Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Government The Internet

Homeland Security Running NBC-Owned PSAs 240

Posted by Soulskill
from the help-us-help-you dept.
An anonymous reader writes "A few months ago, Homeland Security's ICE (Immigration & Customs Enforcement) group started placing an anti-piracy video PSA on various domains that it had seized. What it didn't say was who created the PSA. A Freedom of Information Act request by Techdirt has revealed that the videos are actually created & owned by NBC Universal, but nowhere does Homeland Security publicly admit this. As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs? So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Homeland Security Running NBC-Owned PSAs

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:00PM (#36390150)

    How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?

    It's called a Congressional hearing, they hold 'em every day!

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Excellent observation.

      Now, let's all go back to Mussolini's textbook definition of Fascism, shall we?

      âoeFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ

      There is much in this, that explain the metaphoric "wars" on drugs and "piracy", as well as the never-ending Imperial adventures the Satanic States of AmeriKKKa:

      "War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the cou

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Excellent observation.

        Now, let's all go back to Mussolini's textbook definition of Fascism, shall we?

        âoeFascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate powerâ

        There is much in this, that explain the metaphoric "wars" on drugs and "piracy", as well as the never-ending Imperial adventures the Satanic States of AmeriKKKa:

        "War alone brings up to their highest tension all human energies and puts the stamp of nobility upon the peoples who have the courage to meet it. Fascism carries this anti-pacifist struggle into the lives of individuals. It is education for combat... war is to man what maternity is to the woman. I do not believe in perpetual peace; not only do I not believe in it but I find it depressing and a negation of all the fundamental virtues of a man."

        Let's see:

        "Bailouts and more bailouts" for Wall Street, with high-flying bankers flying in and out of the revolving door of working for the government and big banks.

        "Bailouts and more bailouts" for automakers

        GE paying zero taxes

        Started a war in Libya

        Started ANOTHER war in Yemen!!!! [nytimes.com]

        Troops still in Iraq

        No end in sight in Afghanistan

        Gitmo still open, no plans to close

        Unconsitutional wiretaps continue

        Seriously - Obama sure as hell meets the definition of FASCIST, doesn't he?

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by couchslug (175151)

          "Seriously - Obama sure as hell meets the definition of FASCIST, doesn't he?"

          He's a fine Republican President and I resent that insult!

          • by Zeek40 (1017978)
            If he was a Republican, he'd actually be able to pass legislation because Republicans vote in lockstep.

            It'd be horrible, regressive legislation that provides additional benefit to the rich while shitting on the middle class and poor, but he'd actually be able to pass it.

        • It's not just Obama. It started under Bush. That got Congress properly scared so the Executive branch could work autonomously outside of the checks and balances of our government. Obama's just taking Bush's ball and running with it.

          THIS IS NOT A PARTISAN DEBATE. This is the "upper-class" declaring war on the "lower-class", and using partisan politics to divide us so we don't notice. Stop playing their game.

          • by PitaBred (632671)

            Proofreading fail. By "That" I meant the events of 9/11 that happened under Bush's watch.

    • by elrous0 (869638) * on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:37PM (#36390800)

      Hell, Dick Cheney even let the companies literally write the government policy [wikipedia.org] that regulated them. Pretty sweet deal if you've got the fat cash for some big campaign contributions.

      You too can own your very own elected representative. For just hundreds of dollars a day, you can help these poor Congressmen and their reelection campaigns. Won't you please help?

      • For just hundreds of dollars a day, you can help these poor Congressmen and their reelection campaigns. Won't you please help?

        It's bad enough that they're whores, but why do politicians have to be such cheap whores?

    • by steelfood (895457)

      Nah, the treasury department is practically run by Goldman Sachs.

  • Must See TV! (Score:4, Informative)

    by WrongSizeGlass (838941) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:00PM (#36390152)
    That's "Must See" as in "you are legally required to watch and learn, citizens."
  • by Anonymous Coward

    The press wouldn't care, because they do it too. They happily run videos produced by corporations and present them as news. It makes them a little money and helps them be lazy.

    Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?

    • Besides, who's going to report than NBC produced the videos? NBC?

      The more important question is why would any other network want to show a PSA that credits NBC? The lack of references to NBC probably has more to due with network rivalry than anything else. I have a faint recollection that the networks like to overlay *their* logo over the PSA, "this PSA brought to you by [insert network here] and ICE."

    • And this is why you should not allow Newspapers to own TV stations/networks to own production monopolies to own Congress and vice-versa.

      But what do you expect from a Corporatocracy?

  • Homeland Security? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by MoonBuggy (611105) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:02PM (#36390190) Journal

    So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?

    Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.

    • If you post copyrighted material on YouTube, then the terrorists win. QED.
    • by TwiztidK (1723954) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:08PM (#36390314)

      Well, as I'm sure we'll all admit, copyright infringement and terrorism are pretty much the same thing...kind of like jaywalking and murder.

    • by ChrisGoodwin (24375) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:12PM (#36390382) Journal

      US Customs has been moved under Homeland Security.

    • A government stretched the definition of something to fit their will, rather than bent their will to the definition?

      I'm shocked.

    • by Haedrian (1676506) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:14PM (#36390446)

      As I've said earlier.

      Piracy means people get free access.
      Free access means everyone can have it.
      Everyone can have it means Communism.
      Communism is unamerican.

      Better Dead than Red!
      -
      Its also probably because nothing gets the public riled up more than hunting down 'terrorists'. They're our new pariah group.

      • Wait . . . I thought piracy was what those people in financially destitute countries were getting paid to do near Somalia, to destabilize trade and cruises from The West .
    • by mcmonkey (96054)

      So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?

      Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.

      Good point.

      Of course, if DHS and ICE had produced these videos in house, Anonymous Coward would complain that this was more government waste, as there are folks whose job it is to produce video who could do the job much more efficiently.

    • Because under Bush, they absorbed the FBI from the Justice department. It was an absurd change, but that's why they're pursuing all sorts of non-terrorism related things.

    • by Adrian Lopez (2615) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:31PM (#36390704) Homepage

      Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.

      Fighting terrorism was just the government's way of getting its foot in the door.

      I wish more people were outraged by the fact that DHS and ICE are getting away with shutting down websites without any kind of trial or even the promise of a trial. The government's current approach to domain seizures is more the behavior of an unaccountable government than that of a proper democracy. Those who truly stand for Freedom instead of just paying lip service to it should be outraged by this kind of behavior.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        I think most of us have already passed outrage and fallen into the realm of despair. Sorry about that.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by cdrudge (68377)

      Yes, we should, but I'll be happy to wait until after they've answered the more pressing question about what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.

      So which department of the Executive Branch, you know the one that is suppose to enforce laws, should it fall to if not the Department of Homeland Security?

      Department of Agriculture
      Department of Commerce
      Department of Defense
      Department of Education
      Department of Energy
      Department of Health and Human Services
      Department of

      • by parineum (1696018)
        Department of Commerce seems to fit pretty well.
      • by king neckbeard (1801738) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:54PM (#36391092)
        Depart of Commerce is a better fit Since it's a legal thing, Department of Justice might fit better Also, the Statute of Anne, on which US copyright is largely based, was an "Act for the encouragement of learning", so even the Departmet of Education would fit If nobody is going to be blown up, shot, or poisoned, DHS probably shouldn't be involved
        • If nobody is going to be blown up, shot, or poisoned, DHS probably shouldn't be involved

          So it seems the problem is easily fixed. Just start shooting, blowing up and poisoning DHS. Now that I think of it, that would likely fix a few other problems as well.

      • by cpu6502 (1960974)

        >>>So which department of the Executive Branch

        None of them.
        Copyright should be enforced by the Judicial Branch, whenever a lawsuit is brought against someone who copied without permission.

