FAVORITE POLITICAL ADS OF 2012:
What I liked and what worked in the ads?
One of the political ads I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1mI_jO8sos&feature=related
This ad was funny to me and I thought it was a somewhat humorous take on the Democrat symbol of the donkey and the Republican symbol of the elephant. I think it portrayed the Republicans stance on many issues quite well and it showed a united party against the democrats. The ad does a good job of portraying its message. The ad is similar to the Barbra Boxer ad. The ad portrays Barbra Boxer as an elitist and attacks the democratic ideals just as the republican ad did and attacked the republican ideas of democratic ideals of handouts and people who want something for nothing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a9WB_PXjTBo
Another political ad I liked in 2012 is found at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f-VZLvVF1FQ This ad was for Barack Obama, without actually using Barack Obama and it focused on his positive impacts. He uses many different demographcis to portray Obama as a good guy who is fighting for their needs. It defines politics and attempts to utilize people at the individual level as talking to each other and getting things done in that way and his message is that it starts with US, meaning we all need to vote for him because he is getting the job done in Washington. I thought his message was done in a tactful way and doesn’t use negative images of anyone else…it only focuses on him and his impact so far and why we need to keep in office. This message is like Michele Bachmann’s ad found at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixs27-xUSRA&feature=pyv. She uses social media and her internet sight, Michelebachmann.com to appeal to peoples common sense to elect a common sense woman into the white house. I think these ads are better than attacking the other candidates which appears petty and like you are out of control and doing whatever you can to win.
I don’t like it when celebrities get involved with politics. I feel like they use their platform to expose their opinion, when they shouldn’t. Most celebrities are uninformed and do not completely research the issues. An exception is Michael J. Fox’s ad: tp://abcnews.go.com/Politics/slideshow/intriguing-political-ads-2010-10887147. He is obviously well informed of the issue (having lived through it) and I think his ad does a great job of supporting an issue he believes in. Generally, speaking I do not like it when celebrities get involved in politics and use their public platform (such as red carpet events) to give their opinion.
Different News Outlets Opinions:
This issue:
Herman Cain and his stance on the abortion issue.
How can one issue be covered so differently on different networks?
What Fox News had to say?
Fox News focuses on Cain’s attempts to undermine Planned Parenthood. http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2011/10/30/planned-parenthood-rejects-cain-claim-abortion-clinics-are-aimed-at-black/
What does NPR have to say?
NPR focuses on Cain’s contradictions regarding when abortion is appropriate and claims that he now opposes all abortions, when before he claimed abortion was acceptable in cases of rape or if the mother was in danger. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=141842125
What does the New York Times say?
The New York Times took the same approach as NPR and focused on Cain’s retractions of statements regarding his stance on abortion. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/29/us/politics/for-cain-reverse-becomes-a-prominent-gear.html?_r=1&scp=8&sq=abortion&st=cse
The different opinions regarding the information are important because they show the type of coverage politicians receive according to the agenda of the news source. News in this manner does not appear to be balanced, since you can read three different stories about the same subject and receive three different opinions. This shows the impact on the opinions of voters if they receive their news information from only one source. A good point of contention that arises from the differing news sources means a dialogue among voters will start and will cause people to think about other sides of the issue. Whether, these people accept differing opinions remains to be seen, but it is important to note these conversations are going on. The differing news stories have different impacts on helping or hurting the candidates…unfortunately it depends on the media’s take of the story and how they decide to portray the story to the public. The differing opinions on the news stories impact public opinion because if they only show one side of the story, the people do not get the truth which results in opinions based on false facts, which means voters are basing on falsities and not on the truth. As we have seen from this example the news media attempts to sway voter opinion by reporting on the portion of the story in line with their agenda. It is important to remember the media is trying to attract voters and not necessarily in giving the truth thereby proving the impact of not telling the truth to the public.
Monday, October 31, 2011
Sunday, October 23, 2011
Yes, the political ads the candidates are running are propaganda and no, it is not effective. Many people vote based on their ideological lines and the propaganda confirms their opinions (either positively or negatively). For instance if they see a positive add about a candidate they like, they will think, “Yes…that is correct”. If they see a negative add about a candidate they like, they will attribute it to below the belt politicking from the other side.
The current ads regarding the 2008 GOP primary are no different. When watching the ads, the people, either agree or disagree or disagree with the candidates viewpoints or portrayal based on their preconceived notions. Rick Perry’s ad attacking Mitt Romney’s health care policies is not swaying voters one way or the other. The voters already have opinions based on his health care policies and the ad confirms the thoughts they already have about Mitt Romney.
http//www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/perrys-romneycare-ad-health-policy-gets-really-dramatic/2011/10/10glQAZMA6ZL_blog.html. Why then are people paying attention to the ad? People are responding to the ad as a way to support their beliefs in everyday conversation. It provides evidence to their already formed opinions.
