McCain and Obama are neck and neck in the polls. Their campaigns have less than two months left to persuade potential voters. This is the point in the campaign where money is key. Whoever has the most money can make and air the most TV commercials. However, this is not just the situation for the presidential campaigns. Interest groups and the parties also want their chosen candidate to win and use money and commercials to try to tip the scales in their favor.
Campaign finance laws have created a loophole where 527 groups can make independent expenditure ads. If you’re interested in seeing some examples of their ads you can check out National Public Radio’s coverage. They have links to some of their ads:
* Independent Political Groups Return With 527 Ads
* Liberal 527 Groups Target McCain With Ads
Find out how the candidates are doing fundraising. Watch some of the campaign advertisements. You can watch the candidates’ ads &/or the 527 ads. To find the candidates’ ads go to their websites &/or search on google for McCain/Obama ads. There are plenty on YouTube. And then answer the following questions:
What role do you think advertisements have in political campaigns?
What types of political advertisements do you find persuasive and why?
Are there ads that are being run that you think are unethical and if so why?
Do you think that the parties’ and the 527 ads are helping or hurting the ability for the American people to make an informed decision in November?
Be sure to cite where your information is from in your post. I look forward to reading what you’ll write.
This blog is for students in Ms. Aby's 12th grade AP US Government class at Jefferson High School in Bloomington, MN. It is for students to post their thoughts on the 2008 presidential campaign. Students should be respectful & think of this forum as an extension of their classroom. The instructor has the same expectations for classroom discussion & blog posts. These posts will be graded for both their academic merit & for their appropriateness.
Presidential Campaign Blog
Objectives:
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
*To become proficient in the candidates & campaign methods in the 2008 presidential election
*To have an intelligent dialogue regarding the election with your peers
*To become more comfortable with an emerging technology in the field of political science (blogging)
Student Tasks:
*To have an email account to do this assignment. If you do not have one please see the instructor for help.
*Student will need to do their own independent research using online sources.
*To post a minimum of 4 times your own independent comment on the 4 questions/topics the teacher posts throughout the quarter. Your post should offer a unique contribution to the discussion. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*To post a minimum of 4 times in response to other students. Your post should either be a concurring opinion (add to the argument by offering relevant points & new sources to develop that argument) or you can dissent with a peer. Your post should offer analysis as well as evidence to substantiate your viewpoint. Your post should include links to your evidence.
*A post should be a full paragraph and use correct grammar and spelling. Your posts should comment on or attack the argument of a peer – not the peer her or himself. There is an expectation by the instructor & the administration that the same standards for behavior & respect at school apply to the blog.
*To post online in a timely manner. The posts will be due on a series of due dates. Students need to post by the due date in order for the conversation to be able to continue on track. Late posts will not receive half credit.
*Students are not required to represent their own personal opinions. You can play “devil’s advocate” in order to challenge each other & move the conversation forward. It is the instructor’s belief that all sides of the argument be understood in order to appreciate the complexity of the issue.
* Students should not use text message language in their posts. This is an academic blog and should use formal language.
Site Recommendations (please pass on other sites you’d recommend!):
Washington Post (washingtonpost.com)
LA Times (latimes.com)
New York Times (nytimes.com)
BBC (bbc.co.uk)
The Guardian (guardian.co.uk)
Aljazeera (english.aljazeera.net/English)
Newspapers internationally & domestically (refdesk.com/paper.html)
The teacher will grade the student’s blog posts holistically. In addition, the individual student will choose which posts (1 original post & 1 response post) to submit for grading.
The criteria for evaluating includes: the organization of information, consideration of alternatives, disciplinary content, elaborated written communication, research, amount of contributions, & the quality of writing.
31 comments:
Before analyzing advertisements affects on political campaigns, I wanted to find out how much money each candidate had, and where it came from because this is the money being used for advertisements. The website OpenSecrets.org does a great job of providing a side by side comparison of the two main candidates and other candidates as well. It says that “John McCain has indicated he’ll accept public financing in the general election, while Obama has opted out of the system. He's the first major-party candidate since the system was created to decline taxpayers' money for the general election.” (1). Its data on contributions and expenditures is impressive. . According to its data Obama has out-fundraised McCain convincingly. Neither has relied on any federal dollars, but both have received small contributions from PAC’s. (Obama: $450, McCain: $1,346,385, both constituting less than 1% of total money raised) (1).
This money has been put to use by the candidates in various ways, including media advertisements. McCain has so far spent $45,632,574 on broadcast media (1), while Obama has spent $130,098,113 (1). I think this is very interesting because although Obama has outspent McCain the two are neck and neck in the polls. I think that in the coming two months advertisements will have an increasingly important role in the political campaign. I think advertisements have the ability to affect public perceptions on issues. Vincent Hutchings, in his 2003 book Public Opinion and Democratic Accountability: How Citizens Learn about Politics, argues that “issue publics,” or “sleeping giants,” are awakened by political campaigns that emphasize their interests (2).
For me the most persuasive ads are ones that contrast a candidate’s actions or claims, with their previous positions. An example of this is the ad on the John McCain website title Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand (3). I tried to find a similar ad on Obama’s website but was unsuccessful. Most of his ads were focused solely on him, as opposed to his opponent (which I think is a positive!).
I think some of the advertisements for this election have gone too far. I was shocked at what I found when researching ads on sites such as NPR. Their Secret Money Project’s purpose is to investigat[e] the role that independent groups will play in this year's presidential and congressional races(4). The page has multiple ads that seem to attack candidates in the presidential and congressional races unfairly. The attacks are quite personal and i think without taste. I think that many of the 527 ads are unethical because of their tax status. 501c3 charities and 501c4 charities seems to be running more fair ads because of their restrictions. (For tax restrictions on groups see link 5, under Does Tax Status Really Matter?) (5). I agree with Mary Deason and Caitlin Sause who in their paper, The Impact of Organized Interests on the Campaign Environment, that attacking their opponent with false accusations depicts them [the candidate] as dishonest and the viewers now associate the candidate with ‘going negative.’ For this reason, the presence of organized interest advertising is important because this negativity is not attributed to the candidate (6). I think that ads run by 527 groups are making it harder for the public to make an informed decision in November. Ads seem to be increasingly focused on tearing the other candidate down instead of discussing a candidate’s stance on particular issues. I for one would rather watch advertisements about Obama or McCain’s policies than biased advertisements slamming the opponent. I personally will be voting based on the candidates response to the issues, not on how bad he makes his opponent look.
1.http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourceall.php?cycle=2008
2.http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/2/6/6/9/9/pages266998/p266998-2.php
3.Obama Iraq Documentary: Whatever the Politics Demand
POSTED 07.20.08 JohnMcCain.com
4.http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/
5.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=93368983
6.http://www.allacademic.com//meta/p_mla_apa_research_citation/1/3/7/0/1/pages137019/p137019-1.php
After having seen advertisements from both the candidates themselves and special interest groups (www.barackobama.com, www.johnmccain.com, and www.youtube.com), I believe that advertisements’ role in the election depend on how seriously you take them. If you believe them, then they might actually influence your opinion. The first impression I get from almost all the political ads I watched is that they all seem like lies – even if there is some truth to them, it is hard to believe that it is all the truth. Like the ad where Barack Obama is accused of being friends with an ex Underground Weatherman (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773) is ridiculous. I personally can’t believe that Obama, as a politician, would knowingly associate himself very closely with a man of that background. At least, if he is friends with this man, then he must firmly believe that he has renounced his old radical ways. At any rate, the claim of a friendship between a possible president and a radical political group member seems a little fishy. With this as an example, I think that political ads are very misleading, whether they are made by the politicians themselves or special interest groups, and I don’t believe they help a candidate at all unless all they do is tell constituents their plan for the presidency. But even then, the repercussions of future decisions aren’t exactly explained all the way, so even positive ads are difficult to fully understand.
If I were to pick a type of ad that was more effective, I would say the positive ones made by the candidates’ campaigns are the best choices because they give people a larger amount of hope in a candidate for not being so pessimistic. People need hope right now, which is why this election is so important. An example of an ad like this is Barack Obama’s “Hands” ad (www.youtube.com) because it talks about his plan to give jobs to people, and with those jobs to improve America’s energy resources. This is so much more effective than the ad that viciously holds that John McCain and his running mate are not mavericks. Speaking of John McCain, it was very difficult to find any positive ads coming from his campaign; all I saw were negative ones (“Foundation,” “Patriotic Act,” and “Advice.”) Also, I think it’s interesting to add that Barack Obama has more videos on YouTube than McCain, probably because he’s done consistently better with young people throughout this election, and he knows how to reach them.
I think that most ads by 527 groups are unethical. I think it was right for Obama and McCain to denounce these groups at the beginning of the year, because they make almost entirely negative advertisements, and they aren’t always endorsed by the candidates (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700.) I think the existence and influence of these groups is wrong in the first place, and that they really hinder democracy by turning the whole system into a form of elitism, because the groups are made of people with a lot of money who use their finances to see the candidate they support into office. They don’t care about what the majority of Americans want. Many of us already know that these types of people don’t represent the interests of us all, which is why they definitely don’t help the election process or give the United States the leader it may really need and want. They’re wrong because they don’t represent all of us. Plus, they make such radical claims that some of them are ridiculous. Born Alive Truth criticizes Obama for not voting to save babies from abortions (like after their birth has been aborted) and John McCain was portrayed as a crazed sexist flip-flopper via a very badly made iPhoto movie complete with concerned voiceover in the background. Since most 527 ads are so negative, they don’t help either campaign.