        Perhaps I could accept enforcement of the Copy Monopoly by the same branch that regulates other monopolies/cartels: Department of Justice. Or the FTC. Still no need for DHS to be involved. DHS was created to prevent 9/11 events, not people scanning books w/o permission.

      • I'm going with Department of Veteran's Affairs, just to be difficult!
    • by cpu6502 (1960974)

      >>>what the hell Homeland Security are doing enforcing copyright claims in the first place.

      It's just NBC repaying its debt:

      - Government give NBC-GE billions of dollars in bailout money.
      - NBC gives free videos for government propa..... PSAs.
      - Government says thank you and cracks-down on thieves of NBC products.
      - NBC gives donations for the 2012 campaign.
      Win.
      Win.
      "Bam. Winning!"

  • And now Comcast and NBC are one..

    So if i download NBC content on my COMCAST ineterweb service.. is it legal or not?

  • by PPH (736903) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:04PM (#36390230)

    What was 'Homeland Security' created for? What is its charter?

  • by Hazel Bergeron (2015538) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:05PM (#36390246) Journal

    In the UK we call this the public-private partnership (PPP - no, not that PPP), private finance initiative, introducing competitiveness into service provision, blah, blah, blah. What it actually means is a hegemony of large corporations selected by government cronies which siphon money off the tax payer to provide a service you either didn't want in the first place or which was once provided much more effectively at cost.

    When finding out that a government is paying money to a corporation for a service, there is only one necessary question: what compensation will be paid to the men in government who made the decision by the executives of the firm which just won the multi-million-currency contract?

  • by senorpoco (1396603) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:08PM (#36390306)
    "why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?"
  • What we really need to know is... do they have a proper license for the content? ;-)

    Also, do they have to prove they have a proper license if someone files an improper DMCA takedown request in order to counterclaim it?

    I logged in before posting, but when I went to preview the CAPTCHA was "hostage". Apropos. How very apropos.

  • by ThatsNotPudding (1045640) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:09PM (#36390338)
    Corporate Security has the ring of authenticity to it.
  • Who cares who made it, IF the content was accurate(*) then fine. IF, and this is admittedly a big if, ICE gave some sort of specification or script to NBC then does it really matter? Producing a video might be the sort of thing you would want the government to outsource.

    Alternative IF NBC wrote the script and the government found it to be accurate(*), then fine.

    Note that I am not commenting on this video. I'm just challenging that idea that if someone else produced the video there is inherently a prob
    • by squidfood (149212) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:44PM (#36390908)

      Alternative IF NBC wrote the script and the government found it to be accurate(*), then fine.

      No, maybe not fine.

      Fine is: Government wants to produce a message. Government writes the message. Government puts production services out for bid, NBC is best by fair assessment (not just on price but possibly quality services). Video is made.

      NOT fine is: Message is essentially a corporate message from NBC following NBC interests, so they give/donate/underbid their services in such a way that their corporate message is being sent and endorsed using the government as a mouthpiece.

  • Not saying that there isn't a conflict of interest here but the analogies fail because neither McDonald's nor Goldman Sachs are in the business of creating PSA's (basically advertisements) whereas NBC is, so you could argue that the Feds just outsourced the job to someone with expertise in the field.
    • by cygnwolf (601176)
      This. Seriously, what harm is it WHO produced the Public Service Announcement (PSA)? are they getting any benefit from it? IF you have to go digging to find out who produced it, then really what benefit is it to them? Most of the time, you see PSAs that have the logo of the company that created it, or a comment at the end, because the company who produced it is also trying to get some 'goodwill for us' out of it. I'll admit, some people here on /. may disagree with the content of the PSA and feel that Pirac
      • And most of the 'big evil corporations' aren't really in to doing anything that benefits their competitors

        What? 'Big evil corporations' often lobby for their industry, and they form organizations like the MPAA to collectively lobby and do other work on their behalf. Truth be told, a lot of the 'competitors' aren't particularly concerned with competition as much as profits.