Michelle Bachmann’s ad attempts to humanize her as a local girl who understands Iowa, because she grew up there. I think the ads is attempting to win votes in Iowa because she relates to Iowans. I don’t think this is effective, because people will not vote because she is from their home town. If people do vote for her, I think it has more to do with their political ideologies lining up with hers. (Which could be the case…many regions have the same values.)
President Obama needs to combat his negative portrayal and concentrate on the positive things he has done while in office. There is going to be a lot of negative ads about him and the GOP will have lots of ammunition. He is going to have to prove them wrong and prove that his policies have positively impacted America. I believe he has the hardest job because he has to overcome people’s opinions of him right now. The negative ads against him are confirming peoples thoughts that he is not improving the economy and has done’ little to change America, as was his running slogan in the 2008 election.
The most effective of these ads is Michelle Bachmann’s because it is positive and she is portraying herself as a someone who understands your needs and wants. I think the negative ads are not effective because it shows the candidate running them as a person who needs to attack the other person to win instead of showing what they are capable of.
Social media groups are now entering the political arena and providing advertising space. I think this is a great way to for these groups to make money, and also provide the candidates with face time, so the voters can get to know where they stand on the issues. It seems like (so far) they are being fair and providing space to both parties. I think where we run into problems is when one social media group decides to become more liberal or conservative and then start showing ads to support their agenda. As long as the sites remain bi-partisan and do not try to sway public opinion one way or the other (as television networks do), I think it is helpful for the political campaign of 2012.
Yes, I think television ads are the best way to reach passive voters. Passive voters do not want to research the issues and basically want someone to tell them who to vote for. Television is the best media for doing this, because there is very little work involved for them. I don’t think internet ads will be as effective. Usually, you have to click on the ad to see what it says. Passive voters do not have an interest in seeking the information for themselves and so the television works the best.
Sunday, October 16, 2011
"The only way to do great work is to love what you do."
"The only way to do great work is to love what you do."
-Steve Jobs
This statement is true…I am living proof. I received a Bachelor’s degree in sports medicine about seven years ago, because the only way my parents would support me in college was if I majored in a math or a science. I graduated and moved to AZ for an internship. The profession was nothing like I thought it would be and I decided I could no longer continue to live my life, performing in a job I didn’t like. I went to work for the City of Phoenix and found my true passion serving in the public sector. I love everything about it! I enjoy going to work in the morning and impacting people in Phoenix. I feel that I deliver better customer service, because I am happy at work! I think Mr. Jobs said it best!!! I intend to continue to live by his words of wisdom for the rest of my life.
-R.I.P. Mr. Jobs.
Competition among cable news outlets
Competition among cable news outlets is harmful to journalism, because it means network producers have controlover the content of the news instead of the reporters. This is badbecause most networks are not neutral and are generally aligned with onepolitical party over the other. The polarized nature of politicsmeans a network siding with one political ideology over the other resultsin an increased amount of positive versus negative stores for the particularideology they are supporting. I would agree with Mr. Capus commentthat, “Competition among cable news outlets can create an environmentthat is “harmful” to journalism.
I think the answer to solving thisproblem lies in the internet. The internet as a news source allowspeople to research what they are interested in and can formulate opinionsbased on all of the information available, not a two minute sound byteof someone else’s opinion. The information, on the inter internetis found quickly and you are unlikely to find the same viewpoint on a story. Thompson, 2011, quotes Ben Sherwood of ABC as saying, Yahoo Newsrepresented the ability of modern news to reach an ever-broader audiencewith more diverse and exciting content. Yahoo in one month reaches95% of the American electorate.” The reason this is important isbecause this is an astounding number of people the media can reach…viathe internet. Cable news networks do not have this capability. Aperson must be watching as show at a particular time to obtain news infoand generally the people watching the show have the same ideology as thereporter, so the chance of obtaining an opposing viewpoint is limited. The internet can help mitigate this.
I think the answer to solving thisproblem lies in the internet. The internet as a news source allowspeople to research what they are interested in and can formulate opinionsbased on all of the information available, not a two minute sound byteof someone else’s opinion. The information, on the inter internetis found quickly and you are unlikely to find the same viewpoint on a story. Thompson, 2011, quotes Ben Sherwood of ABC as saying, Yahoo Newsrepresented the ability of modern news to reach an ever-broader audiencewith more diverse and exciting content. Yahoo in one month reaches95% of the American electorate.” The reason this is important isbecause this is an astounding number of people the media can reach…viathe internet. Cable news networks do not have this capability. Aperson must be watching as show at a particular time to obtain news infoand generally the people watching the show have the same ideology as thereporter, so the chance of obtaining an opposing viewpoint is limited. The internet can help mitigate this.
Liberal Cable’s Tea Party Movement?