Finally, I believe that all of the political ads are basically just confusing people (and, if you’re me, disgusting them with so many ridiculous claims.) I would say the more intelligent, politically moderate crowd tends to ignore the ads because they know there is so little truth to them all, but less intelligent moderates may see these ads and be confused and influenced by the untruths within them, and therefore the democratic election process would only be damaged by mislead voters, or even worse, these ads could deter this group of people from voting at all. The main problem these ads create is that it is hard to know what’s right.
This years presidential election could be considered one of the closest and heated race ever. One of the most important elements of being a successful candidate is have adequate amount of fundraising. This year Obama has been raised to the position of the most successful presidentail fundraiser ever. He has no problems are being able to recieve small and big donors, right now after receiving the democratic nomination he's turning on to Hilary Clinton's donors asking them for their finacial support. Another astonishing thing about Obama's fundraising is that he is the first major party candidate since the system was created to decline taxpayers' money for the general election. He has approximately raised about $460 million and spent about $369 million in various places. John McCain on the other has had a huge comeback from being nearly broke last fall. He has raised about $240 million and spent about $194 million.(All from 1)
The 30 second campaign of television ads have assumed an enormous role in presidential elections. While they're carefully scripted and visually arresting, they often shade the truth in an effort to sway your vote. In my mind I find the advertisement like a debate, each nominees striking each other hard. Commercial advertisements, I think are huge impacts on the people about what people think about the candidates, because millions of people watch TV each day, and people sit and watch through commercials until they're programs come up. I think advertisements have the ability to affect the people's view on the candidates. It can manipulate a person's mind to see the worst of someone.
The poltical advertisement that I find most persuasive are the ones that are just mean and dirty. I know that Obama does not have the experience like McCain, but when watching McCain's ads striking on this topic, really blows my mind and changes my percepective of him. The reason the why I think the negative ads are most persuasive is that they just make the other candidate look bad and points out their major flaws.
With the presidential election really heated up the ads have become more negative and unethical. Some of the ads have gone far attacking the candidate's personal sides. McCain's ads saying the Obama supported a law to teach comprehensive sex education to kindergartners crossed the line I believe. McCain's ads have become more negative and filled with more criticism. Candidates are stretching the truth or lying about each other's records.
The parties' and the 527 ads are hurting their chances for Americans to choose them. The reason is that as more ads are made they have become increasingly mean and disturbing that are pushing people away to watch these ads. I think the people are sick of theses ads trying to destroy the other candidate's reputation. More ads are made describing the other's bad flaws, such as McCain's age or Obama's inexperience that the candidates barely show ads talking about themselves and what they can do for the country. Right now I know more about McCain's personal background information than what his he wants to do for the country.
1)http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
2)http://www.barackobama.com/tv/
3)http://www.pbs.org/newshour/extra/video/blog/2008/09/political_ads_lies_and_exagger.html
4)http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
In terms of total fundraising, Barack Obama was in the lead coming into September, but through September McCain has made a tremendous leap and has caught up to Obama in terms of money per month (2). Overall, Obama has an unbelievable lead in fundraising, with 450 million dollars to McCain’s 210 million. However, even with that great lead over Hilary Clinton, it was a close raise until the end for the Democratic nomination (2). Now with McCain staying equal with Obama in the race(with McCain ending August with 94 million compared to Obama’s 95 million), Obama will have to increase his fundraising in order to beat McCain (2). Also, McCain has got a reason surge of fundraising since his appointment of Sarah Palin as Vice President, raising 9 million dollars in the 3 days after her appointment (2).
I think that advertisements are very important in political campaigns, mostly because they appeal to the group of moderates, which many Americans consider themselves as, and give them some reasons why they should or shouldn’t vote for a candidate. This is crucial to an election, because the political parties always have the support of their own party members, but they have to fight for the moderates. Whoever wins the moderate or undecided group wins the election. And, with most people in America not active in doing research on campaigns and think that conventions and debates are boring, the campaigns must actively get their message out through advertisements.
The advertisements that I find to be most effective in political campaigns are the ones that are self-supporting and based on facts and goals. I think that the ones that attack the opponent, especially those not about the issues, aren’t very persuasive because they don’t present an argument. They just attack the opponent for worthless reasons. There are ads on both sides that do this. In one ad, Obama is criticized for promoting comprehensive sex education for kindergarteners, according to the McCain campaign (1). Another campaign by the Obama campaign attacks McCain’s age, saying that he “hasn’t changed in 26 years” (1). Political advisor Karl Rove agrees with me that these ads aren’t helping the campaigns, and are actually hurting them (1). I am only persuaded by factual ads and reasoning. However, I don’t think that all Americans think that way, and there may be some people out there who won’t vote for someone because of something they hear on an advertisement attacking the candidate.
I haven’t seen any advertisements that I think that are unethical, but I do think that if there was an advertisement that attacked a person’s religion, race or gender, that would be unethical. I think that that completely avoids the issues to be debated, like whether or not the candidate is best for the presidency. Unless one of those directly correlated to a major issue they were supporting or rejecting, I don’t think that they should be able to attack them on that. I think that if any of those 527 groups send out messages on race or religion, then that would be unethical (3). However, I think it’s good that the campaigns publicly denounce those groups, even if it won’t stop them (3).
I think that these 527 groups are greatly hurting the American public’s ability to make an informed decision. They are putting out information that doesn’t relate to the ability of a person to perform the acts of a president, such as race, religion, and age, and are forcing these negatives on to Americans to bias them against candidates (3). People should vote based on the issues, not on the appearance or personal beliefs of a candidate. This will make people vote for someone who they don’t agree with on the issues, and will cause problems between the people and the policies of the government in the future.
Sources:
1) http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/379123_campaign15.html
2) http://www.philly.com/philly/news/politics/elections/20080922_Obama__McCain__campaign_parties_level_the_fundraising_playing_field.html
3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
With the media serving such a strong presence in American culture today, advertisements are very influential in the campaigns of presidential candidates. Television ads are some of the most effective, considering 99 percent of Americans own at least one television set (2). John Kerry’s campaign success was severely undermined by the Swift Boat Vets’ initial television spot about Kerry’s statements about his conduct during war (1). Independent environmental and anti-abortion groups have both been known for their success in mobilizing voters through the use of advertisements (1). I think that these ads set a generally negative tone for the election. For example, six out of the first seven advertisements displayed on the McCain website focus not on his plans, but rather highlighting shortcomings of his Democratic opponent (3).
The advertisements that are most persuasive are unfortunately those that are more negative. John Geer of Vanderbilt University says that advertisements that focus more negatively get more free media play time than ones that say something positive (1). With the high cost of television advertisements today, people who are funding them want to have the highest amount of viewers possible.
I believe many of the advertisements in this campaign are unethical. They are more slander than anything informative. Some of the advertisements run in both campaigns take words out of context to make it look like the candidate is saying something totally different. For example, an ad run by the Obama campaign spoke to Spanish-speaking viewers, telling them that McCain is friends with Rush Limbaugh who called Mexicans “stupid and unqualified” and to “shut up or get out.” (4) This is untrue, Limbaugh is a known critic of McCain’s stances on immigration. Limbaugh believes McCain to be too friendly to illegal immigrants and is angry that McCain "supports amnesty and open borders." (4) McCain’s campaign is just as guilty.
They released an ad on September 18th, 2008 making claims that Obama had plans to raise taxes on income, life savings, electricity, and home heating oil. In reality Obama said he’ll raise income taxes and capital gains taxes for people who make atleats 200,000 dollars per year. He had never spoken of any legislation that would raise taxes on electricity or heating oil (5)
I believe these advertisements hurt Americans’ ability to make a truly informed decision in November. As proven in the previous paragraphs many advertisements skew words and quotes so they come across as something different than was actually said. Because such a high percentage of America has and watches television these advertisements are bound to get seen. Barack Obama’s website has had to make a specially designated link to combat smears made against it by the Republican Party (6). I think that advertisements should be limited more so towards endorsing a candidate rather than putting down another. This way America would be becoming more informed about facts that are true, than ones that give off the wrong impressions about candidates.
1. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
2. http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
3. http://www.johnmccain.com/tvads/
4. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sparring_in_spanish.html
5. http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/there_he_goes_again.html
6. http://www.fightthesmears.com/
In Obama and McCain’s efforts to obtain a majority, advertisements have played a huge role in the political race this year, and have become key to campaigns (1). Because the media is such a prominent object in our society, I think political advertisements are a good way for candidates to get their name out there and known. The more times your average American sees a candidate’s face on a commercial or hears their name on the radio, the more likely it is that that candidate will stick in that American’s brain. Because political advertisements do not have to follow any codes or procedures, I think they are important because candidates can do what they want with them (1). Overall, I think commercial advertisements have a large effect on campaigns, because if people are going to watch tv anyways, they might as well get a better sense of what the candidates stand for while they are at it. For many Americans, that might be the only thing that influences their decision upon voting.
I think both the positive and negative ads are persuasive in different ways, but I personally prefer the positive ones. I think to the American who doesn’t take much interest in politics and doesn’t know much about the election, the negative ads would have an impact because if you don’t necessarily know what a candidate stands for, their flaws might turn you away before to get the chance to learn. McCain and Obama have recently been creating attack ads on each other (3). However, according to former US Commerce Secretary William Daley, “People get it… People are much smarter than all these negative ads (5).” I think for the informed and educated American, positive ads are more likely to win voters and support. If a candidate has enough to say that will successfully build him up, I think it speaks more highly of him than it would to know that a candidate doesn’t have enough good things to say about himself so he has to tear his opponent down. I liked Obama’s ads (2 and 4) because they used the things Obama has done successfully in the past with his career to portray a vision of hope for the future. I thought it was more inspiring than one of his ads bashing McCain’s plans for social security, because I realize every candidate has their flaws, and I would rather know what their positive points are.