  • No need to imagine (Score:5, Insightful)

    by mcmonkey (96054) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:13PM (#36390424) Homepage

    Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public? How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?

    US Agricultural policy is written by lobbyists for the likes of Monsanto and ADM. And are there any high-ranking officials in Treasury who don't have strong ties to Goldman or Bear Stearns?

    The question isn't how the press would react, it's how the citizens react. And the answer is, they don't.

    There have been many documentaries, exposes, and so forth about the incestuous relationships between industry and US regulators and law makers. The response has been a collective yawn.

    Everyone (other than W.) in the White House or Congress who had any major role in getting the prescription drug plan passed went on to work for the drug industry. You don't need to imagine the reaction; just look around.

  • Oligarchy ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:14PM (#36390428) Homepage

    So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?

    There's no need to ask.

    Laws in the US are written at the behest of large corporations, to serve large corporations, with the people who enact those laws being paid by those large corporations.

    The fact that the Department of Homeland Security is performing raids to protect the intellectual property of corporations is pretty much proof of that. Why is an agency tasked with the physical security of a nation responsible for seizing domain names suspect of copyright infringement? Because pretty much all US law and policy is in service to the wishes of the owners of this intellectual property.

    When Goldman Sachs writes your economic policy, you seriously need to ask these questions?

  • by Hartree (191324)

    How's this different than the PSA's that the Ad Council regularly runs? They're often done by outside corporations. They're usually "nonprofit" corporations. That doesn't always mean they don't have an agenda. Often the agenda is their very reason for being.

    Don't believe me? Well, the NRA is a nonprofit corp, for example. At least portions of Earth First are nonprofit corp. The American Conservative Union Foundation that puts on CPAC is a nonprofit corp.

    I could go on, but I've given examples that should be

    • The difference is that the Ad Council is a non-government organization. None of the examples you give are government organizations. When those organizations broadcast a PSA, you know that it is going to reflect the bias of that organization. The problem is not that NBC made and broadcast PSAs. The problem is that the government is taking PSAs created and owned by NBC and broadcasting them as the official government position without even telling people that this position was crafted by NBC.
      What this amount
      • by Hartree (191324)

        The Ad Council works closely with government departments from HUD to Interior to DOE, to USDA to the same Homeland Security department the original post mentioned.

        They are contracted the same way that NBC was to do this one. The only difference is they're a nonprofit.

        I'm not trying to say this is a good or bad thing, I'm just pointing out that this is not an unusual situation.

        The real question is not so much who the partner was, but is the information and presentation accurate.

  • Um, no. (Score:4, Insightful)

    by rickb928 (945187) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:22PM (#36390576) Homepage Journal

    "So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?'"

    Um, no. Let the Government do what they damned well please.

    Or start firing your representatives, and hiring new ones. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs. It's called an election, and they happen every 2 years. Fire your Representatives, and your Senators, and your President, until they get it right. Then they will have to look over the other branch (judiciary) and get them re-oriented as well. This will take decades, my friends. It's ok, BTW, for the Congress to instruct the Judiciary, by law and by appointment. We have influence on that, if we choose to exercise it. Even the SCOTUS answers occasionally to Congress, in the form of nomination confirmations, and in new law to address disagreements. Not instantanous, not perfect, but it can work.

    You know how at work, if the boss isn't paying attention, then the staff gets into trouble screwing around and failing to even try for goals, much less achieving them? Same problem with government. We are lax in our management of our own government. This must stop.

    Gotta steer the boat, or it will end up on the rocks. Rock beats sailboat.

    • Re:Um, no. (Score:4, Insightful)

      by 0123456 (636235) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @02:12PM (#36391390)

      Or start firing your representatives, and hiring new ones. THEY are the ones not doing their jobs. It's called an election, and they happen every 2 years.

      Yeah, because that's worked just so well in the past.

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      So many seem to forget the essence of American Democracy "Of the people, by the people, for the people". If you don't like what your government is doing, don't sit back on your couch and complain, get out and vote or run for office yourself!

