Brent Fassino
Spcm 420
12/08/09
At the beginning of my semester in political communication, I was not very informed about the political system nor did I have a strong interest in being politically involved. I feel that my level of engagement stemmed from the fact that I wasn’t aware of the benefits of being politically involved as well as a loss of faith in the competency of my government. I feel that my generation shares these same misconceptions. Democracy is not perfect and it cannot work on its own. It needs the support and perseverance of the members of the community. Now that I have had about 16 weeks of extensive training I have a few suggestions on how our institutions could help people become more enthusiastic about becoming involved.
I think that with the advancement of communication technology people feel like they can be more interpersonally connected to each other without the need for face to face contact. This can be a good thing because it allows people who are not able to become physically involved in their community to express their opinions and receive information. However, it can also be a bad thing because it is conditioning the younger generations to look away from government for solutions to important concerns. It is also making them less likely to see good citizenship as including the responsibility to participate in government through activities such as voting. In other words it is teaching people that the government isn’t needed to solve problems, just a computer and good intentions. My solution to this problem is to combine the way public forums are held. The young generation or “dot comers”, if you will, prefer to get their information and interact using methods that combine online and face to face communication. Taking advantage of this preference will better inform and help to create more engaged citizens.
Another step in the right direction that has started to emerge in the political world is politicians becoming more involved in the culture. Bill Clinton was a candidate who helped bridge the gap between political figures and citizens through popular culture. He was able to show that not all old people were completely out of the loop with what is “still hip” and made politics seem like it was not just for old people. When he appeared on the Geraldo Rivera show back in the 90’s he strutted his musical talent by collaborating with a rock and roll band live on stage proving once and for all that he’s still got it. This struck a huge following with the younger crowd. This made him seem more easy going and made you want to hang out talk music and have a couple of cold ones with him. John F Kennedy’s ability to influence pop culture produced likeable qualities from the American public and undoubtedly got people more involved. He was idolized for his sense of style and the connection with the citizens. He was even a source of inspiration for bands as is evident in such songs as “twisting at the white house”. He also had pop icon Marilyn Monroe sing happy birthday at his party in Madison Square Garden. These are two examples of people who made political engagement seem like something that was not just for old, rich, white Americans.
Another way that political engagement can be improved is by more people, as well as politicians, getting on board with social networking and blogging sites. Traditionally substantially contributing to a campaign was a time consuming burden. For this reason, only the people who had the extra time and motivation would contribute to promoting their candidate. However, now that people are able to reach a wide audience with very little effort candidate promotion is something that anyone can do. By creating an online platform for people to express their opinions and concerns, people are able to build a strong sense of communal values that extend beyond their immediate residence. Politicians should also take advantage of these mediums because it allows people to track their progress. If more politicians would take a little bit of time out of their busy schedule to keep the public informed about meetings that they attended, emerging issues that affect us, or their thoughts on current trends, they could accomplish a lot more than just making an appearance on a TV show. I think that something like this would be beneficial to the public because it would allow people to get first hand information that hasn’t been blown out of proportion or watered down by the media. It would also be beneficial to the politicians because it would allow them to establish their credibility and attract voters that agree with their opinions and actions.
Another reason why a lot of people are not engaged politically is because they have conflicting values with both of the candidates. I think that more openness and diversity with political candidates would make people want to become more involved. I think that the reason why political and civil engagement is something that we see most out of upper class, white, males is because those are the type of people who are in politics. However, in the last presidential election we saw a shift from the traditional candidate to something new. Barrack Obama and Hillary Clinton broke new ground with their presidential campaign and what we saw as a result was a drastic change in the amount of political engagement. This rise in the amount of voters and supporters of presidential campaigns came from the young, and minority groups. People that were uneducated about politics were now eager to learn, eager to promote, and eager to vote for the candidate who they thought was going to embody the person that they wanted in a leader. And of course the people who were already involved in the political process continued to do so. This created a civil engagement that now encompassed the opinions of all different races and social circles.