I think some of the negative ads being run are a bit unethical. For example, an ad that McCain has out comparing Obama to Britney Spears and Paris Hilton was a bit ridiculous, and may have backfired as many Americans realize that there is at least a slight difference between Barack Obama and a teen pop star. Also, McCain’s attack ad on Obama for wanting to teach sexual education to kindergarteners (6) crossed the line. Both candidates have released negative ads, and I think they have become unethical by straying away from what the country wants to hear about overall change in the future to promote the well-being of all citizens.
Groups outside of the candidates running have played an important role in advertisements as well. Many of them (527 groups) are raising their own money to fund these hard-hitting ads (7). Both of the leading presidential candidates have spoken out against these groups (7), but it hasn’t seemed to stop them from putting in their opinions. Come November, I think theses ads will actually end up hurting the candidates. Because these groups get more free media play when their ads are negative (7), I think the result will be that people will just get sick of the endless bashing from candidate to candidate in a desperate plea for support. People will be so clouded with the candidates’ bad qualities or rumors that it will be difficult to make an informed decision. If the parties’ ads go back to being positive and stick to the “bread and butter issues” that they arrived with (5), people’s voting decisions will be swayed in a more truthful manner that will affect our country more positively in the long run.
1. http://www.stanford.edu/~siyengar/research/papers/advertising.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPy7RnHwvmA
3. http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/23/new-crop-of-ads-has-both-obama-mccain-slinging-mud/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eYSStPGZhA&feature=related http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2008/09/mccain_attack_on_obama_and_cor.html
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP0b8B4C_wM&feature=related
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP0b8B4C_wM&feature=related
7. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
I think advertisements play a huge role in political campaigns, especially with the huge number of Americans who are addicted to TV. Whether they are on the radio, or the television, they reach a variety of audiences. This includes people who do not read the newspaper or articles about the election, so the advertisements may be the only type of information they receive about the election. That being known, advertisements on television and the radio should be made as persuasive as possible.
The advertisements I find persuasive are the ones that talk about what good changes the candidate will make if he is elected. I could care less about the ones that just tear down the opposing candidate. Those just make me dislike the candidate who is putting down the other. For that reason, I believe that those are the ads that are unethical. 527 ads just focus on tearing down the rival candidate (1). I would much rather hear about what a candidate has done in the past to improve things himself, than listen to him rant about how the other candidate has done horrible things in his past. No matter what the ads are saying, they still cost a great amount of money.
Both McCain and Obama entered the final two months of the campaign on pretty equal financial footing (2). Obama had $95 million in the bank for the campaign and McCain had $94 million. While Obama bypassed the public-financing system, McCain received $84 million, which of course has strings attached (2). McCain is also stretching his spending limits by having the party pay for half the cost of the TV spots (2). McCain spent $23 million on commercials, while Obama spent $33 million (2). However, their TV ads are not the only ones out there. The 527 ads by independent groups are coming out boldly.
These 527 ads along with the regular campaign ads just confuse average Americans. With normal ads tearing both candidates down and building both candidates up, and 527 ads attacking the candidates personally, who knows what to believe? As Robert Greenwald says to NPR, TV is not somewhere that Americans should go to learn about candidates (3). I think these are hurting more than they are helping, because it is difficult to know which ads you can trust.
(1) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
(2) www.Philly.com
(3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
Recent commercials have become increasingly negative as the November election draw near. The people would rather hear about the issues that matter to them, compared to the mud slinging (1). I think people who are less informed about the issues are more willing to buy into the opinions that are presented through ads. They then proceed to vote for the candidate who is “not as bad” as the other candidate. The ads focus on destroying the nation's perception the other candidate, and will even distort to truth to do so.
The political ads that would be the most convincing are the ones that are honest and concern the issues that the American people value the most. For the last year the economy has been a main priority for most Americans, and recent events have heightened that concern. Fluctuations in the price of oil and the near collapse of major American corporations. While people wait in fear and confusion, false ads about how Obama supports teaching kids graphic sex, and political ads only in Spanish only cause more concern. Also, now with the internet, USA Today has shown that when an ad is false there will be news on it (2).
McCain ads have been criticized for false accusations against Obama. Ads have claimed Obama will raise taxes on the middle class, caused gas prices to rise, and wants to teach kindergarten aged children sex education. While the Obama campaign's ads claim McCain wants to continue a 100-years war with Iraq, and cut funding to social Security in half. Many have claimed his all Spanish language ad is implying that McCain is prejudice against immigrants. PolitiFact.com has evidence stating that about 51 out of 117 of McCain's ads that have been analyzed range anywhere from barely true to blatant lies. Obama's ads have 33 out of 120 analyzed been stretching the truth and false (2). I think the ads that lie are unethical, because it is fair to give the people the knowledge they want, and most people want the truth. I think the false accusations are a waste of time and some people will vote based on these lies.
The parties and the 527 groups are hurting the ability of Americans to make informed decisions by running so many ads that are biased and lack information. 527 groups focus on discrediting their opposition, which is more about attacking the opponent than informing the people. In the fight to gain support, parties and groups are willing to sacrifice the truth. Ads target people by appealing to their feelings of nationalism, and hope for change or hope for stability (3). There are accusations in ads that can over shadow the importance of the issues (4). Both McCain and Obama have ads that present the issues and their stances on them, but the increasing negative propaganda is harming the perception of both candidates. Rather than gaining supporters, they may alien potential voters who don't believe either Obama or McCain can run this country.
(1)http://www.wctv.tv/news/headlines/29623894.html#
(2)http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-22-ads_N.htm
(3)http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/candidates/barack-obama/
(4)http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/candidates/john-mccain/
I think advertisements play a huge role in political campaigns and their effects can be negative and positive. Many ads are attacked for focusing on superficial and personal characteristics of the candidates, which influences many Americans (2). However, the political ads do raise the public awareness of the current campaign and through commercials provide them with information about the candidates whether they wanted it or not (2). For example, McCain is portraying Obama as a liberal Democrat that favors tax increases and that he is a more of a celebrity that isn’t ready to lead America (3). When asked if they were concerned about Obama’s experience needed to lead the nation 31% were very concerned and 19% were somewhat concerned, proving the fact that McCain’s campaign is affecting public opinion (3,6). Also, Obama is trying to link McCain to president Bush, which undermines McCain’s independent image (3). This also was proven as influencing public opinion; when Americans were polled as to whether they were concerned that McCain would continue policies similar to those of Bush, 49% were very concerned and 19% were somewhat concerned (3,6).
I find the political ads that appeal to American’s emotions are very persuasive. I think ones that attack the opponent are not persuasive because it’s as if they have to belittle their opponent in order to make themselves seem like a better candidate. Therefore, only the campaigns that appeal positively to my emotions make me want to support a campaign.
I definitely think that unethical ads are being run. Although, I don’t think the candidates were associated with or cooperated in the making of the ads. One example of an ad that I feel is completely unacceptable is one run by a 527 group, Brave New PAC, that shows a former Navy pilot and Vietnam prisoner of war that states “He would blow up and go off like a Roman candle,” in reference to McCain (3). I feel this ad is inappropriate because it attacks the candidate as a person, not their views. It also doesn’t have much to do with the campaign issues.
I think in general 527 ads will help candidates because of the lax rules (5). Even though they aren’t allowed to coordinate with candidates, they can take polls and figure out what strategy would help the candidate they support (5). Also, groups can also say things that the candidate wouldn’t have associated with their campaign, but wouldn’t necessarily oppose (5). Also, there are no limits on contributions because they aren’t directly given to candidates (5). However, I think there is also the potential for these ads to hurt their candidates since they can’t coordinate with them and because negative ads generally get more media attention (5).
1.http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/06/moveon_to_close_its_527.php
2. http://www.ericdigests.org/1992-3/role.htm
3. http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
4.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
5. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
6. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
I think it depends on each advertisement for where it falls into the political campaigns. This is because some advertisements are in the part of promotion, while others are in the part of demotion. Advertisements are a way that candidates can get themselves known better, they can sell their ideas, or make their opponents look terrible. However not all the time are the candidates themselves running the advertisements. Many times it is the interest groups that run the ads. Also many times the candidates do not want to be associated with these groups or ads. An example of this was at the start of the 2008 campaign, Obama told his campaign staff not to have any association with the 527 interest group (1).
These ads aren’t cheep though and when the race is as tight as it is, both Obama and McCain need all the money they can get. Going into September, Obama had $77 million raised and McCain had $84 million raised (3). Obama has raised nearly $460 million overall and McCain has only raised $240 million overall (2). So we will see how this gap in money between the two candidates factors in as we approach Election Day.
Personally I think the most persuasive ads are those that make the opposing candidate look the worst. How ever I think those are also the ads that are unethical. I think that they are the most persuasive because people tend to see faults in people faster than they see strengths. Also because we are looking for a president we can trust right now, and with candidates saying the other is a jerk or is not trustworthy, those have the most impact.
I think that the 527 ads are hurting the ability for the American people to make an informed decision, because they are clouding everyone’s views of the candidates and smearing their names. Because of the media, I hear more about the candidates themselves and their company than what they actually will try to do if elected to office… that is wrong and must be changed for the future of the country.
