The Badger Herald: Opinion: Michael J. Fox ad highlights issues

Opinion

Michael J. Fox ad highlights issues

Looking for a print version?
Simply use your browser’s ‘Print’ command and a printer-friendly document will be generated automatically.

Also by Emily Friedman:

Tenure at paper teaches, changes (May 10, 2007)
Straight or gay, hire either way (May 3, 2007)
Tragedy provides opportunity to re-evaluate nation's violent culture (April 19, 2007)
Anti-abortion methods go too far (March 29, 2007)
'Don't ask, don't tell' hypocritical (March 15, 2007)

Thursday, October 26, 2006 12:00 a.m.

9 Vote 0 Votes

Election season has become synonymous with political advertisements, many of which are argued to be attack-driven, mindless and generally disingenuous. On Nov. 7, issues ranging from gay marriage bans to the possibility of a complete flip-flop of who controls the reins in Congress, will appear on ballots across the nation. In an effort to make each and every one of us aware of these matters of contention, politicians have hit the airwaves in droves, hoping to have the last word in a debate that has become increasingly heated in recent weeks.

Partisan ads litter our television screens, interrupt our programming and simply annoy the hell out of us, consequently leaving viewers with a bad taste in their mouths that understandably makes us want nothing more than to forget the election altogether. College students in particular often argue that these ads do little to convince them to change their minds about the campaign issues, and politicians themselves admit that college-aged voters are not their target audience. But statistics showing that our parents and grandparents' generations still respond well to the advertisements provokes politicians to produce and air them on what seems to be a never-ending broadcast cycle.

With that said, and the fact that there is no politician pleased that the student vote continues to elude Washington hopefuls, it is imperative to recognize those ads that are not only positive but also honest, and do their part to help bring light to election issues in more reality-driven ways.

Actor Michael J. Fox, known for his role in the hit sitcom Spin City as well as his political involvement in the 2004 John Kerry campaign, is currently starring in a political advertisement that advocates for embryonic stem-cell research. The ad originally aired Oct. 21 during game one of the World Series but will continue to air throughout the coming weeks leading up to the election. Since its debut, the ad has been the subject of debate among both parties and is adding fuel to a fire that is sure to burn strong right up until the last ballot is cast.

In the ad, Fox, who has suffered from Parkinson's disease for more than 10 years, pleads with constituents to vote in support of stem-cell research. In the version of the ad that endorses Missouri Democratic Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, he says, "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans. Americans like me." Similar ads endorsing candidates in both Maryland and Wisconsin will also air in the near future.

In addition to the message Fox explicitly promotes in these ads, his deteriorating health is visually evident in the clips and bears the brunt of the criticism surrounding the ads. Many believe the advertisement went too far and took the election issue to a personal level that will scare voters. New York Times reporter Alessandra Stanley described Fox's appearance chillingly: "His body sways back and forth uncontrollably like a sailor being tossed around in a full-force gale." The immense amount of discussion around these ads is not void of criticism, and you guessed it — Republicans are having a field day.

It was none other than conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh who was most eager to shoot down the ad as a demonstration of Fox's fine acting capabilities. Limbaugh told viewers, "the actor either didn't take his medication or was acting" during the ad. Such insensitive criticism, although not surprising from Limbaugh, misses the entire message of the ad. And instead of welcoming an ad that puts more meaning behind the issue and is sure to catch the attention of voters of all ages, he discredits it because of the emotion both portrayed by Fox and consequently likely felt by viewers.

The debate over which candidate is most worthy of the position in question in each of Fox's ads is not the primary issue. Instead, the criticism Fox and the Democratic candidates have endured for creating the ads shows just how disoriented Americans are with the entire election process. As we continue to complain about dated and overdramatic political ads, we are still not happy when a familiar face is willing to stand up for a cause that actually affects him.

Constituents need nothing more than another reason to vote, seeing as many don't seem to think there are any left at all. By welcoming a celebrity into a campaign ad, and one who could possibly be helped by stem-cell research, the Democrats have taken the high road, proving that there is, in fact, hope for the future of political campaigning. Not all ads have to include theatrical music and an aura of sleaziness. The truth works, too.

