Sunrise, Sunset: In Politics Even Stock Images Are Fair Game
I'm from Connecticut. I live in Connecticut, so I've been paying close attention to the internationally publicized race between incumbent Senator Joseph Lieberman and new Democratic challenger Ned Lamont.
The latest campaign faux pas to reach the press and blogs concerns the use of soothing stock footage in a new Lieberman ad.
So, is this a sunrise or a sunset? Symbolically, it makes a difference. Politically, it makes a bigger difference, especially when Lieberman's new spokesperson Dan Gerstein had said it was definitely a sunrise.
But the word of a spokesperson would hardly do. In a matter of moments, the political blog machine tore through the Web and found the footage from Getty Films, clearly identified as a sunset(clips 843-2 and 843-3).
According to a Hartford Courant article, Josh Isay, Lieberman's new media consultant and the producer of the commercial, has come out of the editing booth and owned up to the mistake. He says he told Gerstein it was a sunrise.
I could go on and on about this issue (i.e. lapses in communication, was it simply an honest mistake, were they lying, did they think no one would notice or care, etc.), but these have all been beaten to death and can't be proven.
Unfortunately, the simple lesson here is Design 101—clearly communicate a message. Sometimes stock imagery of sunrises and sunsets works. In politics, it definitely does not.
From my perspective as a Californian, I would considered this a sunrise if I was in Connecticut. A viewer near the Connecticut coast would usually see a sun RISE from the ocean looking east. One probably would not see the sun SET on water in that state.
As far as the politcal fallout is concerned, no matter where it is, at least the politicians can't take away the sunrise or sun, yet.
If they found away to tax the sun, moon and stars, they probably would.