I complete agree with Politico’sassessments. The liberal media labels the Tea Party activists asracists and several members of the liberal congress apparently comparedthem to terrorists, while the republics maintain the Tea Party activistswant accountability regarding government spending, a limited government,and a balanced budget.
And now…the roles are reversed.
The conservatives have labeledthe participants in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests as crazy, whackedout loons who don’t have jobs or are bitter because they cannot find ajob, hate capitalism, and are “Un-American”.
The liberals and the conservativesare mirror images of each other in the way they are acting the only differenceis the promotion of different agendas.
The Medias reactions to these events,does in fact, make it appear that the cable news networks are promotinga specific agenda instead of just reporting the facts. The liberalsseem to attack stories that support the conservative point of view andthe conservatives appear to attack stories that support the liberal pointof view. It’s frustrating for those of us who want to make informeddecisions.
Most Americans obtain their newsfrom a sole-source network. If you want fairness and balance youneed to research all sides of the story in order to make an informed opinion. Some people don’t have the time nor the desire to do this…wouldn’tit be great if a news source used facts instead of sensationalism asa way to keep/attract more viewers?
And now…the roles are reversed.
The conservatives have labeledthe participants in the “Occupy Wall Street” protests as crazy, whackedout loons who don’t have jobs or are bitter because they cannot find ajob, hate capitalism, and are “Un-American”.
The liberals and the conservativesare mirror images of each other in the way they are acting the only differenceis the promotion of different agendas.
The Medias reactions to these events,does in fact, make it appear that the cable news networks are promotinga specific agenda instead of just reporting the facts. The liberalsseem to attack stories that support the conservative point of view andthe conservatives appear to attack stories that support the liberal pointof view. It’s frustrating for those of us who want to make informeddecisions.
Most Americans obtain their newsfrom a sole-source network. If you want fairness and balance youneed to research all sides of the story in order to make an informed opinion. Some people don’t have the time nor the desire to do this…wouldn’tit be great if a news source used facts instead of sensationalism asa way to keep/attract more viewers?
Sunday, October 9, 2011
It's happening in the U.S.
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/nyregion/wall-street-protest-spurs-online-conversation.html?ref=us
Intereting article...can the movement and power of the protestors increase with the usage of the internet?
Intereting article...can the movement and power of the protestors increase with the usage of the internet?
Occupy Wall Street
Occupy Wall Street
The issue:
Protestors are occupying Wall Street in protest of the class wars occurring in America…mainly that one percent of the American population holds the wealth in this country. Many argue that they are unsure of what the protesters are protesting, but others believe that although a single voice or message is not heard, the protesters are voicing their opinion that they are unhappy with the large corporations and government officials who support these corporations. They are looking for a restructuring of government regulations and ensuring the corporations do not take advantage of the little guy.
Rachel Maddow Show
Talking Points: Rachael Maddow argues that compared to 1945, the distributions between classes was not as evident, but that changed in the 1980’s. Maddow notes that Americans do not resent the rich, they resent the fact that the system has stopped working for them and that the middle class is disappearing.
The O’Reilly Factor
Talking points: Bill O’Reilly argues that the protestors are loons, and left-wing communists and anarchists. He argues that the people protesting have been heard saying, “We didn’t have anywhere else to go”. O’Reilly believes the protests are funded by, by George Soros, a notable money-backer of liberalism. O’Reilly states that there is no coherent political ideology, or clear message. The Factor also notes the irony of the information sharing, of the issue, through inventions of capitalism such as the iphone, smart phones, etc. The last point O’Reilly notes is that the protestors are un-American and looking to tear the country down.
Difference of Opinion
The difference of the two opinions seems to fit in with the stereotype of MSNBC (host of the Rachel Maddow Show) and Fox News (host of the O’Reilly Factor). MSNBC is typically noted as more accepting of liberal points of views, while Fox news tend to favor conservative views. MSNBC is giving credibility to the Occupy Wall Street Protestors, while Fox News appears to belittle the protest and paint the participants as un-American.
Why Does this Matter?
The coverage of the news stories matters because most persons obtain their information from one source. Whether the source is MSNBC or Fox News, or some other network, if the stories are not presented in a fair and balanced manner and the authors are allowed to show bias, the persons watching the shows will be influenced to follow whatever the media presents. If the information is not based in fact it can have detrimental effects on the political process of America, because if persons believe government is corrupt, when they are not (or vice versa), bad things can happen and public opinion can be swayed into following un-truths.