Emily Friedman (efriedman@badgerherald.com) is a senior majoring in journalism and legal studies.

9 Comments | Leave a comment

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 7:32 AM | Reply

C’mon Limbaugh apologists, I want to hear how your handlers have smoothed this over.

1) Fox was faking it so that he will one day raise a farm of fetuses to eat.

2) Fox should have abused oxycontin to calm his nerves.

3) Fox is a selfish, one-issue voter. He chose the wrong one-issue; it should have been pro-life instead.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 8:42 AM | Reply

I happen to be in St. Louis right now and get to see all of these ads in full force. It is a ridiculous attack by the neocons to come down on Fox. An ad premiered last night that featured St. Louis sports stars Jeff Supan and Kurt Warner, as well as actors Jim Caveizel and Patricia Heaton. In it they come out against Amendment 2. For some reason these stars, who are only in the ad because of their fame, are allowed to voice their opinion in a public election, but a celebrity with actual ties and an immense knowledge of the situation is not supposed to speak? The Anti-Amendment 2 cause has another commercial airing that shows a teen aged girl sitting on her bed in the fetal position, with a voice over proclaiming how her life was ruined because “Scientists paid me for my eggs, now my life may be ruined forever.” Why is this kind of scare tactic acceptable, but the other is not? The answer is that republicans cry foul whenever a celebrity opens his/her mouth against their cause, but are more than willing to champion their credentials if speaking for their cause. If you don’t believe me, why don’t you try to YouTube the ad that Michael J. Fox did for the far right leaning Specter in 2004.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 8:48 AM | Reply

Rush’s insensitve comments? 1. MJF openly admitted last year that he didnt take his meds before testifying in congress to in order to add more of an effect on his message. 2. MJF’s opinions in his commercials were materially false. Espcially in Maryland where the liberal senator voted against stem cell research. 3. It doesnt matter if you are a victim, if you enter the arena of political ideas you can expect criticism.

Emily, excellent job of repoorting like the drive by media. I like how you dont address both sides of this. You’ll fit right in at CNN.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 10:48 AM | Reply

Go to Rush’s site and read what he actually said. Also, Fox is trying to make people feel bad for him and vote for people who endorse playing God. He uses his disease to pull peoples heart strings to vote for people who in the eyes of right to lifer’s endorse murder. These Democrats feel sorry for Fox but not sorry for defenseless babies. So I ask who is really heartless.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 12:47 PM | Reply

“people who endorse playing God.”

Yeah, like using them new-fangled anti-bi-otics and cuttin inta people. That jest aint natural! If ya gets sick then ya oughta die - that’s god’s way and anybody thwarts the will-o-god should be stoned to death.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 1:08 PM | Reply

Defenseless babies? Do you mean the frozen, non-implanted cells? What verse in the Bible says that life begins at conception? Thou shalt not kill/ murder sounds black and white, but we’ve had 4000 years of science to muddy those waters.

Seriously, we all need to love our neighbors; we can barely do that. Worrying about the unborn is the job of mommy, it always has been.

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 1:12 PM | Reply

“who in the eyes of right to lifer’s endorse murder”

sigh

Here’s the thing. There are around 400,000 embryos (at various stages, most at the blastocyst stage) which are at IVF clinics, and are either going to be thrown out, or are deteriorating beyond any use and will be eventually thrown out as well. So I take it from your argument that you are perfectly fine with these cells (not people, they are cells btw) being thrown out and destroyed, but not being used to do research that gives people hope?

No one knows if stem cells with do everything that people tout them as being able to do. But if they do even a fraction of thier potential, then all the years of research would be worth it. The right wants to block research, and in by doing so, they block the hope of millions of Americans (I say americans, because, overseas, stem cell research is years beyond american research, thanks to the right wing). The whole anti-choice argument against stem cells is absurd becuase they are cells that will be destroyed even if stem cell research is blocked. Wouldn’t it be better to use them to possibly benefit humanity?

Anonymous | October 26, 2006 2:06 PM | Reply

Murder: The unlawful killing of one human by another, especially with premeditated malice.

The key word is unlawful. Roe v. Wade made abortion legal; quit trying to change it or question its basis. If it’s legal, it’s not murder (no matter if you think it’s life or not).