Thursday, September 25, 2008
Reponse to post #2
I enjoyed watching the ads and reading what you thought of them! I hope you'll look at the ads that each other watched. I look forward to reading your response posts. Please post them here so that we can separate them out. Please try to respond to a person that you didn't respond to last time so you can interact with a new student! When you refer to information you have read or to commercials you watched please cite your work. Thanks.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
This is in response to Lauren. While I agree that televisions ads are very effective, I think that negative advertising is not as effective as other ads highlighting candidate’s policies or records. Negative campaigning aims to encourage strong supporters to attend the polls and discourage independents and opponents of the candidate from voting (1). However, negative advertising has been shown to actually increase turnout across different groups (2). This shows that negative campaigning does not work. Also negative campaigning has been proved to actually influence people the opposite way according to expectancy theory (3). People are expecting advertisements showing something good (straight white teeth for toothpaste, actresses for make-up, etc.) and then a negative political advertisement is shown. The negative ad violates the expectation and therefore leads people to dislike the creator or sponsor of the ad. Negative advertising also drives away independent voters by reinforcing partisan feelings (3). Negative advertisements are also less likely to be convincing because they reflects badly in the response; viewers think of the sponsor- candidate in this case- as an attacker (3). Independents also feel that negative advertising takes away their ability to decide for themselves, causing them to go against what the ad wants them to do (3). Negative ads are remembered more often and get more attention as you said (3), but that would just exacerbate the bad effects they have for the candidate. Sources that claim negative advertising is more persuasive base their arguments on now outdated information. For instance, in a new book from 2008, the author claims negative advertising is more effective (4). However, they include comparative ads in negative advertising and say that negative ads are much more likely to be truthful and informative then positive ads (4). However, much of the ads designated “negative” in the election between Barack Obama and John McCain have been basically only about the other candidate- for instance the McCain ads ”Chicago Machine” and “Jim Johnson” (5). The ads also are not as truthful as proven by all the media attention on fact-checking the ads by campaigns and 527 groups, and the ads focus less on policy then certain positive ads. Because the ads included as negative advertising has changed, the evidence supporting negative advertising can not be depended upon.
(1) http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8
(2) http://repositories.cdlib.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1000&context=crisp
(3) http://www.scripps.ohiou.edu/wjmcr/vol02/2-1a-B.htm
(4) http://www.news.wisc.edu/14606
(5) http://www.johnmccain.com/tvads/
I have to disagree with Oscar’s claim that 527 ads help the average American citizen make an informed decision. While I do believe the fact that 527 ads are not associated with the candidates could be beneficial because it could allow them to expose certain issues without having to sugar coat them in favor of one side, I think this is rarely what they are used for (1). 527 ads can have nothing to do with the actual candidates, and are more often exposed as lies (1). This free reign they hold over their ads can cause more damage than good, considering they are able to express any kind of denunciation against the candidate they oppose, no matter how crude or untrue it is. While Oscar states that these ads are able to help American citizens make informed decisions because they show all the issues and problems the candidate will resolve in their term, this is rarely ever the case. 527 ads have become known as being malicious and negative, which allows them to get more coverage (2). They rarely address the important issues of the political agenda, but focus on one, usually false fault, of the opposing side to try and tear them down. This is shown in a 527 ad shown on NPR that interviews a former Vietnam prisoner of war that denounces McCain as a rash and fiery man that he would “not like to see with his finger near the red button.” (2). Ads like this are biased and do not show the candidate’s stance on important issues, but rather more trivial things like one man’s opinion about the candidate. The reason these negative ads are working against the public is because many Americans unwillingly fall into their trap. Americans are excited by things like slander and gossip, and are pay more attention and are affected by advertisements labeling McCain as a hot head than reporting facts on issues that are regarded as boring (3). The circulation of these biased ads in the most part impede the ability of American citizens to make informed decisions about the candidates because rather than focusing on the important issues they emphasize unnecessary slanders that are often fiction (2).
1.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
2.http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
3.Government in America (our textbook)
This is in response to Anthony’s post. I agree with almost everything he said about political parties and campaign ads, however, we disagree on a few points. I somewhat agree that the bad advertisements stick out more so than the ones about good attributes of the candidates, because there have been contradicting studies about this topic (1). However, I disagree with his paragraph that stated that the bad ads are not unethical. I strongly believe that the articles attacking the candidate personally about religion, race, gender, and family are unethical and should not be run. These ads do not tell the people anything about their goals and strong-points; they just tear down someone about some supposed scandal. I also disagree when he says that Americans should be able to decide for themselves whether or not to believe them, because it is very difficult to know which ones to trust. Also, although a person may decide not believe this negative ad, they may still remember it and it may still have an influence on them (1).
Also, it can backfire on the candidate because negative campaign ads can result in negative attitudes and cynicism about government in general (2). Campaign ads can bring up negative points about things such as their record in political office as long as they “remain respectful, fair, relevant, and truthful” (2). This may actually help Americans make an informed decision. However, the ads that just attack the other candidate personally are unnecessary. It can also backfire on the candidate because citizens have increasingly become disgusted at all the attacks on opposite candidates (1).
(1) http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html
(2)http://www.scu.edu/ethics/practicing/focusareas/government_ethics/introduction/campaign-ethics.html
In Response to Emily Brink’s post:
I found it very interesting how you tied intelligence to the effect of campaign advertisements on people. I had never thought of it in that particular way but I think you have a good point. Most commercials are misleading and untrustworthy but could easily be mistaken for the full truth if one is not aware of the issues. After reading your post, I went back to youtube.com and looked at more of McCain’s advertisements. You made a good observation on how he has less than Obama and most are very negative. McCain has broke new ground with the amount of lies and non-fact based ads he has approved (1). The John McCain page on Youtube, features a video right now called “McCain is Right.” The producer of the ad cut four times from the debate where Obama said: “McCain is absolutely right” and then asks “Is Obama ready to lead.” This ad was very annoying to me because Obama goes on to say, “McCain is right however…” which is where he implants his ideas. McCain’s ads are extremely negative and so many low blows are taken, I think your point about intelligence definitely comes into play here. Anyone can see that McCain’s clips are edited and almost always take things out of context.