1 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
2 http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
3 http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
I think that political ads play a HUGE role in campaigning for any office. The form of media that most of America connects with on a daily basis is the television. People view many commercials every day, and most people consider political television ads to be more persuasive than regular commercial ads (1). Therefore, if a candidate really wants to get face time in with the voters, television ads are pretty much a necessity. Political ads can accomplish several things; they can persuade voters to vote for or against a particular candidate, or it’s possible that a goal is to encourage voters not to show up at all. Advertising directors know that it is very difficult to get people to switch parties, so some political ads is to create an “avoidance set” by creating as much controversy and conflict as possible, thereby making it more difficult for the average voter to make a decision (1). In this way, campaigns try to limit the number of voters at the polls voting for “the other guy” and get people to not vote at all (1).
If a candidate was trying to get my vote, (s)he would run comparison ads. The ads telling about only one candidate’s voting habits (whether good or bad) without saying anything about the other side are fairly useless in my opinion. Say there’s an ad running for Barack Obama and it tells me “Barack Obama voted yea on this issue, while McCain voted nay” and then informs me why Obama’s decision was better. This ad, in my opinion, would be much more persuasive than an ad that only said “Barack Obama voted yea on this issue”. The other types of ads I find persuasive are negative ads. I think ads defaming the character of a candidate’s opponent are petty, immature, and annoying. Mudslinging ads run by a candidate to expose the skeletons in the closet of their opponent encourage me to vote for the candidate being exposed, if only because they are not being annoying. It is unfair to expect that any candidate has led a spotless life, so when candidates try and expose each other’s “dirty little secrets” it makes them seem nasty and junior-highish, and I personally would be less likely to vote for them.
I think there are many ads being run that are unethical, especially those found on sites like youtube.com. Created by any joe-shmoe who is slightly gifted with computer skills, these ads can instantly (and at no-charge) be viewed by millions of people. The scary thing is that there is no way to police what is being said in these ads (3). People have put together various news clips to make their own ads. People take quotes out of context when creating these ads to make it seem like candidates are making completely false claims (3). Some of these ads come with a tagline at the end “send this to x number of friends…” within minutes, if people followed these directions millions of Americans could see ads that were libelous and untrue (2). Unfortunately, because they are on the Internet, it is next to impossible to regulate what is being said in these ads.
Of the 527 ads I viewed, I think that although the ads are potentially slanderous, they will ultimately be effective in helping Americans form their opinions in one way or another. The ads created by the anti-McCain political action committee Brave New PAC and their advertisers; Brave New Films have created an ad by interviewing a man who served with McCain in Vietnam (4). This man claims that McCain is unfit to rule the country and he that he wouldn’t trust McCain near the “red button” (4). Because our country is in a state of war, this ad could potentially be very influential to many Americans who are worried about nuclear warfare. An ad created by one anti-Obama group claims that he is friends with one of the terrorists involved in the Weather Underground terrorist group (5). However, a pro-Obama group then released a response stating that Obama actually denounced the terrorist and that the crimes he committed took place when Obama was only 8 years old (4). With all this going back and forth, it is hard to see the real truth; how can the average American know whom to trust? If Americans only see one side of the 527 groups’ ads, then they will most likely vote for the candidate presented in the best light. It is my opinion that these PAC advertisements could play a huge role in determining the outcome of the 2008 election.
(1)http://www.stanford.edu/~siyen gar/research/papers/advertising.html
(2)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH0xzsogzAk
(3)http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=political+ads+2008&search_type=&aq=3&oq=political+a
(4)http://www.npr.org/blogs/secre tmoney/outside_groups/brave_new_films/
(5)http://www.npr.org/blogs/secret money/2008/08/new_antiobama_ ad_swift_boats_r. tml
The media plays a huge role when it comes to influencing the American public. Therefore, it is not a big surprise that candidates spend millions of dollars on advertisements and other forms of public campaigning. Ads are used to expose weaknesses of a candidate’s opponent and turn their ideas into nonsense. They are used to criticize one person’s voting record while glorifying the other’s (1). Advertisements are also used as a way for candidates to shape the public’s opinion about the other party, candidate, or a specific issue. In one week, liberals spent over 800,000 dollars on ads while conservatives spent over 750,000 (3). These were totals from independent special interest groups, 527 groups, and other PACs. Political advertisements do not always have to be negative or derogatory toward the opposing candidate. Sometimes, they are used to enhance a person’s image. 527 groups use advertisements to inform the public of there views and then show where candidates stand on the specific issues (3). Basically, the role of campaign advertising is to create awareness, whether that be factual or deceitful is dependent on the time.
Inspirational ads that portray a candidate in a positive light are the most effective in my mind. When they do not bash on the opponent and only highlight the person’s good points. I believe that the negative ads are needed to make sure American’s are not making very bad election moves however, television gets way to nasty with all the mudslinging and negative campaigning. Candidates should endorse ads that help themselves by explaining their beliefs and political agenda. We have a very powerful media business (magazines and talk shows); this should take care of the negative exposure.
There are numerous ads that are unethical and should not be on the air. One example is a John McCain ad from September 18th. It starts off saying that Obama wants a “massive government” and wants to spend money in all of these unnecessary areas. Then it asks “can your family afford that?” and shows a picture of a small baby (4). First of all, this ad tugs at the heartstrings of the American people. Secondly, you can’t use an image of a baby to make people think Obama is going to destroy families because of his massive government. I watched a lot of McCain ads and the majority of them slam Obama using images that do not even relate to the topic of the ad. Another one shows Biden cheering for higher taxes then shows a picture of an elderly woman who looks very sad; it says basically implies that senior citizens will get all of there life insurance money taken away by Obama (4). These statements are unethical because they take an issue and extort it, turning a mildly true idea into a blatant lie.
I think that political ads definitely hurt the ability of American’s to make informed decisions in the election. Many people believe that the ads are truth and they can base their decision off of T.V and magazine ads. This makes people less likely to research the candidates and the issues. Whichever candidate can make the other look the worst has the best chance of winning, even though not all of the campaign ads are based on facts (2).
(1) opensecrets.org
(2) http://projects.washingtonpost.com
(3) npr.org/blog/secretmoney
(4) www.johnmccain.com/informing/multimedia
1) Advertisements have an important role in political campaigning. First, they are a main source of publicity for the candidates as indicated by the many articles dissecting the different ads by both campaigns. They serve as a way for candidates to attack their opponents and serve as a way to publicize their own beneficial actions. There are many examples of attack ads by both campaigns: the insufficiency of McCain’s technological expertise by Obama (2) and an ad attacking Obama’s response to the economy crisis (3). Second, both campaigns are spending a large amount of money on advertising (1). Specifically Obama spent $32.3 million on TV ads alone while McCain spent $18.1 million with $4.7 million from Republican National Committee money (1). McCain spent more than Obama on mail related advertisements (1). The impact of this indicates McCain is appealing to older voters (1). Obama, on the other hand, has spent more money on internet related advertisements to attract younger voters (1). Third, both campaigns are using advertisements to appeal to Spanish speakers in key swing states. Both campaign have started publicizing ads in Spanish and focused on the traditional value often placed on the family (7). The role of these ads it to try to convince Hispanic voters in key swing states of Colorado, Florida, New Mexico and Nevada (7). Because the campaigns are spending money in specific ways to attract voters, it is obvious that advertisements play an important role in campaigning.
2) I find ads that advertise the candidates’ plans for their presidency and ones that show what they have done previously to be the most beneficial. The plans for their presidency are important and persuasive because they show what will happen if the candidate is elected. If one does not like what the candidate says they are going to do, then one will probably not vote for them. These ads are also persuasive because they are usually more honest than other ads because there are no facts to check them against. They are usually exactly what the candidate plans to do. Sadly, these types of ads are rarely seen on television but are more often on the website only. Ads that show what candidates have previously done are also persuasive because it shows what the candidate is capable of and shows where their interests lie. These ads should be as honest as the first type but might not be because candidates might exaggerate what they did to influence voters. Ads that attack on opponent are not as persuasive because that is where the most doubt comes in about the honesty of the facts stated in the advertisement as indicated by the many incorrect ads out currently (5).
3) I think there are ads up that are unethical. I think unethical ads should be defined as anything that is untrue. Many of the attack ads out currently are unethical under that definition because certain statements in the ad are incorrect. McCain’s ad about Obama not having a plan about the economic crisis is true that he does not have the plan but Obama has asked for action when the ad said that he said nothing (3). Obama’s ad showing that McCain does not tell the truth is not entirely true. The ad shows McCain saying he always buys American cars but actually he owns thirteen, some of which are made in foreign countries (4). McCain actually is only registered with one American car, a Cadillac (4). The others are registered with his wife (4). There are several other attack ads by McCain that are untrue- one blames gas prices on Obama, another claims he called Palin a pig, yet another claims he wants to teach sex to kindergarteners (5). All of these are untrue and therefore unethical in my view (5). Ads that are untrue are unethical because they spread what are basically rumors about a candidate. This wide publicity of something untrue is sometimes difficult for candidates to answer. Candidates should be prepared to deal with difficult situations, but these situations must have some basis in fact to actually be worthy of debate.
4) I think that campaign and 527 ads are hurting the ability for the American people to make an informed decision. The campaign ads are definitely hurting the ability of people to make informed decisions because so much of the information in the ads are wrong (5). The newest ads are also false. McCain recently put out an ad criticizing Obama’s political associates from Chicago when Obama has already admitted he was wrong to conduct business affairs with them (6). Obama’s newest ads take McCain’s statements out of context or have incorrect analysis (6). Another Obama ad also incorrectly cites McCain’s position on stem cells (8). McCain has actually supported several bills vetoed by President Bush; however, Palin is a strong opponent of embryonic stem cell research (8). The 527 ads are generally not as trusted initially so their impact seems less but once publicized they are just as bad for an informed decision in November. One ad criticizing Obama’s opposition to a bill that would protect a live fetus after an abortion ignores the fact that at that point, Illinois doctors were already required to protect a fetus if it had a significant change of surviving (9). Another ad attacks McCain’s image as a veteran while depending only on the witness of one person (10). People may be swayed by one person they see on television when they would not be convinced if their neighbor told them the same thing. If people do not take the initiative to read about what is right and wrong on these ads or visit campaign websites to find what the candidate actually supports, they will be making their decision based on incorrect information. It may be an informed decision, but it is not the right information.