      Sadly I've already commented elsewhere else you'd be getting my mod point.

    • How can you fire them when they all have the same agenda? So you choose one and then heshe goes on and does the same thing as the one you just fired.

      • by rickb928 (945187)

        It certainly seems that way. So long as you are limited to the two major parties, then you get similar candidates, this is true.

        So broaden your horizons, work for an alternative candidate, run yourself.

        Or pick the donut back up and complain. Your choice, my friend.

  • by Quiet_Desperation (858215) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:52PM (#36391062)

    Seems like worrying that the pit bull coming for your neck has a tick.

  • by thestudio_bob (894258) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @01:58PM (#36391160)

    Hmmm... I can't quite put my finger on it, but for some reason I think it has something to do with the current administration...

    • Ian Heath Gershengorn, a partner with RIAA-firm Jenner & Block, represented the labels against Grokster (.pdf) and will be in charge of the DOJ Federal Programs Branch. That’s the unit that just told a federal judge the Obama administration supports monetary damages as high as $150,000 per purloined music track on a peer-to-peer file sharing program.
    • Donald Verrilli, associate deputy attorney general — the No. 3 in the DOJ, who unsuccessfully urged a federal judge to uphold the $222,000 file sharing verdict against Jammie Thomas.
    • Tom Perrilli, as Verrilli’s former boss, the Justice Department’s No. 2 argued in 2002 that internet service providers should release customer information to the RIAA even without a court subpoena.
    • Brian Hauck, counsel to associate attorney general, worked on the Grokster case on behalf of the record labels.
    • Ginger Anders, assistant to the solicitor general, litigated on the Cablevision case.

    ...and just the other day...

    • Donald Verrilli Jr. now serves as the nation's solicitor general.

    For those of you that voted for Obama, apparently you didn't notice that he choose Mr. Joe Biden as his Vice President running mate. Mr. Joe is bought and paid for by the RIAA and MPAA. Now you get to see what all that campaign money bought. Congratulations!

  • A government agency running a corporate sponsored ad campaign? I'm shocked! Shocked!

    Who would have expected that?

    I mean, aside of people who have been living on the planet for more than a decade...

  • A have to admit, that's actually a very slick video that gets its point across in a very human and humorous way. And I agree with the point that they're making.

    If everybody stopped going to theaters and buying DVDs (... or now using NetFlix, iTunes and other streaming media outlets...) then they are right, Hollywood would collapse putting thousands out of work and severely impacting the economy. (And while they are overreacting, it has already had an impact on the music industry.)

    They are clearly exaggerati

  • So, shouldn't we be asking serious questions about why Homeland Security and ICE are running a one-sided, misleading corporate propaganda video, created and owned by a private company, without mentioning the rather pertinent information of who made it?

    Not if you value your weekly dose of Chuck:Super-Nerd, Consumer.

  • Is this the message of the short film? Buy our movies, they might be crap, but they also might be good, and they cost a lot because we can't be bothered to keep up with new technology. Otherwise this working woman looses her job, because, you know, we won't cut it from the salaries of people choosing to produce bad movies, and we won't cut our HUGE winnings when make a blockbuster. We like it as it is, and you the consumer must support our funny ways or we'll fire the poor women.
    Whose the pirate there? "Gi
  • by wierd_w (1375923) on Thursday June 09, 2011 @02:11PM (#36391372)

    Watched the video.

    Message: Take these pirated movies, and this woman (Sound stage tech) loses her job.

    Sub-message: The people that still take the movies are heartless scum.

    As article points out, shameless PSA produced by NBC; proffered by HSA.

    That over with--

    1) This assertion (Take pirate DVD, woman loses job) makes a series of fundamentally broken assumptions:

    i) Content production companies (like studios-- like the one which made the PSA) live so hand-to-mouth that the failure to monopoly dominate sales/transfers of the content they create will cause them to lay off workers.