I also thought you made a good point by highlighting the fact that 527 ads do not care about what most American’s support. They are elitist groups who have enough money to help a certain candidate get elected or just tarnish the names of candidates in general. They do represent an unethical practice and hurt the public’s ability to make non-biased decisions.
Overall, I agree with your blog post and it made me want to go back and look at more ads that support your thesis. The only thing that I would like to look back at with a different perspective is about the whole intelligence determining an ads effect on a person. I do agree with your statements however the more I thought about it, the more I realized that nasty advertising sways a lot of very intelligent people. John McCain is not a dumb man (well I mean he probably has a relatively high IQ, but personally I would never call him “smart”), and yet he approves these ridiculous ads. That is very confusing to me, but I think the reason for it is because those ads grab people’s attention. If you don’t have time to research Obama’s viewpoints you may just take the easier road and support McCain.
(1) http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1842030,00.html
In Response to Kyle:
I agree that political ads do get the word out about who is running for president, but I also think you are underestimating US citizens. Since everyone knows who George W. Bush is, the likelihood that they know who both McCain and Obama are is also very high. Knowledge about who the US presidential candidates are isn't limited to within the United States either, people around the world are interested in this years US presidential race (1). Although I agree that ads do affect the way some people vote, the ads mostly affect lower-class citizens who lack the resources to make informed decisions (2). For the most part, negative ads don't change a voters opinion, they make an impression but don't change the viewers beliefs (3).
I think you are over estimating to power of political ads. Most people have already decided who they will vote for at this point, and the people who haven't base their decisions on the presidential debates (4). The debates are the main source of information and the most influential to independent voters and people who have not yet chosen a candidate (4). The number of people who are swayed by negative ads will only make up a small proportion of the voters, and with only make a significant impact to the election if the race is very close. In regards to the extremely negative ads from the Coleman-Franken race, I personally believe that Minnesotans will make decisions based off of their own views rather than the mud-slinging ads.
I agree that most negative ads are unethical, especially since they have become increasingly dishonest. However, there are claims that when negative ads work, they make both candidates look bad to the voters (5). The Coleman-Franken is progressively getting uglier, but their ads probably aren't garnering the support they were hoping to receive. There is even increasing evidence that their harsh ads have been chasing away potential voters (5).
I agree that 527 votes don't have as much weight in the election, but mostly because their radical messages scare away moderate voters more than anything else. They will probably rile people up, but not for the cause they are advocating for. People are more likely to be angry about the content of the 527 ads, than the messages they are trying to send. A pro-life ad is less likely to gain support for conservatives and will increase frustration will groups who are strongly anti-abortion. Negative ads will scarcely affect opinion, and will annoy people who dislike negative ads and amuse people who find political bashing useless but funny. These ads lack the power to significantly influence voters, because they lack the information and include social messages that people don't believe are more important than the economy.
(1)http://www.voanews.com/english/archive/2008-03/2008-03-14-voa19.cfm?CFID=45597961&CFTOKEN=89020285
(2)http://www.pollster.com/blogs/low_information_voters_and_tel.php
(3)http://www.dailybruin.ucla.edu/news/2008/sep/29/impact-negative-ads-uncertain/
(4)http://adage.com/article?article_id=131283
(5)http://www.startribune.com/politics/state/28699894.html?elr=KArks7PYDiaK7DUqyE5D7UiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
This response is to AJ’s post. I agree about the various points that he made that advertisements are important that in order to win the majority is to win the moderate and undecided groups to win the election. The reason is that moderates are a huge group in America and that advertisements are in need in order to persuade them they are the right candidate for the presidency. I agree also that majority of America do find debates and conventions boring especially the younger generation who aren’t as part of the political system as the older generation, and by broadcasting advertisement on TV where it is the most likely place to reach people, candidates are able to give their statements.
I disagree that advertisements that highlight a candidate’s goals and good side, but rather negative advertisements do influence people to vote for the person not being attack. Obama hasn’t really been attacking McCain as much as the Republicans are doing to him, which is why Republicans have won seven of the last ten presidential elections. (1) Even though interestingly enough, the first ever negative presidential campaign commercial was run by a Democrat in the 1956 race. (1)
1) http://www.mtr.org/presidential-politics-accentuating-the-negative
Bjorn-
While I agree with you on most of your points, I feel that some things should be brought to your attention. You stated that you believe that the basis of an advertisements importance is based on its content- whether promotion or demotion. I disagree though that an advertisements importance results from its positivity or negativity. I think that all advertisements are important.
The website The Living Room Candidate refers to this years campaign advertisements by saying: “A reflection of the shift in popular culture toward the provocative tone of the Internet [is visible], which relies on bold statements and humor to inspire “forwardability,” is that the style of this year’s ads are noticeably sharper and more aggressive than that of previous elections” (1). But in reality humor, innuendo, sentiment, drama, and brazen attack are all part of political ads, and those elements have remained remarkably constant over the years (2). This type of advertisement isn’t new, and you can check out the archives of ads like these at CNN All Politics (2).
It is true that special interest groups run many advertisements, and that the candidates sometimes must denounce association with them. Both McCain and Obama tried to distance themselves from the 527 groups early on (3), but with the huge influx of the amount of advertisements it has been hard to do that. Local television stations are feeling the pressure of these new ads. While no one tracks the number of legal notices broadcasters receive on political ads, station managers and lawyers say attempts to block ads are growing both in number and intensity, particularly in states with closely contested elections (4).