(1) http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-money22-2008sep22,0,1726948.story
(2) http://www.nysun.com/blogs/latest-politics/2008/09/obama-ad-biden-disowned-aired-only-six-t.html
(3) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/mums_not_the_word_despite_mcca.html
(4) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/wire/chi-ap-mi-obama-adwatch-mic,0,2063068.story
(5) http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-22-ads_N.htm
(6) http://blogs.reuters.com/trail08/2008/09/23/new-crop-of-ads-has-both-obama-mccain-slinging-mud/
(7) http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/obama_talks_about_the_economia.html
(8) http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-ap-wi-obama-adwatch,0,5714398.story
(9) http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/09/16/obama_abortion/index.html?source=rss&aim=/politics/war_room
(10) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
Sorry about lack of names to videos and real quotes but technology problems have kept me from watching some of the videos (like from YouTube) and getting to the sites.
I think that campaign ads have a huge effect on the voters. Estimated by CNN, Nevada, Colorado, Minnesota, Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, Virginia, Florida, and New Hampshire are all up for grabs for a total of 115 electoral votes (1). Barrack Obama has received roughly $340 million in campaign contributions versus John McCain’s $145 million. But Obama has only a 3-point lead in their polls (1). Some polls show the candidates tied or with McCain in front. It is arguable that campaign ads have had little effect on the campaign thus far with only a couple important ones with time to stew. There is obviously the Obama celebrity ad and the “Change You Can Count On” ads run by John McCain. But there are more and more ads being run by both campaigns and special interest groups that are certainly going to sway undecided voters. Two polls have 9% of voters undecided in the election (1).
There are 42 days until the election and it is prime time for campaign ads. I think the role of these campaigns is to get voters who are undecided. I don’t think anyone would argue with that. They generally do that with strong messages targeted at a single hot-button issue, at least according to what I saw from the NPR links. They go after issues like abortion (Born Alive ad) and the war (Brave New PAC ad). I saw ads on things like the economy and being out of touch with constituents from both campaigns but I’m having a lot of technical difficulty. Basically, campaigns put out ads on single-issues to convince those voters because often times they don’t care about anything else. The same thing goes for the interest groups, although they are also only interested in a single issue.
Personally, I think that almost all of the ads are persuasive. They don’t generally change my mind but they aren’t targeting someone like me. I think that they mostly make for positive emotions for the candidate they like and negative emotions about those they don’t. Some may be so offensive or obviously stretching the truth that people will reverse their vote. But I was watching both Fox News and CNN this weekend talk about the Obama and McCain ads run in Spanish, neither of which told the truth. They made a good point, comparing it to the Obama muslim rumors, that regardless of whether campaigns will disown commercials and other media, people will still have that linger in their heads like a hidden truth. But the main focus is that, a lot of the time, they only need to convince the independents on a single issue to get their votes.
I do think that some ads are unethical and I expect many more before November 2. The Spanish ads were unethincal because they: 1) lied and 2) lied to people who may have a hard time finding the truth. I won’t go too much farther with which exact ones are unethical because I want to avoid my liberal bias. The things that I believe make ads unethical are lies, things based solely on religion, things about family members or friends (that tie into family values), things about their childhood, and anything else that can’t be related to IMPORTANT policy issues. Questioning policies, experience, leadership ability, etc. is fair game in my book, even on a Vice President.
527 ads (a classification which is more of a figurative thing because many now aren’t under that tax code (2)) are going to make a difference and people will make uninformed decisions. The people who are going to be swayed by these ads will probably have been swayed by any single issue ad, though, or maybe not voted at all, at least in my opinion. An NPR article did say that these groups are more likely to stoke the racial issue, something it says may not be figured into polls (3). Sure it fuels the fire, but both campaigns are supported by them so how bad can it be (attack this part)? Attack ads are dumb but that Bill of Rights thingy gives everyone free speech, so we can’t stop it.
(1) http://www.cnn.com/POLITICS/
(2) http://www.npr.org/templates/topics/topic.php?topicId=1102
(3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94733622
I think that political advertisements are designed not to make people like the candidate, but to dislike the other candidate. Many of the ads that I saw (1) focused more on the weakness of the other opponents instead of on the candidate as many of you have noted as well. The candidates are not as worried about whether the citizens are entirely informed about their polices, just that they vote for the candidate. In 2006, there were 160 million dollars spent on negative campaign ads versus 17 million spent on positive ads (2). This was in 2006, 2 years before the election takes place and already the negative ads outspends the positive by almost 2:1 (2). I also believe political ads are a check to candidates’ behaviors. The candidates have to be extremely careful of what they say or do as it can turn on them as fast as lightning.
There are so many negative ads because they apparently stick with voters longer than positive ads (2). This is true because it is easier to remember how someone is doing something wrong than what someone is doing right. If your doing something right, its expected, but if you do something wrong, then everyone will get angry and draw attention to you mistake. I find the ads that offer a plan or a solution to a policy the most persuading because it suggests a direction that we can take instead of naming off problems.
I don’t think that the ads being run are unethical. Many of the ads I saw were misleading (1), but they were not making up information, they were just misinterpreting the information on purpose. The people should be able to decide if and ad is believable or not. People should not believe most ads completely because TV ad makers have become proficient at telling only part of the truth or taking quotes out of context as in the Obama sex education ad (3). When quotes are taken out of context it can make someone look extremely bad, but when in context it is understandable what led him or her to say it. Another case of this is when an ad accused a district attorney of calling a sex hotline (2). As it turns out, the hotline had the same last seven digits as the phone number for the state Department of Criminal Justice Services and additionally the call only lasted for a few seconds (2). This suggests that the call was a mistake, but then again the attorney may have called that number on purpose and realized he was being monitored seconds after although that is less likely. There are strange people in this world.
I think that the ads by parties and interest parties hurt voter understanding of issues. The ads don’t add to the general understanding of a candidate as most attack the other candidate (1). The ads hurt peoples understandings because they tell the truth just not the whole thing, which confuses people who might have thought the candidates were pro on an issue but the ad states that they are against it. People know part of the truth and can research more into the subject, which they probably won’t. Most people don’t have time or don’t care (gov book).
For positive campaign ads, you should have the candidate shown in a positive setting such as in front of supporters (4). Then you can ad sound effects to make a small crowd seem larger than it is and create enthusiasm (4). Music is very important in tugging at the emotions of the viewers like patriotic music (4). Then of course there are graphics which simplify issues into slogans and the voice over to tie the whole ad together (4). Now you have a positive ad that promotes your candidate. Don’t forget about the other types of ads, such as bumper stickers, lawn posters, and websites (5). Promotional items help as well, like pens, buttons, pins, stickers, ect.. TV ads are the biggest though as shown by the money spent on them (6).
1) http://www.c-span.org/Politics/
2) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15495778/
3) http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/off_base_on_sex_ed.html
4) http://www.pbs.org/30secondcandidate/tricks_of_the_trade/
5) http://www.ehow.com/how_4443278_make-political-advertisements.html?ref=fuel&utm_source=yahoo&utm_medium=ssp&utm_campaign=yssp_art
6) http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/sourceall.php?cycle=2008
What better way is there to reach the general public of America than through TV? Considering the average American household has the TV on 6 hours and 47 minutes a day, I’d say there aren’t many better ways to reach out (1). Thus, TV ads will, as always, play a very important role in the upcoming election. TV ads have played a big role in election history, starting with the first spots in 1952 for Eisenhower’s campaign (2). TV proved itself once more in the Kennedy/Nixon televised debates. When on the radio, people said the candidates were essentially even, but when the first one was on TV, the young, composed Kennedy was said to dominate the shiftier, paler, sweatier Nixon (3). Ever since, America has been greatly influenced by what is presented to them in commercial form, and I predict that this election will be no different.
I find that the non-mudslinging campaigns prove to be most persuasive. Perhaps it’s best to look a bit more local on this question. Al Franken and Norm Coleman have been throwing the mud back and forth, and it’s those negative commercials that I really am not persuaded by at all, even against the candidate that I think is a complete slime-ball. Suddenly, a positive one came on for Ashwin Madia with no slamming of his opponent, just his plan and what he thinks will be best for the country. That’s the kind of commercial I personally find most persuasive. All of these ads can be found on Youtube and at the candidates’ respective websites.
I believe there are some unethical ads out there. One specifically I’d like to point out is the Brave New PAC: Phillip Butler one targeting McCain (4). I really think it’s in poor taste. McCain went through a lot as a P.O.W. and I when I hear him tell the story of his imprisonment (which he does a lot), I’ve gotten chills. What a tough thing for a guy to experience, and I’m sure in that situation even I would get slightly irritable. Ok, so does this mean I’m going to vote for McCain because some PAC made a slanderous ad against him? Heck no. I just think that it’s wrong for them to make an ad like that.
I think that 527 ads hinder American voters. They draw attention away from the main issues that many see as the most important, such as health care, the economy, and Iraq, and onto smaller things, like whether or not McCain has gotten angry before, or who Barack Obama knows/had known/will know/might have known/knows someone who knows a guy/etc who’s radical. Even the candidates themselves criticize the ads (4). Some of those ads have gotten very negative, and neither candidate wants to get involved with such negativity, especially if it proves to be inaccurate. Most importantly though, it plays with the voters emotions, and detracts from the ability to make good, well-educated decisions come election time.