After taking this class and learning about, not only the political process, but about how politics are communicated, I feel like I am more able to make an informed decision about political candidates. This has made me realize the true benefits of being involved with the policies of my community. I have also learned not to take everything that the media says as the absolute truth. Before this class I hated watching news channels like CNN and MSNBC, but now I like to watch them with a critical eye and take politics into my own hands. Now that I am able to analyze what politics are relaying to me I am more eager to challenge their fallacies. And that is what makes me a more engaged citizen.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Thursday, November 19, 2009
CPD a two party system
Brent Fassino
Spcm420
11/18/09
CPD a Two Party System
Before the 1960s, political debates, as we know them today, were non-existent. Since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy, public debates have become a staple of any presidential election. Debates usually take place between the two most popular candidates of the two most dominant political parties. The content of these debates usually includes current events, controversial topics, and in some extreme cases personal character. The format of debate has gone through some drastic changes over the course of the last several presidential elections. In the early stages of public presidential debates there was essentially no official format. Candidates would go at it face to face for about a half an hour or so and who ever could keep their composure the best at the end was usually declared the winner. However, now that the success of the candidate’s election relies heavily on the image that they project during their debate, every minor detail that goes into setting up a debate is narrowly tailored and arbitrated by an appointed organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). In 1988 the CPD took over and became the only agency that was legitimately allowed to host presidential debates. The goal of the CPD is to make debates fair and nonpartisan in the areas of neutrality, moderation, division of time, and type of format. But what they fail to do is provide a platform for third party candidates to gain publicity.
In selecting a neutral site for a debate, the CPD has to consider many different factors. It can be difficult to find the right town for a debate to take place. No location can be selected in a particular candidate’s home town for obvious reasons and small towns are usually out of the running because of the necessary accommodations that they will not be able to provide such as available hotel rooms. In addition, candidates are provided with an equal amount of time to give their opening and closing statements about the issues. In some formats candidates are allowed a certain amount of time to respond to questions. In certain cases candidates are allowed time for rebuttals and even cross examination on the issues. The 3 most popular formats for debate are as follows. The single moderator format is where a debate is hosted by a single person, usually a journalist for the media, who asks the questions and directs them to the candidates. The panelist format, where multiple people who are usually TV personalities, take turns asking questions. Or the town hall meeting format, where members in the audience ask questions directly to the candidates. To qualify for a debate, the candidate must have a feasible chance of being able to win the election. Or some may argue they must be a Republican or a Democrat.
The CPD is seen by many as biased towards the two party system who claim that the organization was formed solely to protect the Democrats and Republicans from third party intrusion. In a news conference with Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, they claimed that “they had the support of all the 1988 Presidential hopefuls for the new arrangement, which they said would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process. In response to questions, Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates. He said the issue was a matter for the commission to consider when it worked out the format, timing and other details of the debates with the candidates. Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates. But he said he could not speak for the commission.”
More recently, in the 1992 presidential elections, Clinton emerged as the favored candidate after the voters no longer supported Bush. However, once potential scandals started to come out, third party candidate Ross Perot's approval became evident in the polls with a commanding lead of about 39 percent. Later that year when Perot dropped out of the presidential race, Clintons following went way up. When Perot announced that he would be reentering the race, the CPD expressed their discomfort with him. Mickey Kantor, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, said that “the commission was worried about the precedent of third-party candidates always being included.” This eventually led to the 15 percent stipulation in 2000. This required the potential candidates to have at least a 15 percent support level in 5 national polls in order to participate in the debates. Since it is virtually impossible for someone who is excluded from the debates to attain 15 percent support, it seems as if the Republican and Democratic parties got what they wished for. (Farah)
In a book written by George Farah, the executive director of Open Debates, he gives a critique of the CPD. He claims that the CPD “is not the honorable institution it claims to be. It is a corporate-funded, bipartisan cartel that secretly awards control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic candidates, perpetuating domination of a two-party system and restricting subject matters of political discourse." (Farah) He claims that because the commission receives corporate donations, they have more incentive to exclude the third party candidates from the debates. The CPD is creating an illusion of fairness. The Commission consistently yields to the demands of the two major party candidates on virtually all questions, including those involving third party participation, debate formats, moderators, timing of the debates, lighting and other staging details, and so on. Typically, representatives of the two major party presidential candidates discuss these issues and arrive at a "Memorandum of Understanding." At this point, claims Farah, "the CPD, posing as an independent sponsor, implements the directives of the Memoranda of Understanding," shielding the major-party candidates from public criticism and lawsuits. (Farah)
The fact that the very organization that we trust to provide a fair and unbiased platform for our future leaders to mold our opinions is borderline corrupt, makes me think that a change is in order. The domination of the two party system is stunting the growth of our country by only allowing us to have access to pre selected candidates who may or may not represent the opinions of the American public. Whether you are a diehard Democrat or Republican, I think we can all agree that having more open and less scripted debates with people who have differing philosophies will help the American people to make a wiser and more informed decision about the person who they feel best embodies the character that they want in a leader. Allowing third party candidates will force the two major parties to field the absolute best candidate they have to offer, and not just a past President's son.
