Activists are talking about the ad--"Should we respond?"--but it seems like talking is all they're up to.
Activists chattering on an antiwar e-mail list raised several reasons not to do an ad of their own. The silliest comment simply dismissed the pro-war ad because the Carlson piece "could be [misconstrued as] an antiwar ad." (The ad doesn't swap Saddam for Bush until halfway through.) Meanwhile, some activists argued that countering the spot was unnecessary, since the ad proves that the antiwar movement has been successful. "The very existence of the ads shows that we are scoring big and they are reacting in a conventional, predictable manner," one activist wrote. "Even GW is admitting we exist." Other activists worried about money--"There is no way grassroots... movements can compete with pro-war mega bucks." But the real kicker was activists' ethical concerns about "funding corporate media" with advertising dollars.
That last concern showcases a serious problem with the antiwar activists. It's difficult to take activists' antiwar message seriously when they're busy staying pure by holding themselves above Joe Public and his dreaded corporate media. If they truly want to get their message out, peaceniks should get over themselves and get with the program: Start raising money, and put an equally slick antiwar ad on the local airwaves. Plus--now, hold your nose--getting on TV may convince local skeptics that the antiwar movement is serious.
Most importantly, even if the ad doesn't actually prevent war (if Bush won't listen to the majority of the UN Security Council, he's surely not going to listen to Seattle's KING-TV), the money would still be well spent: At this point, the battle isn't over Iraq, the battle is for the White House. Local antiwar activists have a perfect opportunity to shape public opinion about President Bush with an eye toward 2004.