(1) -www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
(2) – www.livingroomcandidate.org
(3) – www.museum.tv/archives/etc/K.htmlK/kennedy-nixon/kennedy-nixon.htm
(4) - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
What better way is there to reach the general public of America than through TV? Considering the average American household has the TV on 6 hours and 47 minutes a day, I’d say there aren’t many better ways to reach out (1). Thus, TV ads will, as always, play a very important role in the upcoming election. TV ads have played a big role in election history, starting with the first spots in 1952 for Eisenhower’s campaign (2). TV proved itself once more in the Kennedy/Nixon televised debates. When on the radio, people said the candidates were essentially even, but when the first one was on TV, the young, composed Kennedy was said to dominate the shiftier, paler, sweatier Nixon (3). Ever since, America has been greatly influenced by what is presented to them in commercial form, and I predict that this election will be no different.
I find that the non-mudslinging campaigns prove to be most persuasive. Perhaps it’s best to look a bit more local on this question. Al Franken and Norm Coleman have been throwing the mud back and forth, and it’s those negative commercials that I really am not persuaded by at all, even against the candidate that I think is a complete slime-ball. Suddenly, a positive one came on for Ashwin Madia with no slamming of his opponent, just his plan and what he thinks will be best for the country. That’s the kind of commercial I personally find most persuasive. All of these ads can be found on Youtube and at the candidates’ respective websites.
I believe there are some unethical ads out there. One specifically I’d like to point out is the Brave New PAC: Phillip Butler one targeting McCain (4). I really think it’s in poor taste. McCain went through a lot as a P.O.W. and I when I hear him tell the story of his imprisonment (which he does a lot), I’ve gotten chills. What a tough thing for a guy to experience, and I’m sure in that situation even I would get slightly irritable. Ok, so does this mean I’m going to vote for McCain because some PAC made a slanderous ad against him? Heck no. I just think that it’s wrong for them to make an ad like that.
I think that 527 ads hinder American voters. They draw attention away from the main issues that many see as the most important, such as health care, the economy, and Iraq, and onto smaller things, like whether or not McCain has gotten angry before, or who Barack Obama knows/had known/will know/might have known/knows someone who knows a guy/etc who’s radical. Even the candidates themselves criticize the ads (4). Some of those ads have gotten very negative, and neither candidate wants to get involved with such negativity, especially if it proves to be inaccurate. Most importantly though, it plays with the voters emotions, and detracts from the ability to make good, well-educated decisions come election time.
(1) -www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
(2) – www.livingroomcandidate.org
(3) – www.museum.tv/archives/etc/K.htmlK/kennedy-nixon/kennedy-nixon.htm
(4) - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
Advertisements for political campaigns have a big role in informing the general public of the candidates for the elections. I don’t think that most people in the younger generation actively follow the news , but they do often watch television, listen to the radio, and sometimes read billboard signs. This way, the names are actually out there.
There are many ways to advertise. What I find most interesting is the mudslinging. Candidates try to look better by making the other look worse, and at the end, there’s a little comment that says so-and-so “approves this message”. “Mr. McCain used to pride himself on being above this ugly brand of politics”(1). Obama also said he was above these dirty tactics, but that never lasts. It’s amusing how they think that negative ads like that will make them look so much better. I do think it’s very persuasive though. It makes people think of the negative sides of one candidate instead of trying to find the good qualities of the other. On the other hand, if the attack on the candidate is too extreme, it can also hurt the one that is releasing the ad. An example of an ad that was unethical was released by McCain’s crew.
--Education Week says Obama "hasn't made a significant mark on education".
That he's "elusive" on accountability.
A "staunch defender of the existing public school monopoly".
Obama's one accomplishment?
Legislation to teach "comprehensive sex education" to kindergartners.
Learning about sex before learning to read?
Barack Obama.
Wrong on education. Wrong for your family.--(2.)
They took Obama’s idea of keeping children safe by teaching about “good touch and bad touch” and made him look like he was trying to corrupt their minds. Although, in return, a lot of people, including the Obama campaign crew did call McCain perverted.
With all the different ads flying around, it’s hard to pick which ones to believe. I think it’s hurting more than helping the voters make informed decisions. If voters want to know the platform of the candidates or background information, they can look it up at their homepage or on government sites. Some of these ads are putting more and more people off of politics. If we weren’t in such an economic crisis, I don’t think this election would have as many participants as it does now.
1). “Low-Road Express” http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/30/opinion/30wed1.html?_r=1&hp=&adxnnl=1&oref=slogin&adxnnlx=1222225208-wD2s8R9Z+3ez19ZIQ96+Uw
2.) McCain Sex-Ed Ad Launched; Obama Camp: "Perverse" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-obamas-lone-edu_n_125205.html
I believe the role of advertisement has in a political campaign is crucial. The role it plays can ultimately win an election for the candidate if they use it properly. The right techniques of advertisement can help a candidate in an election that will allow them to get the attention of the voters. I find the most persuasive advertising techniques are ones when somebody else puts the issues and the achievements of the candidates. The other one which is good is when one candidate attacks the other candidate. No I think all the ads being run are ethical. I think the parties and the 527 ads are helping out the American citizens to make informed decision in November because it shows all the issues and problems they will resolve in their term. They also allow people to be formed about any issue from the economy to the war in Iraq.
Every four years in the fall, America is completely flooded with a sea of political advertisements. Everywhere we turn, there are billboards, television ads, bumper stickers, and yard signs touting a candidate in congressional and presidential races. The sheer number of advertisements is astonishing and often annoying, but it serves both as a show of solidarity for a candidate and as a method to attempt to win more votes.
Advertisements are an integral part of a campaign because they are truly able to reach the masses. Although the Democratic and Republican conventions drew a record number of around 40 million viewers and about another 7 million through live web stream, this number compared to the American population of over 300 million people is still relatively inconsequential [7, 8]. On the other hand, over 99% of Americans own a television and will see some political advertisement [8]. The popular addiction to YouTube by America’s youth has also reached many. In this way, while advertisements often lack in substantial evidence and position on issues, many techniques can be employed to sway voters.
This brings me to my next point. Political races can often get very ugly, as candidates employ a do-whatever-it-takes method to gain the votes they’ll need to secure an office. From what I have seen in political advertisements, there are three general trends. A candidate will either attack his opponent and question his ability and past behavior, offer a short resume of what he has done and has the capability of doing, or zero in on a controversial issue voters face and his viewpoint and strategy for it. On the McCain website, the several of the advertisements attacked Obama’s response to the current economic crisis and how his past record has included tax raises and words lacking follow-through [1]. In the same way, Obama has mentioned McCain’s ties to the Bush administration [2, 3]. Watching these advertisements reinforces my belief that political advertisements are not intended to make you vote for someone; rather, they mean to detract you from voting for the other person.
I am by nature very susceptible to advertisements. As embarrassing as it is to admit, I am one of those people who will initially believe everything I see. It takes quite a bit of work for me to view political advertisements objectively and usually I just don’t. It really is people like me that fuel this crazy $3 billion campaign [5]. When a negative ad is run, I lose a lot of trust in a candidate, and I think that is one of the issues at hand. The next president has his work cut out for him to restore the trust of the American people in their government. There is, however, a fine line for what I consider an acceptable ad. As I’m writing this, I have the TV turned on Fox News. In the time I’ve been watching, I’ve seen a ridiculous number of commercials that are basically a back and forth between Norm Coleman and Al Franken. Were my decision on this race not already set in stone, I probably would leave that ballot section blank. I’m guessing that would not have been their intent.
Because these advertisements reach so many people, the candidates have to be very guarded in all of their comments. Prior to release, these advertisements have gone through very stringent screening to ensure that there is minimal potential for offending too many people. Thus, I don’t think there are any candidate-endorsed advertisements that are unethical. However, the advertisements run by interest groups often have been offensive. For example, a recent Brave New PAC advertisement that I’ve seen on both CNN and MSNBC attacks McCain’s core as a prisoner of war [6]. When I saw this ad, I was so mad that someone had the audacity to bring up his experiences with a negative connotation. A McCain spokesman immediately came out and called this ad “vile,” but also managed to associate it with the Obama campaign. I don’t think that was fair and shows how these interest group ads have the possibility of either providing assistance and weight to a campaign or bringing it down with uncalled for attacks.
My last point reflects interest group ads in a negative light, but I actually am not totally against them. Many single-issue ads are important as they have the potential to present issues and the candidate’s viewpoints [4]. To me, this actually provides a better picture to viewers of what the candidate will actually represent in office. Also, since technically they are not tied to the actual candidate, they can be more blunt about their points [6]. While the interest groups get a little shady in the areas of secret money and tax codes and unregulated donations, I still think that when used intelligently and ethically, these 527 ads can help the American people make an informed decision.
[1] – www.johnmccain.com
[2] – www.barackobama.com
[3] – www.youtube.com
[4] - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
[5] - http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/10/15/ad.spending/index.html
[6] - http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
[7] - http://www.marketwatch.com/news/story/republican-national-convention-draws-record/story.aspx?guid=%7B2760CA57-D09D-4CE1-80D8-7499FEF77EF4%7D&dist=hppr
[8] - http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/05/republican-national-conve_n_124305.html
I think advertisements play a major role in elections by simply telling people what people they could be voting for. One would think that this should be common knowledge, since the average American spends 4 hours a day watching television, most people would not know who is running for office without these advertisements to make sure candidates are heard and recognized (1). Ideally, these advertisements would be intended to inform the viewer about what a candidate believes in, but instead most advertisements’ purpose is to attack other candidates’ beliefs, previous actions, and tactics. For example, one of Obama’s ads talked about how McCain is just going to continue to ruin the economy like Bush. Obama’s reasoning for his argument is that since McCain admits he still cannot use a computer, he still doesn’t understand the economy (2). Although there is no correlation between computer smarts and economic smarts, these ads continue to run because surprisingly these ads do have an effect on the way people vote.