Another point on which I disagree with you is the type of advertisement that is most persuasive. You said, “I think that they [advertisements that make the opponent look bad] 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 find this reasoning a little odd. If people only see a candidate making his opponent bad, doesn’t that make him look like a jerk? I think it not only does not persuade the voter more, it may even turn them off. A study by Yale University found that modest increases in advertising by one campaign or another significantly affected the survey respondents’ perceptions of the candidates’ “likeability,” and also their voting intentions (5). Those effects were strongest among people with “moderate” levels of education and general awareness of the campaign. Among people with very high or low education levels, advertising was not so powerful (5). These moderate Americans are the highly contested voting group that both candidates are fighting for. I think it decreases your likeability if you come off as rude and to attacking. More effective according to this study would be advertisements in which the candidates own positive attributes and positions were featured.
WE agree that the 527 ads are hurting the presidential campaign as a whole. I found your statement, “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”, to be very true. I think it’s hard to distinguish between the two candidates when all we seem to see are negative ads that have no real relevance to holding the office of the President. I believe more attention must be paid to these advertisements to ensure that they are not purely false. The lack of regulation on content and on finances is what is leading to these problematic ads. I agree that something needs to be done about these ads before they have to damaging of an effect.
1. http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008
2. http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/candidates/ad.archive/
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
4. http://www.benton.org/node/17326
5. http://chronicle.com/blogs/election/1089/campaign-ads-what-are-they-good-for
Megan W.
Thanks for providing the website OpenSecrets.org. I’m not being sarcastic in case you cannot tell. There are many facts on it that I find interesting in comparing how much money the candidates use and where the money comes from (1). Of course they only show legal sources so I will have to assume all candidates receive their money legally. I agree with you that it is sort of funny or ironic that Obama has spent more money than McCain on ads, but they are still fairly close in polls (1). This shows that the American people are not persuaded by the most number of ads. This might also show that the American people are sick of the number of ads and it might actually be hurting Obama.
As a devil’s advocate, I disagree that the most persuasive type of ad is the one that contradicts the other candidate’s previous position. The ads can easily be taken out of context and time (3). There are events in between when the candidate first answers a question or issue and when the candidate next answers a question or issue. In a hypothetical example, politicians may say that attacking country A is a bad idea and that there is no proof of a threat from them. 2 months later, after country A has launched a missile strike on the US, politicians will most likely or hopefully changed their minds to attack or retaliate against country A. The ad does not cover all the events and circumstances that may lead to a logical change of opinion. I also think that the “Translation: your never wrong, if you pretend you gave the right answer all along.” is a funny quote (3).
Also, in a study done by Dr. Marco Iacoboni, psychologists have discovered through studies that although people may be disgusted with negative campaign ads, they work(4). Its ok if you do not believe that they work, I do not entirely believe that the ads convince me. It is more subconscious that conscious that the ads affect people (4). By the way, they used actual equipment to monitor the subjects’ brains and didn’t just guess or assume they were happy because they had a dumb smile on their face. According to another researcher, the purpose of a negative ad is not to get people to vote for the candidate who made it, but to keep supporters of the other candidate from voting (4). As said in the article “You can't get them to vote for you, but maybe you can get them to stay home.”(4). The article also said that when people form opinions based on negatives, they are less likely to change their minds (4). This is true because if you think about anything or anybody that you think badly of or dislike, it is hard to change your mind and all of a sudden like them even if they are not acting out of the ordinary. This is probably why first impressions are so important.
Using that information, I guess I will have to agree with Megan that 502 ads and negative ads in general are unethical because they take advantage of a person’s emotions instead of letting them using the facts to vote for a candidate(4).
Also, in response to your response to Bjorn, I think that being a jerk is necessary sometimes. A person who has to do the right thing can not worry about what the public thinks because the public may not know all of the necessary information that leads to the decision. Moral v. Right can be a confusing issue. Of course, the candidates should not be jerks all the time either because as you said it would be rude and alienate the public.
1) http://www.opensecrets.org
2) http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/
3) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VHEIi4XKRmM
4) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15549677/
In response to Tiffany:
I agree with your statement that political ads are increasingly negative. An article by the Daily Orange stated that in the week after the Republican National Convention, 77 percent of Obama’s commercials were negative and 56 percent of McCain’s commercials were negative [1]. However, I think that your source of information for the statement “The people would rather hear about the issues that matter to them, compared to the mud slinging” is not a representative enough sample to draw a conclusion about ‘the people’ of America.
I agree that political ads with positive content are more valued, but I believe that disparaging ads are more influential. Negative ads, as you said, generate more news coverage, but they also create negative images of candidates [2]. The false ads that you mentioned, such as McCain’s ad claiming that Obama wanted to teach sex ed to small children, work to present these false images to voters and create indecision [3].
I also agree with your statement that many people vote based on the negative ads that they view on television. Negative pro-Republican ads include McCain’s own ads distorting Obama’s sexual education record, as well as the Born Alive Truth ad about Obama’s support for partial-birth abortions [4, 5]. Negative pro-Democrat ads include the Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund’s ad on Palin’s support of aerial wolf hunting and Obama’s own all-Spanish ad that implies McCain is prejudiced against immigrants [6, 3]. I agree that the false accusations are a waste of time, but they must have some effect on the American people or campaigns would not be spending such a significant portion of their advertising budget on negative ads [1].
I also believe that negative 527 ads harm the American public’s political knowledge as a whole. The 527 ads’ focus on attacking an opponent’s perceived weaknesses do nothing to ad to the public knowledge base on important issues. I concur that the increasingly negative portrayals of both candidates are harming their chances in the presidential election. Additionally, the alienation of potential voters is a clear and present danger within the American presidential campaigns.
