So, the poor dope who put up the Mooninite signs has been arrested. The Massachusetts Attorney General held a press conference about it.
Seriously.
This is not good. This is very not good. Look, maybe this guy deserves a slap on the wrist. What he did wasn't legal, I admit that. But it doesn't warrent a press conference from the AG. This is a continued overreaction that's been going on all day. The police knew this was nothing more than a light-up cartoon by mid-morning. I figured out what was going on before 3pm. Turner came clean to the authorities by 3.30. But this was all still allowed to fester. The authorities should have been putting down concerns, but they didn't. Instead, they put their full disaster response plan into action, causing concern and disruption throughout the city. Look, I'm not saying that the initial police action was wrong. I don't mind a "better safe than sorry" response. But after that, this escalated fast and without cause.
More at fault, though, was the media who turned this all into a circus. They went right to the fear mongering and increasing the panic. But even worse, that sat on the truth about all this. They went on frightening viewers with ominous threats while they should have been able to find out what was really going on. Either no major journalist bothered to do a quick Google search like I did, or they did so and didn't care. Whichever it is, they are very responsible for whatever "panic" may have been caused. Some guy earning a paycheck is not a vicious threat to public safety. But media scare-mongering sure is.
I know this outdoor advertising effort wasn't legal. And appropriate action should be taken. I'm afraid that's not what is going to happen, though. All day we heard an insistance that this be treated as act of terrorism. I'm sorry, but I don't buy that. This is not functionally different than people spray-painting stencil ads, leaving stickers, or posting flyers. Its just a slightly higher-tech incarnation.
I know this is marketing and that's supposed to be evil. Well, I don't think that's really fair. First off, the product here is an artistic effort. Its not soda or sneakers or cars. Its a film. I know its hard to look at the Aqua Teens as art, but that's what they are. You can't judge the qualifications of something to be worthy art. We can't make "art" a limiting term meant to exclude rather than include. And I'm far more forgiving of marketing in promotion of art than other commodities. (full disclosure: I work in marketing for an artistic enterprise) But frankly, I'm still perfectly forgiving of marketing in other forms. It can be creative, interesting, and entertaining. Indeed, some marketing can be very good art in their own right. Yeah, a lot of ads are just annoying. But you take the good with the bad.
So, then I have to ask myself, what would I think about this if it wasn't commercially motivated? Because for all of my talk about being pro-advertising, I'll admit to having the initial discomfort with marketing that most people do. If this was more directly artistic, would I approve? Well, yes. I know, because people have done LED graffiti art. I've know about it for a while. There is an art form called LED Throwies. (See
here, here, here, and
here for more info) I like it. I find it a fascinating and innovative method of expression. Its easy to say its okay for political expression but not okay for commercial expression, but I don't want to take that road. I don't think its fair to draw a line.
I know we keep hearing about this is a foolish effort in a post 9/11 world, but I don't accept that either. Yes, I know the world has chanced since September 11, 2001. But, taking that tragedy and just making into a knee-jerk excuse isn't fair. I know what happened on that day. It was a horrific act of violence we should not forget. But, that horrible day doesn't mean Americans must always live in fear. This always was a very safe country. This is not a nation which must live in daily fear of terrorism. These places exist in this world. Its awful, but that isn't here. Can we be safer? I'm sure we can. And I'm willing to live with responses like we had this morning. I willing to accept that sometimes, a response to something harmless will be out of proportion. Why can't we live with that, instead of saying others must accept that they must constantly monitor their actions for anything which might frighten us? I'm not sure I'm willing to accept that trade-off taken to its logical end. I want artists (yes, and marketers, too) to challenge our perceptions of the world. To interject whimsy into our daily lives or to confront us. Look, I know this is a tough case to take a stand on, but I'm willing to do so. If not here, then where will it be okay to draw a line? Why not here, I ask? We cannot doom ourselves to perpetual fear by lashing out at those who unintentionally frighten us. I think we need to move forward as a community.
But yes, we can be safer. And there is the real troubling thing to come out of all this. For all the condemnation of this ad campaign, we should see through this to the very real risks it has inadvertantly exposed. I fear our public officials, who I largely and enthusiastically support, are eager to blame those who've shown a light on security problems than accept responsibility for the changes that must take place. Arresting some art-student doesn't fix that. It doesn't make us safer. I ask, why was he able to climb to the girters supporting a major high-way from a train station below? Why wasn't that secured or monitored? If these actions could pose a risk, why wasn't it noticed for weeks? I doubt those with a true evil intent would plant devices which conspicously flashed lights. If these were really installed in such sensative areas, what does it say about our safety? These are serious and uncomfortable questions and I fear that transfering blame and condemnation to the Cartoon Network or some former art student isn't a productive or useful response. Indeed, it strikes me as a game of misdirection, and that concerns me far more than a flashing cartoon sign.
Turner needs to step up and take responsibility here to try to difuse this situation. Reimbursing the city seems like a small effort and pledging support for the indirect agent of the company is also the moral response. But the city of Boston and Commonwealth of Massachusetts need to step up, too. I know they are embarassed and I feel bad for them because I don't think its very much deserved. But still, that's not cause for lashing out at scapegoats and diverting attention from real problems that have no come to light. I hope everyone calms down a little in the next few days and the right things happen. I'd like to think that's how things work. I hope I'm not proven overly naive.
Update!
When I first wrote this, I studiously only talked about Cartoon Network and the artists. I didn't refer to the guerrilla marketing firm who was commissioned on this project. There was a reason. I wasn't remotely as convinced that they were as blameless as Turner or the artists. Seems to be some indication that I was right. The Globe is
now reporting that the artists were contacted at 1.30pm and told to keep quiet. The marketing firm was quickly quiet yesterday and frankly I tend to find these kinds of guerilla marketing outfits shady at best. It seems they sat on this knowledge for 3 hours. Now, maybe they were waiting to get word from Cartoon Network and it took a while to reach them. Or maybe they just wanted to lay low and hope this went away (not realizing that they outed themselves online weeks ago). I still don't take issue with the artists staying quiet. Its a tough situation they were put in. I also still think that the city/state officials who were inspiring panic at that point were doing so without justification. But, some fault may well lie with this marketing firm. And I'll admit, if we find out that Turner knew about their role in this much earlier than they were reported to have contacted local authorities (around 3.30pm according to some reports; though the police may now be saying 4.30pm; I'm not sure I believe that as it goes against everything we heard before now), that would change my opinion of their role. Still, this is a very short time frame and both Turner and the Marketing Firm would have known that the devices posed no risk and may have felt it appropriate to get legal advice before proceeding. I wouldn't be thrilled with that, but I do admit its part of our corporate climate and can be expected. Given that we're argueing over a span of only 2 hours, I'm not yet certain that anyone acted inappropriately, but i do want to see how this developes.
All the same, I still don't see any reasonable grounds for criminal conduct here. It might help a civil case, but making any of this into a felony still strikes me as unfair.