Work cited
No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. George Farah. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004
Spcm420
11/18/09
CPD a Two Party System
Before the 1960s, political debates, as we know them today, were non-existent. Since the first televised debate between Nixon and Kennedy, public debates have become a staple of any presidential election. Debates usually take place between the two most popular candidates of the two most dominant political parties. The content of these debates usually includes current events, controversial topics, and in some extreme cases personal character. The format of debate has gone through some drastic changes over the course of the last several presidential elections. In the early stages of public presidential debates there was essentially no official format. Candidates would go at it face to face for about a half an hour or so and who ever could keep their composure the best at the end was usually declared the winner. However, now that the success of the candidate’s election relies heavily on the image that they project during their debate, every minor detail that goes into setting up a debate is narrowly tailored and arbitrated by an appointed organization, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD). In 1988 the CPD took over and became the only agency that was legitimately allowed to host presidential debates. The goal of the CPD is to make debates fair and nonpartisan in the areas of neutrality, moderation, division of time, and type of format. But what they fail to do is provide a platform for third party candidates to gain publicity.
In selecting a neutral site for a debate, the CPD has to consider many different factors. It can be difficult to find the right town for a debate to take place. No location can be selected in a particular candidate’s home town for obvious reasons and small towns are usually out of the running because of the necessary accommodations that they will not be able to provide such as available hotel rooms. In addition, candidates are provided with an equal amount of time to give their opening and closing statements about the issues. In some formats candidates are allowed a certain amount of time to respond to questions. In certain cases candidates are allowed time for rebuttals and even cross examination on the issues. The 3 most popular formats for debate are as follows. The single moderator format is where a debate is hosted by a single person, usually a journalist for the media, who asks the questions and directs them to the candidates. The panelist format, where multiple people who are usually TV personalities, take turns asking questions. Or the town hall meeting format, where members in the audience ask questions directly to the candidates. To qualify for a debate, the candidate must have a feasible chance of being able to win the election. Or some may argue they must be a Republican or a Democrat.
The CPD is seen by many as biased towards the two party system who claim that the organization was formed solely to protect the Democrats and Republicans from third party intrusion. In a news conference with Paul G. Kirk Jr., the Democratic national chairman, and Frank J. Fahrenkopf Jr., the Republican national chairman, they claimed that “they had the support of all the 1988 Presidential hopefuls for the new arrangement, which they said would ''institutionalize'' the debates and strengthen the role of the political parties in the electoral process. In response to questions, Mr. Fahrenkopf indicated that the new Commission on Presidential Debates, a nonprofit group made up of representatives from each party, was not likely to look with favor on including third-party candidates in the debates. He said the issue was a matter for the commission to consider when it worked out the format, timing and other details of the debates with the candidates. Mr. Kirk was less equivocal, saying he personally believed the panel should exclude third-party candidates from the debates. But he said he could not speak for the commission.”
More recently, in the 1992 presidential elections, Clinton emerged as the favored candidate after the voters no longer supported Bush. However, once potential scandals started to come out, third party candidate Ross Perot's approval became evident in the polls with a commanding lead of about 39 percent. Later that year when Perot dropped out of the presidential race, Clintons following went way up. When Perot announced that he would be reentering the race, the CPD expressed their discomfort with him. Mickey Kantor, the chairman of Clinton’s campaign, said that “the commission was worried about the precedent of third-party candidates always being included.” This eventually led to the 15 percent stipulation in 2000. This required the potential candidates to have at least a 15 percent support level in 5 national polls in order to participate in the debates. Since it is virtually impossible for someone who is excluded from the debates to attain 15 percent support, it seems as if the Republican and Democratic parties got what they wished for. (Farah)
In a book written by George Farah, the executive director of Open Debates, he gives a critique of the CPD. He claims that the CPD “is not the honorable institution it claims to be. It is a corporate-funded, bipartisan cartel that secretly awards control of the presidential debates to the Republican and Democratic candidates, perpetuating domination of a two-party system and restricting subject matters of political discourse." (Farah) He claims that because the commission receives corporate donations, they have more incentive to exclude the third party candidates from the debates. The CPD is creating an illusion of fairness. The Commission consistently yields to the demands of the two major party candidates on virtually all questions, including those involving third party participation, debate formats, moderators, timing of the debates, lighting and other staging details, and so on. Typically, representatives of the two major party presidential candidates discuss these issues and arrive at a "Memorandum of Understanding." At this point, claims Farah, "the CPD, posing as an independent sponsor, implements the directives of the Memoranda of Understanding," shielding the major-party candidates from public criticism and lawsuits. (Farah)
The fact that the very organization that we trust to provide a fair and unbiased platform for our future leaders to mold our opinions is borderline corrupt, makes me think that a change is in order. The domination of the two party system is stunting the growth of our country by only allowing us to have access to pre selected candidates who may or may not represent the opinions of the American public. Whether you are a diehard Democrat or Republican, I think we can all agree that having more open and less scripted debates with people who have differing philosophies will help the American people to make a wiser and more informed decision about the person who they feel best embodies the character that they want in a leader. Allowing third party candidates will force the two major parties to field the absolute best candidate they have to offer, and not just a past President's son.