1. http://media.www.dailyorange.com/media/storage/paper522/news/2008/09/29/Opinion/Obama.Ads.Only.Offer.Hope.For.Negative.Campaign-3457373.shtml
2. http://premium.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/0002/27/sun.08.html
3. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/candidates/barack-obama/
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMwDq73gbm4
5. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/politicalads/candidates/john-mccain/
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQobIUE1zTU
I agree with what AJ said about the fundraising because I found the same data (1). However, I found that Obama raised 450 million compared to McCain’s 230 million (not 210 million) which will come in handy here on the home stretch. However, even though Obama has raised much more overall, the amount that he has remaining is roughly equal to what McCain has left. As you stated and it is obviously that this will be a very close race and will come down to the very end.
I also defiantly agree with what you said about that advertisement is very important especially to this election because of the intermediate and moderate votes. I agree with this statement and think that this is the most important part of the election that the candidates must focus on. If they win the moderate vote, they will become the president.
I agree that factual ads are more effective than ads that simply attack the other candidate and as I said in my post, some candidates do not even want to be a part of those types of ads because they feel that the ads hurt their campaign (2).
When you talked about the unethical ads and how you have not seen them, I can’t disagree with that, but I do feel that there are some unethical ads out there. Like the ad on “youtube,” about how Obama wants to teach sexual education to kindergarteners (3). I thought that was a bit unethical. I would also agree with you that the 527 groups are hurting the American public’s ability to make informed votes. These groups simply smear the candidates for their personal make up (religion, gender, race) and talk little about the candidates beliefs. That is wrong and should not be happening.
1. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP0b8B4C_wM&feature=related
I agree with what AJ said about the fundraising because I found the same data (1). However, I found that Obama raised 450 million compared to McCain’s 230 million (not 210 million) which will come in handy here on the home stretch. However, even though Obama has raised much more overall, the amount that he has remaining is roughly equal to what McCain has left. As you stated and it is obviously that this will be a very close race and will come down to the very end.
I also defiantly agree with what you said about that advertisement is very important especially to this election because of the intermediate and moderate votes. I agree with this statement and think that this is the most important part of the election that the candidates must focus on. If they win the moderate vote, they will become the president.
I agree that factual ads are more effective than ads that simply attack the other candidate and as I said in my post, some candidates do not even want to be a part of those types of ads because they feel that the ads hurt their campaign (2).
When you talked about the unethical ads and how you have not seen them, I can’t disagree with that, but I do feel that there are some unethical ads out there. Like the ad on “youtube,” about how Obama wants to teach sexual education to kindergarteners (3). I thought that was a bit unethical. I would also agree with you that the 527 groups are hurting the American public’s ability to make informed votes. These groups simply smear the candidates for their personal make up (religion, gender, race) and talk little about the candidates beliefs. That is wrong and should not be happening.
1. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.php?cycle=2008&cid=N00006424
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wP0b8B4C_wM&feature=related
While I do believe that positive ads do have a more truthful impact on their candidates, I disagree with Jill’s statement that positive ads are more influential. Political campaigning is now more negative than it has ever been (1), with at least 2/3 of advertisements being negative (2). This could in fact be a contributor to the declining voter turnout (2) as having negative advertisements also decreases the attacking candidate’s status among voters (1). Of those surveyed, 59% think that in their advertisements, candidates deliberately twist the truth (1). However, I think that while people generally don’t like negative ads (1), their view of a candidate is inevitably changed when they are exposed to their flaws. While I do believe that positive ads help citizens initially decide with whom they stand, when the undecided voter sees an ad for a candidate that shows them in a negative light, they probably will sway more towards the other candidate. This is especially because most television-watching Americans do not know much about the candidates, and have not had an AP government class requiring them to get informed. The negative ads could be what sticks in their minds on election day.
However, I do agree with Jill that this negative advertising has to come to an end somewhere. She made a good point that debates are the place to attack your opponent. Joe Biden said. "Those tactics (negative ads) may be good at squeaking by in an election, but they are bad if you want to lead one nation, indivisible (3)." I think that if our government truly wants to provide a leader chosen by the people, they need to provide a truthful image of that leader so that the impression he has on the voters isn’t skewed by a thirty second advertisement. I like to wonder sometimes if the founding fathers even imagined the presidential races would be like this, and I think if we are to stick to our country’s values, our future leaders should stop focusing on each other’s faults and give their voters a clear look at how they plan to facilitate change. I personally would rather have the best candidate win the presidency, not the trickiest.
1.)http://www.thisnation.com/question/031.html
2.) Government In America
3.) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94748575
In response to Katie B….
I agree that advertisements play a huge role in the political race. However, I disagree that political advertisements don’t have to follow any codes or procedures. While candidates obviously have the freedom of speech, their advertisements fall under the rules and regulations of campaign finance (1). Even advertisements on the Internet are regulated if they are paid for (1). Candidates are limited to how much money they can accept from political committees, individuals, etc. (3). Even though this doesn’t directly affect the message sent by the candidates, I still believe this has a large effect. I don’t think candidates necessarily have free reign over their ads; they are prone to taking a stronger stance on issues that concern the political committees that donated money for them. Therefore, while I do believe political ads are an important form of communication, I disagree that candidates have a lot of freedom in their ads.
I also agree that both negative and positive ads affect Americans. I do think the negative ads will tend to affect the people that are less interested in politics. According to the American Voter study about 22% of voters are placed into the “no issue content” category (4). The people that vote in the “no issue content” category vote for a party or judge candidates based solely by their personalities (4). I think these people are the most likely group to be affected by those negative ads because those ads often point out personality flaws of opponents. Although I also prefer the positive ads to the negatives, I believe the negative ads have a greater effect. Only 12% of American voters were categorized as “ideologues” that connect opinions and beliefs with broad policy opinions, who are probably more affected by positive messages (4). An experiment run in Minnesota during the 2004 presidential elections showed that people were more likely to be motivated to vote by negative messages (5). The negative messages caused a 3.1% boost in turnout relative to positive messages (5). I believe this is because people are more motivated to take action when they think something could turn out badly or to stop a cause they don’t believe in. I agree with you that these negative ads will cloud the truth and ability of voters to make informed decisions.