The political advertisements in commercials are not at all persuasive to me unless they talk about their beliefs rather than why others are wrong. I find speeches that candidates give on TV to be a lot more persuasive because they spend more time talking about their beliefs and goals, and less time insulting other candidates. Although commercials are not persuasive to me, there are some people whose vote is easily swayed when they see enough dirt on other candidates. An interesting example will be seeing what happens to support for Norm Coleman’s after Al Franken’s ad regarding possibilities of Norm Coleman not prosecuting fraudulent and wasteful activity in Iraq reconstruction in exchange for campaign funds.
Although I think nearly all ads are unethical because of their constant attacks on others, an ad I especially hated was the one by Norm Coleman saying that Al Franken is a jerk unfit for politics because he used to be a comedian who said some inappropriate jokes (3). This ad goes beyond attacking ones ideas; this ad insults Al Franken’s sense of humor, former career, and character. Norm Coleman has probably said some politically incorrect comments before as well, so I don’t think its fair for him to have people judge Al Franken on his career as a comedian over his political beliefs.
527 ads are just more of the same attack ads garbage, so they will just contribute to the confusion of who to vote for. I don’t think they matter too much though because it isn’t possible to know what the candidates are truly like unless you have seen how they do in office before, or unless you have actually met them before. In the end, people are going to vote for the candidate they saw on TV with the least convincing arguments against them. The 527 ads passed by independent groups are not going to help their campaigns as much because they aren’t making themselves heard. I think that independent parties just don’t have a chance, even with 527 ads on their side because they are not publicized enough in general. Therefore all they will do is sway most people’s votes from democratic to republican or vice versa depending on which candidate gets more negative publicity.
Sources
1http://www.csun.edu/science/health/docs/tv&health.html
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bQ2I0t_Twk0.
http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=tv+ads+for+McCain+and+Obama&search_type=&aq=f
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb876zkE-eE
I think that one job of political advertisements is to help get people excited about the campaign. It is sort of like a sports game, where you pick a team and defend your team till the end. If someone has chosen a candidate, then sees an ad of theirs kick butt, they are likely to get enthused. Some on the other hand, have trouble picking a candidate. The ads serve as a tool to get those undecided voters. Even though advertisements are often ridiculous or plain mean, they do leave an impression on the viewer. (1)In a recent poll it was noted that, “87%of people are concerned about the level of personal attacks in today's political campaigns” In an article about this survey it said, “The choice that candidates have to make is whether the negative information they want to emphasize in a campaign against an incumbent is important enough to voters to make them disavow their opponents and support them instead.” Therefore there is sort of a give and take to being so negative. If the candidates were angels, they could run on pure positivism, but they are only human. Are they willing to get a little down and dirty to win over voters? The advertisements are also a way for candidates to get their views on issues expressed. The ads are often catchy; yet still convey a serious message. (2)In an Obama ad, he talks about his mother’s death and relates it to his passion for health care. Therefore it is dramatic and still shows his stand on an issue.
I find the ads that show the candidates making a speech very effective. When the video appears unedited, and not taken out of context the ads are much more believable. When it seems as if someone made the ad on imovie and switched the clips around, it is untrustworthy. (3)For example, Obama had an ad where he was making a speech about how, “our moment is now.” His voice was booming through the speakers on my computer, and the speech seemed to flow without the interruption of a title slide. I have not seen any ads where McCain’s voice is on it, except to say, “I approve this message.” It is much more personal and effective when you feel as if you can relate to a candidate.
When it comes to unethical ads I believe both candidates are guilty of having them. One that I thought was particularly offensive was one against McCain. (4) The ad suggests that McCain doesn’t want to keep our children away from sex offenders. I don’t think it matters what party your from, your background, or your religion, no one wants children to be unprotected from sex offenders. The thought that McCain just doesn’t care is really unfair and looks just plain stupid. I also think the Britney Spears ad is unethical. (5)To make a campaign seem like it’s not about popularity is ridiculous. The whole point of an election is to be the most popular, and comparing Barack to blonde celebrities was out of line, and quite frankly, irrelevant.
I think that the 527 groups and independent expenditure ads could go unnoticed by the average American. If I had not listened to these discussions I would never have known about the underground spending that goes on. These groups do make the race a race of money. The election is already based on raising money, but this simply involves the richest people in America to make their voice heard. A downside is that these groups focus on single issues. This convinces people to vote by issue and not by platform.(6) “Such "issue advocacy" won't explicitly tell you to elect or defeat a particular candidate, but the advocacy group's view of the candidate's stance on their issue is clear.” Also, it seems as if infinite power is given to these individual groups such as the (7)“Born Alive Truths” These groups can keep their finances secret, raise unlimited amounts of money, and defeat opposition. If anything these groups are clouding America’s head. It is already hard enough to tell who thinks what exactly, and who to support in the election without a rich third party joining in. I think that there should be stricter limits put on these groups in order for us to maintain the system that we do, in electing presidents.
(1). http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-aR3Gpsn4v4&NR=1
(3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K38JnVMpzRs&NR=1
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TUDWBzAXpNI
(5) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2c0vctCfhH8&feature=related
(6) http://www.opensecrets.org/527s/
(7) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
Campaign advertisements are central to the relative success or failure of a candidate. Advertisements ensure publicity, allow candidates to make their views known to voters, and allow candidates to criticize their opponents. Both candidates have spent enormous amounts of money on advertising; in August, $32 million of the $53 million raised by the Obama campaign went towards advertising (8). The McCain campaign spent $23 million on advertising out of the $41 million his campaign raised in August (8). Within the presidential race, many recent ads have focused on an opponent’s perceived weaknesses: the Obama campaign played on fears of the Wall Street and investment collapses (1) while the McCain campaign accused Obama of not taking enough leadership during the current market crisis (2).
I believe the most persuasive type of advertising contains the candidate talking to the American people about his plans for this country. These are most persuasive because they do not mention an opponent’s proposed wrongdoings. Ads directed towards making rivals look bad tend to falsify and twist information and quotations into gross misinterpretations that can confuse the public and lead to decisions made hastily and on the basis of faulty evidence.
I believe advertisements that unfairly attack a candidate and twist their views are strongly unethical. Ads that inform the public of false or misleading information do nothing to further the ideals of democracy and freedom of information. For example, a McCain campaign ad criticizes Obama’s policies on education, accusing him of not taking a stance on education and working to teach comprehensive sexual education to kindergarteners (4). However, the Education Week article referenced actually praised Obama for his work with early childhood education and claimed that McCain had ‘not much of a record’ regarding education (4). Additionally, accusations of Obama’s support for sexual education in kindergarten were unfounded; the type of education to be taught was supposed to be ‘age appropriate’ and intended to ‘teach kids about bad touching, so they could protect themselves against predators’ (4).
527 ads are mainly harming the American people’s abilities to make informed decisions in the 2008 election. They play on the fears and emotions of Americans and force people to make rash decisions based on feelings rather than on policy. For example, the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, a 527 group, released a gruesome ad detailing Sarah Palin’s support for aerial wolf hunting (5). By playing on the ideas that wolves are endangered and need to be protected, the Defenders of Wildlife Action fund (who endorses Barack Obama) portrayed Governor Palin as cruel and heartless, and therefore not a person the United States wants to be controlling governmental policy. However, some truthful, policy-based campaign ads are allowing the American people to become involved in straightforward politics. The Obama campaign released an ad detailing the candidate’s policies for ensuring a stronger economy (6), and the McCain campaign released an ad about McCain’s alternative energy policies (7).
1. http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/the-ad-campaign-banking-deregulation-and-mccains-health-plan/?scp=1&sq=McCain%20ad&st=cse
2. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/09/23/mums_not_the_word_despite_mcca.html
4. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-09-22-ads_N.htm
5. http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/2008/09/defenders_of_wildlife_targets.html
6. http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/samgrahamfelsen/gGg42R
7. http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=662f66bf-ce4a-4ff0-9175-10fb5b8436a1
8. http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22donate.html?ref=politics
I think advertisements have huge roles in political campaigns. They send out information and they introduce a candidate to the people they're trying to have elect them. Political ads help the candidate market themselves and their ideas to the people and project their goals to others. Also it allows them to bash the other candidate in an ad to make them seem less appealing.
The political ads that I feel are persuasive are the ones that strictly refer to the issues the candidate wants to focus on in their campaign and if they are elected, the issues they want to focus on in office. When they bash the other candidate it makes them seem unsure of themselves and that the only way they could win is if they make the other person look bad, it makes me believe that they aren't good enough and are unable to take the blame and criticism that comes with being in office. They seem like they'll just be making scapegoats for any mistakes made.
There are plenty of ads that are unethical in this campaign. One I saw was them saying that Obama wanted a massive government and that it was going to destroy families. (1)There are plenty of ads that are just trashing the other candidate and the sad thing is many people believe them without ever reading the truth. Its almost like the candidates are preying on the weak of mind.
I think people feel that when they see these ads they're learning everything about the candidates by seeing these. They aren't really promoting informed decisions its quickly becoming a popularity contest wit the general public who won't go and look up the candidates views and the won't try and understand a topic that could very well change their opinions.
