind them that the science isn’t settled
- Don’t remind them how your opponents are the honest ones saying they are “not scientists” (but then neither are the academics zealots).
- Don’t remind them of the unruly mobs of climate protesters and their witch hunts
- Don’t remind them of the conspiracy theorists of your own side
- Don’t remind them how little could be done if it were a problem
- Don’t remind them it is a hoax
- Don’t remind them of the snow and ice
And the worst bit: if you want to make the other side look ridiculous, you don’t make a ridiculous shot-in-the-foot video like this warning the electorate that your “Not A (nutter) scientists could be president”.
Could “Nutter” Clinton be president? Not after this!
This is how the film should end.
Clinton really has lost her marbles if she thinks Americans will be persuaded by this kind of garbage.
Fortunately (although I’m no fan of US politics) I think most Americans have the sense now they can see just what a poor judge of people Clinton is and what fringe issues she thinks are important there’s zero chance of her being president.
(After a pause for thought)
However Americans voted for George Bush … and Ronald Reagan … and Obama the “we is a black brother”, and likewise to be fair we in the UK voted for lying eyes Blair, and Thatcher … oh shucks … I suppose there’s more than a fair chance this nutter will be president – indeed now I think about it, it’s almost a requirement of the job!
Oh darn … let’s just hope the big red nuke button is a dummy!
Like the one pushing it.
Addendum
Fundamentally, the problem with this video, is that the “Mad scientist” genre portrays academic “science” as being mad rather than eccentric. In other words, these films suggest that “science” (or at least those calling themselves scientists) don’t just look crazy but they are crazy.
The problem is that the film takes a group of quite reasonably sounding politicians and statements and overlays it on the “Mad academic” theme and then by some magic, the audience is supposed to understand that the sensible people are the “mad scientists” and the mad people are those who express scepticism about the “mad scientists”.
However, what I really found interesting is the problem of trying to make the plural of “Not a Scientist”. Clearly “Not a Scientists” doesn’t work. I might try:
- Not-a-scientists
- “Not a Scientist”s
- Not a scientist(s)
- NOT A SCIENTISTs
But they are all very clumsy. I can see what they are trying to achieve, but it really is shoe horning a pig’s trotter into a ballet shoe.