I also think many of these negative ads will come from 527 groups as the election nears, and while candidates are avoiding supporting these groups, they will have an enormous effect on the outcome of the election (2). I believe most of the unethical ads will come from these groups and will also get the most media attention due to their controversial messages (2).
I personally agree that positive ads are a much better source to make informed decisions, but unfortunately, I believe negative ads have the greatest effects.
1. http://www.fec.gov/agenda/2006/mtgdoc06-20.pdf
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
3. http://www.fec.gov/law/feca/feca.pdf#page=181
4. Government in America, AP Edition. By Edwards
5. http://research.yale.edu/GOTV/?q=node/60
After reading through the posts, I decided to respond to Katies. I agree with nearly all her points. As we near the election, more and more ads are being released. Each time I turn on the tv, I see an ad, often times; negative. In a recent survey, 87% of the people surveyed said they were concerned with the level of personal attacks in campaign ads today. (1) Katie used the example of the recent negative McCain ad. I also came across this ad on youtube. McCain compares Obama to young pop culture icons Britney Speares and Paris Hilton (2). This comparision is not necessary, nor practical. However, Obama has also attacked McCain with negative ads and comments. In one speech he made, he attacked Palin's lipstick on a pig joke (3). I thought this was unnecessary. Both candidates are guilty of using negative ads, which do seem overwhelming. Some 527 groups have fought back against the negative ads; supporting the candidate targeted. Planned Parenthood came out with an ad supporting Obama and his goal to educate young children on sexual predators after McCain bashed Obama for the same concept. (4)
I feel similar to Katie in the fact that, personally, positive ads have a greater effect on me.
Negative ads are more likely to be remembered, however the are also likely to lose candidate support (1). Katie also brought up the point that negative ads may be more effective for voters that are not informed, and I believe this is an accurate assesment. Uneducated voters might not know the opponents views; and believe the negative ads.
(1)http://www.thisnation.com/quest ion/031.html
(2) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo8KJNdCxWI
(3)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj-ZScgQE7g&feature=user
(4) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X0kiLoMY1hg
Angel-
In the first half of your first paragraph, it was hard to discern where you got a lot of your information from.
Apart from that, I agree that the political advertisements in general have a great effect on Americans, due in part to the fact of how much television they watch over a given period of time. The amount of political video clips they see over that particular amount of time, whether it be on an ad or even the news, have a dramatic impact on whom they consider to be the better candidate in an election (Government in America, Chapter 7.) This is almost dangerous, with people so willing to believe in what they see.
I think that your idea of the competing ads acting like an extended debate is very interesting; when I think about it, I can see where you’re coming from. However, I found it to be a little unclear of why negative ads tend to affect you more profoundly; for me personally, it is difficult to believe in any of these ads, but I especially hate the negative ones because they really do seem to lie or twist the truth. So all I didn’t understand was why that gained your faith, I guess…At least, that’s how I interpreted what you said. Also, there are so many negative ads that point out so many flaws in both candidates that it’s hard for me to believe you would be able to get behind either candidate, because if they both tear each other down, what’s left of either of them to believe in? My point here is that so many negative ads make it hard to see who really deserves to be president; these ads only seem to tell me who does not deserve to be president, and that doesn’t make the decision any easier if they both take each other down.
In addition, what was your position on 527 ads? I couldn’t quite tell if you liked some because they were negative and you said those were the sorts of ads that appealed to you, or if you thought they were ridiculous (like the one claiming Obama wanted to teach sex ed. to kindergarteners.)
However, I think that you ended with a good point saying that you know more about McCain’s background than his political standpoints – I think a lot of the general population tends to merely care more for where the candidates have come from rather than have the ability to think forward and consider what the candidates might do for our country. But, with so many confusing negative (and even positive) ads, it is difficult for anyone to really know who the best man is unless he or she really does some digging.
Response to Emily Berglund:
I agree with Emily on the fact that political ads play a large role in campaigning. Politicians spend around 60% of their budget on advertisements. (1) Because this number is so huge, it shows how heavily candidates rely on the ads. However, I do not think they always play a positive role. More and more ads are becoming negative. 2/3 of all political TV commercials are negative. (1) And let me tell you, all of these negative ads are really really really annoying. I am not the only one that thinks this, as research shows that moderate or indifferent people are less likely to vote because they are turned off by these ads (2) Yes, Emily is correct, they may help with the candidate’s strong supporters and appeal to them, but overall the candidates should be trying to get more votes from different people.
I definitely agree with Emily on her point about how to make the most persuasive commercial. I find commercials that give both sides of the story without being too critical and harsh are much more informative and I won’t actually change the channel when they come on. Candidates can just seem petty and childish when they try too hard to attack their opponents without showing why they are better.
When I typed in “Barack Obama campaign ads” (3) (and the same for McCain (4)) into youtube.com to try and find more unethical ads to back up Emily’s argument, the majority on the first page were not legit, professional ads. Home-made and ridiculous ads are what popped up and controlled the screen. It is crazy how much people take things out of context to make them fit their opinion. Because we are so well taught by Ms. Aby and are brilliant AP students, we know that these ads are false and we should not base our vote off of them, but there are plenty of people in this country who consider surfing the web adequate research. Sadly, I think a lot decisions are made based on silly little stories and such from the 527 ads. Things like Obama being friends with a terrorist appeal to the average American are grasp their attention.