1.www.johnmccain.com/informing/multimedia
The Presidential race this year has become one of the most heated and important elections in recent time. Both going back and forth with arguments like a new argument about McCain linking Obama to the financial crisis (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/politics/20adbox.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss) and Obama while more “nice” than his conservative counterpart states togetherness and “we need change” throughout his campaign (www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fe751kMBwms)
As of right now Obama has an estimated $94 million in available cash toward his campaign (www.nytimes.com/2008/09/20/us/politics/20adbox.html?partner=rssnyt&emc =rss -) While McCain has an estimated $36 million dollars of cash on hand, a major advantage in Obamas favor. http://www.campaignmoney.com/biography/john_mccain.asp?cycle=08.
I feel that Obamas campaign is a little to sympathetic and not eager enough to attack the McCain race and most of all Vp hopeful Sarah Pailin who has a lack of experience and a horrible political career behind her. Obama needs to start on the offensive soon or he will continue to be pounded with hateful add campaigns.
McCain is doing a great job at attacking his opponent and his policies. www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/candidates/john.mccain.html - 52k. But his best political move was to portray both himself and Gov Pailin as the “Original Mavericks” www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCMhoi6OjD0&watch_response - 149k. Who “reformed” their position.
When it comes down to the money situation I think that Obama has a major advantage on money. Almost three times the amount of McCain. But when it comes to content and amount of add time on TV I think that McCain has a downright win in his hands. Obama has to act now or else he will let the race slip away. He needs to attack his opponents the way he has been attacked. And do it numerous of times. Use the vast amount of money he has and take advantage in the failing economy and the failure of the Bush administration.
What role do you think advertisements have in political campaigns?
· I think that it is a way to get straight into the lives of everyday people that are not necessarily going to be up to date on all of the political backgrounds.
· It seems to have a power to influence certain feelings, especially when it speaks of personal issues and problems affecting people's everyday life.
· Another use for it is to bash on the other candidate. Which I personally feel is a waste of money, because when I hear it's a commercial about McCain and all he does is talk about Obama's problems, or vice versa, I feel that they are cowering behind their opponent's mistakes.
What types of political advertisements do you find persuasive and why?
· The ones that I find most effective are the ones in which the candidate actually is speaking, and tells of what they feel is wrong and what needs to be done.
· An example is Obama's ad featured on his web page. Obama is set in an apartment/ house looking scene. He starts out talking about ordinary people that he has met. After, he starts talking about problems with money and the economy.
Are there ads that are being run that you think are unethical and if so why?
· Yes I do think that there are some ads that are unethical. I think ads that will talk about others mistakes and why they shouldn't be voted for is just a way to get some one's eye away from their actual campaign.
Do you think that the parties' and the 527 ads are helping or hurting the ability for the American people to make an informed decision in November?
· I believe that the ads will in fact influence the American population to become more interested in a certain candidate, which may lead to the overall influence to vote. But, whether or not that vote is informed is another issue. People that see the ads that bash others might just think that the other person is an evil politician only looking to screw with their life, not actually researching the whole story behind it, and finding about real information about that candidate.
I AM POSTING THIS FOR JESSIE LIEB
Although it is hard to admit, the majority of the American public is uneducatedor uninterested when it comes to politics, having been reported in our textbookthat more Americans know their astrological sign than who their representativeis for their state (1). The lack of interest or ignorance about politics inAmerica makes advertisements play one of the biggest roles in the politicalcampaigns. That thirty seconds of commercial time are all a majority ofAmericans are willing to devote to
politics. Sadly, since the American publicis so out of synch with real political issues, the candidates have to use theiradvertisements to play up their first impressions, appearance, and personality,leaving no room in those thirty seconds for their stance on pressing issues (2). Like any other commercials, the candidates have to sell themselves, making amajority of their advertisements extremely superficial with catchy slogans (2). Also, when November comes closer these ads are mainly used to tear the opposition down, which haveproven to be very harsh but also very effective (3). Although I hate to admit it, the most persuasive advertisements are the mostvile, the ones that tear apart the opposing candidate. America is a country ofdrama, and we feed off of the negative ads. It has been proven that negativecampaigning gets more media coverage than positive (3). It is so much moreinteresting to see
Barack Obama be compared to Paris Hilton then hear over andover again about McCain’s Maverick status. The reason these are allowed togain so much attention is because of people’s lack of knowledge andparticipation in politics. If the majority of citizens actually followed thenews and paid attention to the candidates’ stance on issues that wereimportant to them they would know not to fall for such falsities. The line between what is ethical and what is not has conspicuously beenblurred when it comes to politics. Nasty ads have been allowed to run for yearsthat no one would imagine could ever be aired. An example is an ad run byVernon Robinson in 2006, called the “Twilight Zone”, which was openly racistagainst Hispanics, African Americans, and homosexuals (please watch this!http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaSQ-LNp9Nk). It is unfair to run adslike the “Twilight Zone” because they
are degrading to minorities, thusmaking them unethical. Many of the parties ads are hurting the ability of the public to make informeddecisions because they are stooping down to their level. By makingadvertisements that only appeal to the public’s emotion, candidates areallowing the ignorance in politics to thrive. If the candidates dropped thesuperficial ads and tried to focus on real issues, they could force the Americanpublic to pay attention and get informed (2). The 527 ads are also a hindrance,considering they usually are not even affiliated with the candidate, giving themfree reign on what they advertise (1). The majority of the 527 campaigns areall negative and give false information that trick the American public (2). While I do believe it is the duty of the individual to inform themselves, itwould also help if they were given a push in the right direction and notbrainwashed by false
advertising.1. Government in America (our textbook)2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=947957733. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=946407004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kaSQ-LNp9Nk
I think advertisements play a huge role in campaigns. Ads get the candidates views on popular issues out to the public through mass media. Ads also show a candidates image. 527 Groups have targeted McCains image by interviewing other POW's; whom have a negative view (1).
I think the most effective ads are the ads that are more positive. Today I saw an extremely negative ad against a person running for Congress, and it made we want to support the person the ad was against, simply because the ad was so disgustingly negative. However, they get more free media time if the ads are more negative (1).
I definitely think that unethical ads are being run currently. I dont think its fair to attack your opponent in a negative way during a TV ad. If you want to attack your opponent, do it at the right time and place-- a debate. A lot of the time the negative ads leave out the whole truth. True, they may have voted against the bill, but maybe there wasnt enough money in it yet, or it was an omnibus bill and they couldnt pass all parts. Candidates should focus more on the positive attributes they have that would make our nation a better place. Not why their opponent sucks and since their opponent sucks they would be better.
I think they are helping. 527 are basically groups that advocate issues (3). They help you shape an opinoin without flat out endorsing a candidate (3). It is essentially a 'sneakier' way of getting people to vote a certian way. According to article (2), the wealthiest groups do not always have the biggest impact. Moreso, the advocacy issue groups that can mobilize grass roots are the most effective (2). As long as the ads are more positive, I think they are helping. Even though each ad or group of ads is targeted to one issue, and leans towards one candidates. Once the ads get extremely negative, I believe they hurt because people are becoming fed up with negative/attacking ads.
Sources
(1)Liberal 527 Groups Target McCain with Ads; http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
(2)The Secret Money Project - Whats an 527, Anyway? A Primer'; www.npr.org
(3) 527s: Advocacy Group Spending in the 2008 Elections; Opensecrets.org
Dana's post -
I think advertisements can make or break a candidate. We live in a day and age of technology, and Americans are almost addicted to television and the internet. Things such as ads on TV, videos on YouTube, and blogs can be a huge influence on the population. Politicians are using TV ads earlier and earlier in their campaign to get there name and party out there. There are also many biased media personnel's or news station who can have influence on its viewers. The media and advertisements can also chose to only show certain aspects of a campaign or a candidate so America is not always getting the full story. They might say negative comments towards a politician of the opposite party, without really providing viewers with the entire story.
Obama now, He has raised around $460 million and spent about $369 million in various places. John McCain (who was broke last fall) he has raised about $240 million and spent about $194 million. It's amazing how much money is invested into advertising and campaigning.
For the majority of Americans, I think the 30 second TV commercial ads can be the most persuasive, because millions of people tune into numerous channels a night. Television has consumed America, and TV can be strategically very influential. You can view a TV ad and find out something negative about a particular candidate and have an opinion change about them based on something such as morals etc. Advertisements are crucial in a campaign because many people do not want to research for hours on a party and their candidate, so a simple TV ad can do the trick. Many researchers say that political campaign ads on television are hurting candidates with all the negative comments and PR but I believe that most people won't agree with that, because people love the drama, and love the TV.
I think that the TV ads have become so out of control that they are unethical. Everyone has seen the TV ads with Al Franken and Norm Coleman. Some of those ads aren't even about REAL issues that matter in society, they are simply attacking each other in mistakes they've made, or shortcuts they've taken. I think it's ridiculous, I honestly think candidates need rules on advertisements so they don't turn into unethical material. Advertisements and campaigning should be about the issues and facts, enough with the slander.
I don't think these political ads overall are helping America make the right choices in November. These ads are helping shape many political viewpoints, but the attacks on the opposing candidates could have information missing from them, and is the dirty side to politics. People should not be picking candidates based off a commercial or TV advertisement…but I think that is where most people get their information. I believe there should be restrictions put in place on candidates and the money they can spend on TV ads. It is ridiculous the amounts of money they are spending (as shown above). Slanderous comments shouldn't be what informs America.
http://blog.bitepr.com/2008/09/presidential-ca.html
http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
http://www.barackobama.com/tv/
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/candidates/john-mccain/
http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
Post a Comment