The coverage of the different opinions on different networks also matters because of the network ratings, wars. The more viewers a network has, the money they make in advertising. The article: Chasing Fox by Gabriel Sherman provides insight into these wars. Sherman, (2010) notes that Jonthan Klein of CNN faced a possibly insoluble cable-news riddle: How do you build the kind of excitement that draws in viewers without being partisan? CNN was already forced to defend CNN’s rating issues. The pressure on Klein ratcheted up. In April, Klein began talks with British talk-show personality Piers Morgan. In June, he announced that he would hire the famously black-socked and disgraced former governor Eliot Spitzer. Klein faced stiff internal resistance to hiring Spitzer. When one CNN executive expressed to Klein the concern that viewers risked being turned off by Spitzer’s hooker scandal, Klein had snapped, “I don’t give a fuck.” Based on this decision, Mr. Klein was fired. This article provides evidence that the different networks are constantly in battle to bring the most interesting stories forward and will sometimes do so at any cost. This is a dangerous concept because many Americans obtain their information and form their opinions based on one network. For example most Americans choose either MSNBC or Fox News and if misinformation is presented, these people are forming their opinions on misinformation. It is wise to choose ones information from a plethora of sources to ensure balance and truth seeking in issues…the truth is generally in the middle.
Saturday, October 8, 2011
Does Obama have a media advantage?
Bill O’Reilly seems to think Obama has a media advantage and that the news media is liberal and doing everything in their power to re-elect the President. I do not agree with the story because O’Reilly stated that the data showed Fox news showed even coverage of Obama versus McCain in the 2008 election. Generally, during this time, it appeared that Fox News was much harder on Obama than on McCain. I find it interesting that Fox News states they are fair and balanced, yet most of their stories are investigating Democrats and trying to prove their sordid affairs. I wish the news media would be honest about who they cover and why. I like to watch all networks, because you get a different view and different information depending on who is telling the story. Fox News tends to be to the right and MSNBC tends to be to the left and I believe the truth lies somewhere in the middle.
Sunday, October 2, 2011
Internet Freedom Blog
Hillary Clinton’s remarks, in Businessweek, regarding the internet were interesting. Her idea of “Freedom to Connect” is noble and I found it staggering that 1/3 of the world’s population are online. The power of the internet and social media is immense and as the usage grows so does the needs for rules and regulations. The progress of democracy and overthrowing an oppressive government were evident through Egypt, and social media played a huge role in this outcome. The outcome of the rebellion may not have happened, if social media had not played a role. In the Businessweek article, Clinton argues for the need of helping the citizens of countries who deny access to certain internet sites and social media sites. One of these countries is China, and while I agree with her stance on promoting democracy I found Clinton’s strong stance on China curious...it’s interesting the United States is attempting to control Chinese policies when they own so much of our national deficit. China scolded us regarding the reduction of our bond rating and I wonder if they will have an opinion of the United States’ outspokenness of this, as well. Does anyone else find this intriguing or see America as setting themselves up for trouble?
The internet is important as our public space, in the United States because of our right to freedom of speech. It is important to the underlying assumptions of the United States Constitution to preserve Internet Freedom. Social Media changes our perception of Internet Freedom…anyone has access to large masses of people and can influence the populists at any time.
Links to Articles:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-16/clinton-to-support-facebook-freedom-fight-censorship.html
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/whats_going_on_35.html
The article on Syracuse.com noted that Hillary Clinton and the Obama administrations are spending $25 million (this year) on initiatives designed to protect bloggers and help them get around firewalls in countries that inhibit social media. The Internet Freedom and Social Media article, has Clinton saying, we won’t have a clear picture of the internet’s role in the recent developments in Egypt and elsewhere until the dust settles, and the data is collected and analyzed,” yet we are throwing $25 million at this initiative? I could think of ways that money could be better spent…especially until the data is concrete. I think these comments (if circulated through the mainstream media) would anger Americans. The idea of internet freedom is a new concept and one likely to be debated. If a country can control their borders and what happens within them, why is the internet any different? I understand the argument that the internet allows people access to things outside their country and promotes democracy (which I am for!), but it is also fair to argue the point that a country should be allowed to control what goes on within in it…including internet and access to the global market. While I am not a proponent of this, I can understand the argument behind it.
The NPR article notes that some of the technologies used to block internet access are developed in the United States and sold to those countries, wishing to block the access to social media sites and various other internet sites. Sanctions may be put on U.S. Companies to keep them from selling these technologies. Other technologies, such as items used for nuclear weapons, are banned as well. I think regardless of whether or not China or other eastern countries sell these technologies to other countries, America should have sanctions on these items…otherwise we will appear as hypocrites. This policy arena will have a large impact on the future of the internet and the rights associated with internet access.
I agree with the CNAS Internet Freedom Report…and defining cyberspace and what can and cannot happen is an important aspect of developing foreign policy, related to the internet. I think it needs to be expanded beyond the United States and the United Nations should attempt to influence countries to adopt the policies, as well. It is a global problem needing input from all countries to work.
Links to Articles:
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-02-16/clinton-to-support-facebook-freedom-fight-censorship.html
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/2011/02/whats_going_on_35.html
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)