1. Edwards. Government in America Textbook AP Edition 12
2.http://www.completecampaigns.com/article.asp?articleid=8
3.http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=barack+obama+campaign+ads&search_type=&aq=f
4.http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=john+mccain+campaign+ads&search_type=&aq=f
In response to Jessie’s post…
I completely agree with you Jess that most political ads interfere with voters’ abilities to make informed decisions because very few present real facts. For example, an ad created by the McCain campaign claims that Obama wants sex education taught to kindergartners (1). In reality, the bill that the ad refers to was a bill designed to protect children from sexual predators by teaching them about “right touch” and "wrong touch” (1). It’s ads like this that are confusing the American public because most Americans aren’t going to bother to take the time to find out what the legislation spoken of in the ad is really referring to. It’s ads like this that are unethical because they toe the line between free, protected speech and slanderous, unprotected speech.
However, I don’t think really think that you can force people to get informed. Sure, the campaign would be a lot cleaner if candidates focused on the issues, but the issues aren’t what sell. It’s like our textbook says, news is new (2). Views on issues that have been debated about for years aren’t going to catch anyone’s attention. I think that even if those were the only ads out there, people would just change the channel. It’s ads like those created by 527 groups, those that send mud flying in all directions, that catch people’s attention. Because news stations are privately owned, the executives need to be concerned with making a profit (2). As the entertainment industry has grown and pushed out the news industry, news stations have had to increase the entertainment value of the news, leaving little room for ads that would concern the issues. Those ads, while I agree would be more useful, will have trouble finding a place on stations looking to attract more viewers.
Like you said, it is the duty of the individual to inform themselves, and unfortunately individuals are probably never going to get honest help from political ads.
(1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lndk9WWfbGQ
(2)Edwards III, George C., Martin P. Wattenberg, and Robert L. Lineberry. "Reporting the
News." Government in America. 12th ed. Vol. Chapter 7. New York, NY: Pearson Longman, 2006. 222-23.
I am responding to Angel’s post, and I agree with the fundraising information. I think that Obama is having a very easy time getting donations and raising money, and has a huge lead over all of his competitors, earning twice as much money as McCain has (450 million to 210 million) (2). However, I also agree that McCain has made a great comeback, as he is coming even with Obama in the monthly fundraisings (2). He didn’t have the best start, but now that he is the Republican candidate he is catching up to Obama.
On the influence of television ads, I also agree that they are very important. More and more people are watching tv now, and advertisements there would really affect the people watching them. They can be influential to the masses and especially those who are undecided, if they see campaign ads for one person on the tv all the time. I think that commercial ads are key to winning the undecided voters.
One thing that I do disagree with is that the most influential ads are the dirty ones. I think that those ads are too aggressive, and that they make the attacking candidate look rude and out of place, especially if they are attacking things that are outside the issues. For example, there is an ad against Al Franken which talks of his past profession as a comedian, and how he made rape jokes and was derogatory to women. This isn’t really what he’ll be like if he gets elected into office, and I don’t see how its relevant to the issues. It’s not like he’s going to make a bad law against women because he joked about it in the past.
I do agree that there are some unethical ads out there, and I saw the one that you saw about Obama wanting to promote sex ed to kindergarteners, and I agree that that is a bit unnecessary (1). I also think that any ads about race or gender put out by the 527 groups would be very unethical (3)
I agree that the 527 ads are hurting the candidates’ chances, but not only because they aren’t promoting themselves, but the party is making itself look bad if they put out those unethical and inappropriate ads, like age or racial issues (3). They are only hurting themselves to those educated on the issues, but they may get some gain in the undecided or those who don’t know as much about politics. But overall I think that it is a negative impact as well.
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
In Response to asampson:
I really would have to agree on what you have said on the mudsling of different candidates in their campaigns. After watching some of Al Franken’s and Norm Coleman’s ads I would have to agree that I am neither swayed in either way, frankly I am just annoyed that my time has just been wasted by the mudslinging nonsense.
I would also agree with your statement on unethical ads such as those made against McCain, but like you have stated will this really make you vote for the man, no, and I personally don’t think that because he went through that that it proves that he is able to run this country. Hardship yes, important to running the country I live in, no.
With in your last statement I would have to disagree. I believe that a people do not actually know about the true issue that have been brought up as the “important” issues. These T.V. ads while not always 100% truth are able to get a persons attention, and by this intrigue them enough to research these issue that have been brought up and by so allowing them to make a more informed decision on election day.
This is in response to Bjorn’s post. I see that Bjorn makes a good fact between the political candidate and the interest group. It is the one, where Barack Obama told his campaign staff not to have any association with the 527 interest group (1). Bjorn also gives a good fact when he says going into September, Obama had $77 million raised and McCain had $84 million raised. He also goes further in depth with this fact by saying Obama has raised nearly $460 million overall and McCain has only raised $240 million overall (2). I would have to disagree with Bjorn when he says the most persuasive ads are those that make the opposing candidate look worst. I believe the ads that make the candidate make they look better are the better ads. But I do agree with Bjorn when he says people see faster people faults then their strengths. I don’t agree with Bjorn when he says I think that the 527 ads are hurting the ability for the American people to make an informed decision. I believe it does. It gives them a lot of information on issues that will allow them to make the best discussion possible. The media does help the United States citizen be well informed about the issues, so I would have to agree with Bjorn on that one.