    Reality: The phase 'hollywood accounting' exists for a reason. Any such 'Hand-to-mouth' type economics exists exclusively on paper, to avoid paying actors, authors and film crew while simultaneously generating huge profits for the production company. It exists exclusively as a contrived mechanism to avoid paying royalty money on the very sales the video harps about. This makes the video a hypocritical, bold faced lie from the get-go.

    ii) The act of taking the pirated DVD would cause the person to lose her job, because you are not paying-- EG-- the lost sale angle.

    Reality: Multiple redundant studies have shown that consummate media pirates on average BUY MORE products than their 'legitimate purchases only' counterparts.

      Additionally, the pirate is only interested in the product to begin with because he does not have to invest anything; EG, the appropriation of the pirated DVDs are NOT lost sales.

    Without the piracy option, the consumer would simply not have consumed, reducing media penetration, and realistically doing far worse than what piracy allegedly would have done. At least when the product gets pirated, the pirate gets a direct assessment of the quality of the product, and if it is any good, would now have direct motivation to buy additional products. Eg- Pirate downloads first matrix movie-- likes it, orders the trilogy box set. The subsequent sale would never have taken place if the initial piracy had never occurred. The notion that the pirate would have just sunk down 50$ for the box set of movies he has never seen and is dubious about, is pure insanity.

    --------------------

    What I personally took away from the video PSA:

    'See this poor token production worker? See her frazzled hair!? Doesnt she look pathetic?'

    See me? I am in my fancy suit, and have perfect teeth-- Isn't it terrible that you would cause me to take money away from this poor frazzled worker because you would dare upset the apple cart?

    Never-mind that I am obviously not hurting for money (As seen by my quarterly finance reports), or that I am a lieing shyster who personally is responsible for this poor token floor worker's plight because I care about my corporate bonuses more than her and her welfare---OR that I am being a hypocritical bastard by passing that blame on to you...

    Just Pretend that simply isn't the case and embrace the fantasy we spin for you about how it is YOUR fault she suffers, and it's all because you don't impulse blanket-buy everything we shit out on store shelves blindly! (In fact, she probably isnt even a real sound boom operator to begin with, and is probably some poor soul we conned into thinking might get an acting career if she did this humiliation gig, whom we will probably never call on again.)

    That you would take these DVDs for free and 'force' me to fire this woman (Again, because I value my own bonus more than her or her employment-- but never-mind that) whom I barely pay purely out of my own greed and do legal gymnastics to get out of responsibility for; Why that makes you a disgusting person! You should be ashamed of yourself!'

    Message brought to you by the federal Homeland Security Administration.

  • As Techdirt writes: 'Could you imagine how the press would react if, say, the FDA ran PSAs that were created and owned by McDonald's without making that clear to the public?

    As opposed to the FACT that the heads of the FDA are always major industry players who have or will work for the same companies that they're overseeing? Like Monstanto people working in the FDA?

    How about if the Treasury Department ran a PSA created and owned by Goldman Sachs?

    As opposed to the FACT that the department itself is run by Goldman Sachs people (such as Henry Paulson) who pushed through to give Goldman Sachs billions of dollars during the whole manufactured "the world is going to end!" financial problems?

    Well, chances are, NOBODY WOULD GIVE A SHIT. They didn't give a shit bout

  • "DHS hires producer of TV commercials to produce TV commercial." Gee, what a shocker.

    So, who should they have hired instead? Is there any production company, writer, or actor that doesn't have a vested interest in this matter? Were you expecting a PSA to show a reasoned intellectual debate about the pros and cons of copyright infringement? Would you expect Smokey the Bear to discuss how fire is a natural and necessary part of the life cycle of the forest, so go ahead and leave that campfire burning on

  • OMG, fucking DUH! A television network producing TV commercials! Producing PSAs is media production. [sarcasm]What a goddamn shock that is. "Oh, why doesn't DHS just use a camcorder and do it in an office?"[/sarcasm] This is how PSAs get made, people. What's the problem? It's not like DHS doesn't direct the content.

Prototype designs always work. -- Don Vonada

Working...