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
Hello Bjorn. I found some different statistics on the candidates spending. I have found that McCain has outspent Obama in TY advertisements by $35,000. Obama is outspending McCain in Indiana and Michigan, while McCain is outspending in Pennsylvania, Iowa and Minnesota, where Obama has only spent $18,000 compared to McCain’s $472,000, according to a Wisconsin Advertising Project team. Obama however, is spending money for TV time in a much broader range of states. (see the full state spending chart at http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7232)
McCain is outspending Obama in 11 out of the 14 states where they both are fighting for the 30 second TV spot. The total spending amount between both candidates at the end of all of this is expected to top off $800 million. “McCain will be limited to $85 million in public money during the campaign's last two months because he did not opt out of the public campaign-finance system, unlike Obama. So the Arizona senator will be forced to pick his advertising spots more carefully.” (quoted from http://daily.iflove.com/cndy/2008-07/03/content_6814696.htm )
I also agree with you Bjorn that negative ads are the most influential. It is much easier in general for people to see the bad in others, than it is to see the good. The ads are unethical, and usually have absolutely nothing to do with the REAL issues of the campaign, but the slanderous comments can have a significant impact on a candidate. The ads are making it hard for America to make a clear decision, and the right decision. The media pick and chooses what to make important, and what to inform people on, and this is not always the best thing. Sometimes the issues, ads etc being viewed aree negative, or truly unimportant. People need to educate themselves in more ways then watching TV. The media clouds the true vision, and sometime withholds some of the truth, or doesn’t give the whole story. Sometimes, you have to read the fine print.
http://badgerherald.com/news/2008/09/18/mccain_outspends_oba.php
http://www.openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId=7232
Amanda-
I felt like your argument lacked sufficient support. It was confusing to me when I was reading your post as to whether or not you agreed with the effectiveness of TV ads. At the beginning you speak of their importance, and at the end you use a quote that bashes TV ads. I also could not tell if you agreed with the candidates spending on commercials. In an article I read it said. (1)“In order for a voter to become fully informed, it requires more work on the voter’s part. Unfortunately, most voters will not take the time to educate themselves on the candidates’ background, track record, political beliefs, and other things that will allow them to go to the polls and make the best decision. Often, the choice is the lesser of two evils based on the buzzwords that they’ve gained from the ads.” I felt that this ad answered some of the uncertainties in your blog. The candidates know that this is their only time to grab the attention of those less politically involved; therefore they try and make it stand out.
I believe that negative ads are inevitable in any campaign. A negative ad may look like it is attacking candidate’s policies when in reality it’s attacking the candidate’s character. (2)The point of these ads is really to attack the candidates’ character for inconsistency. The television ads try to convince you that the other candidate is evil or something and ignore the issues. And while there are plenty of negative ads, there are also the ads that present platforms. If the ad repeats itself enough, and is aired a lot, the message will get across. Regardless of the negative ads, positive ads can have a longer lasting effect. Republicans are trying to make more positive ads right now, showing that they can get along well with Democrats. NPR calls this “political cross dressing”(3) Voters are more moderate, and will like ads that seem to close the bipartisan gap.
Maybe the way to get to voters is through positive action, not negative. I agree with you that sometimes the ads can be confusing, but I do believe that the negative and positive ads have ups and downs. With America being so diverse, I think that it is good there are different types of ads out there that can accommodate different people.
(1)http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/75085/negative_campaign_ads_effective_or.html?cat=37
(2)http://presidentialcampaign2004.coas.missouri.edu/general/tvhistory_clips.html
(3) http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6417963
Wow, this was hard.
Response to Savaan:
As of September 24, 2008, 18% of voters were undecided. Most of these voters are interested in positions on the economy (1). As I was researching, I did not find good information about whether people are actually influenced by attack ads or not. I did look. So I will assume yes they do, to a certain extent. One thing I did see in the various opinion based articles was agreement with Savaan, and I will give mine too, that sometimes an ad will have a negative effect on the candidate who put their name on it. Whether this is because they are lies or they seem to be irrelevant is up to the candidates. But I don’t think that potential voters find out who the candidates are from these ads. As evidenced by what we have been reading in our textbook, generally people who are going to vote know who the candidates are because they are more interested and believe their votes make a difference. People who don’t know anything about a candidate will probably forget to vote anyway (I admit that’s my opinion but there aren’t facts to back either side very well, unless there is a time machine somewhere).
I don’t believe that the campaign ads are below the belt, in general. Obviously lying like McCain did about the sex-ed policy is really bad and Obama’s Spanish language ad that twisted McCain’s immigration policy is equally unfair. But if they aren’t lying, who cares. They say certain people aren’t ready to take that phone call at 2 AM or some other person is going to raise your taxes, I think that’s fine. People will use the internet to get lied to (cause not all blogs are fair and balanced) if they don’t want to make an informed decision and don’t see the commercials. And I agree with Savaan that the ads may just influence people to look on the internet to read about real policies. I also agree that some of the ads make it tougher for people to make an informed decision. And I completely agree that people are becoming more cynical about politics. But I also believe that the ads have some effect on the undecided voters, all 18% of them, when the election comes around in the form of subliminal thought (as I mentioned in my post). Cynically speaking, I think a lot of people make uninformed decisions on election days, often only voting along party lines. That is really impossible to quantify, at least until Election Day this year, although I did try to find stats online. And the fact is that the campaigns have a lot of money and people constantly doing polls so they must have found that people are influenced as they had intended. That’s my opinion, and none of you can call it fact (cause it may or may not be, who knows (answer: no one)). I'm Willie and I approve this message.
(1) http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26868632/
Alec—sorry this is not going to be that interesting for you to read… I’m completely agreeing with you..
In my opinion (and Alec’s) one of the worst part of many of the ads run for candidates is their tendency to be negative. But after reading his post I do have to change my mind and agree with him on something else, that the most effective ads are the ones that are positively geared. By comparing two ads made by independent groups in support of the Obama campaign, I felt personally more inspired to vote democratically by the positive one.
Negative ad link: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/2008/filter/ind#4424
Positive ad link: http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/images/commercials/commercial_9d740bd0f36a_tiny_web.jpg
I think when candidates make advertisements focusing more on what they want to do and change politics will be cleaner, and more generally more informative.
Another thing that disappoints me with the advertisements many candidates are putting out today is that they focus more on the candidate’s personality than their actual stance on issues.
This advertisement from McCain’s campaign spends two minutes highlighting the patriotism of John McCain. Although I feel it is important, I don’t think that it is as relevant to the policies he plans to pursue as other things may be.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/images/commercials/commercial_2bf5e202fc97_tiny_web.jpg
In this advertisement, Obama talks little about politics but instead speaks about his personality and values. I find this to be a waste of time because I would rather have a president who pursued policy I agreed with, than one I could have an inspiring faith talk with.
http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/images/commercials/commercial_2bf5e202fc97_tiny_web.jpg
In response to Willie:
I think you bring up an interesting point in saying that the campaigns’ main focus is to draw in the votes of the undecided. However, you yourself state that about 9% of the people polled say that they are undecided [1]. I am very skeptical that candidates would fuel such large scale campaigns for such a small target audience. Rather, I think that the point of such single issue advertisements is to bring forward a myriad of issues, attempt to tout their importance, and then tie them to a candidate. It is very rare that a voter will find himself in complete agreement with a candidate’s platform. Most people I’ve encountered will maybe agree on economic and war issues and disagree on social issues, or really support a healthcare or education initiative. The trial for voters comes with the decision of what issue they feel is most germane to their lives. Thus, while I agree with your statement that these single issue advertisements are a significant aspect of all campaigns, I don’t believe that they are specifically and solely targeted to the undecided. They also aim to propound their stances on issues they feel may be compatible with people who are leaning towards their opponent.
I am very confused by your statement that “all ads are persuasive but they generally don’t change my mind because they are targeting someone like me.” I almost view this as a contradiction because you find them persuasive, but you don’t change your mind. Generally, if I find anything persuasive, it will have somehow affected my way of thinking. Moving beyond this, however, I disagree with you that all ads are persuasive. There are many advertisements running that I think are so futile. For example, as Alec and a few others stated, the Coleman-Franken battle is starting to annoy many voters [2]. In various conversations, I have heard people express their distaste for such overt and broad attacks. Because they are sparking such negative reactions, I don’t think ads like that are persuasive. I also question your statement that they are not targeting someone like you. In response to that, I first would like you to clarify why this is. Are you not targeted because you are one of those whose minds are set in stone or because you simply are not one of the 9% undecided who you say the campaigns target? Also, who then would you say these ads do target? Many people in our class addressed this issue in a roundabout way in our first assignment where we were asked to define what sectors each candidate was doing well with. To define is to limit, however, and thus each candidate will surely attempt to target any sectors he is not leading in with support.
[1] – www.cnn.com/politics
[2] – MSNBC – 9/29
This is in response to Jen:
I agree with her on how superficial ads are an extremely effective tactic on the way that people vote. There have been polls that show ads have a significant effect on campaigns. For example, McCain attacked Obama for lacking the experience to lead the country, and now 55% think McCain has enough experience while only 38% think Obama is ready (4). Obama says in his ads that McCain is more of the same like the Bush Administration, and will not take enough action to fix problems. Now only 41% believe McCain can bring the needed change while 56% think that Obama can (4).
I also do not find attack ads very persuasive. I think that because candidates are tearing down other candidates to raise themselves up, voting feels like choosing between the lesser of two evils. In fact, 58% of the nation thinks that corruption in Washington D.C. is a widespread problem (1). I somewhat agree that ads appealing to emotions have some effect on others, but my support lies with the candidate who spends more time formulating solutions to issues rather than avoiding them by telling people why the other candidate is not worthy of being the President.
Almost all of the ads I have seen have just been the same old unethical ads they show during every election. I used to think that the candidates were the ones being unethical making these ads, but apparently Obama instructed his fundraising team to avoid 527s, yet he did not get a say in the matter (2).
I agree that 527 ads can be a positive or negative thing on the supported candidate. There are no set limits on funds, and there is less regulation by the law on 527 groups than there is for political parties, so they can give the necessary extra help to boost a candidate’s campaign if there is enough support (3). Although this can help or hurt the candidates, it definitely adds to the confusion of the voters because they are taking in so much garbage on candidates, that they lose track of candidates’ stances on issues, and just don’t know what to believe about them (the candidates).
1. http://www.pollingreport.com/politics.htm
2. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94795773
3. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=94640700
4. http://www.pollingreport.com/wh08.htm
In response to Even's comment, I have to disagree. I don't think McCain's doing that great of a job with his campaigning. Have you heard of the ad where McCain basically accuses Obama of trying to pervert the minds of little kindergartners (1)? I think that it is making McCain look like the “bad guy” instead of improving public opinions about himself. Some of the people that support him aren't making his image any better either. For example, in a 527 ad by the American Issues Project, they made it seem like Obama was affiliated with terrorists and actively trying to help said terrorists achieve their goals. In the comments on the youtube video, intermilan2010 said, “I wouldn't be surprised if one day we find out that Obama helped his terrorists' friends orchestrating September 11th.” (2). It hurts McCain's image by taking this too far, and the negative ads are hurting the people's ability to make informed decisions too. These ads are distracting the public from what they should really be basing their vote on, the issues such as the economy and health care. The candidates are spending entirely too much for mudslinging.
1)“McCain Sex-Ed Ad Launched; Obama Camp: 'Perverse'” http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/09/09/mccain-ad-obamas-lone-edu_n_125205.html
2)Osama's terrorist connections – William Ayers http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rxoiZdBSi-g&eurl=http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/outside_groups/american_issues_project/
3)“NPR Secret Money Project” http://www.npr.org/blogs/secretmoney/outside_groups/american_issues_project/
Post a Comment