Work cited
No Debate: How the Republican and Democratic Parties Secretly Control the Presidential Debates. George Farah. New York: Seven Stories Press, 2004
Tuesday, November 10, 2009
Politics Online
Brent Fassino
Spcm 420
The reliance on the internet has become increasingly important to politicians in the past few years. I predict that in the next few, we will begin to see a full scale melding of politics and the use of online forums. In the election process, things like twitter, face book, and YouTube are becoming the biggest tools to convey the campaign messages of our future leaders, and for good reason. These forms of communication allow for a quick and effective way to spread messages across a large segment of the population of potential voters. Not only does this technology enable the candidates to reach out to voters, it encourages them to get involved.
Young people are finding it easier to get online and express their opinions about political candidates by starting groups and gaining a following. A popular social networking site known as Facebook, has more than 50 million users worldwide that is growing larger by the hour. In 2007 a university of Missouri student started a group called 1 million strong for Obama on face book that captured the attention of more than 1000 people in mere hours. In addition to voter turnout, social networking web sites also influence other things like fundraising, branding, and volunteering. Supporters can get online and actually be a part of the political movements which has a remarkable effect on political elections. Obama was one of the first candidates to get on board with this movement. He started a MySpace page back in 2007 where he quickly “friended” about 160,000 people. These friends were now able to receive updates about when and where rallies were being held, possible ways to contribute to Obama’s campaign, and things that they could do to spread the word. This is something that other political candidates overlooked and it may have very well cost them the votes of the young voting demographic. Not only did the use of social networking sites help Obama to acquire a large following, but it also helped market him as an average guy. The concept of homophily would describe this as the tendency of people to bond with other people that they perceive to be similar to them. Since Obama was seen as someone who was still in touch with the young people, the younger voters felt that they finally had a voice in politics and that encouraged them to take control and become more involved with the elections.
Online video web sites such as YouTube are another great way for politicians to spread their message. These web sites allow videos to be uploaded from anywhere around the world and instantly accessed by millions of people. Anyone can take a video of a speech on their cell phone and send it half way across the world in a matter of minutes. The implications of this technology could be either positive or negative considering the context. Imagine if a candidate slips up during an interview or a speech and says something offensive. Before that candidate has time to retract their statement their words have already been heard by thousands of people. In 2008 senator Ann Coulter experienced this first hand. “First, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” in her CPAC speech. Second, after the campaign of Mitt Romney, who had spoken just before Coulter, labeled her remark offensive, video leaked showing Romney and Coulter laughing together backstage (CNN).” However, online video can also serve as an effective communication tool for politics. Hillary Clinton strayed away from the traditional approach of announcing her candidacy. Instead of holding a press conference or appearing on a television program, Hillary posted her candidacy on her website and shortly after posted a video on YouTube. Obama followed the same route.
YouTube also serves as a platform that allows voters to become more involved in the political process. People can edit video clips of candidates to convey their own messages about their character like the infamous apple parody ad about Hillary Clinton or the Obama rap video. This new technology puts a whole new spin on the attack ad. It is controlled by the voters and not the actual campaign. It also allows normal people to engage in political discourse one on one with the candidates themselves. In the 2008 election people were able to post questions online via YouTube that were discussed by the democratic candidates in a public debate forum. This alone broke new ground for the progression of political communication because anyone with access to a computer could now become part of the debate.
Twitter is another form of online communication that allows people to create networks of followers that can receive updates about anything right to their cell phones. More politicians are starting to get on board with twitter and other micro blogging mediums after the success that Obama showed with it. Twitter not only allows politicians to supply their followers with vital information about current situations it also allows for real time public participation. People attending a political speech can send real time updates to their followers about what is being said, what they think about it and how people are reacting to it. This is extremely useful information for any politician to have in their possession. With this information they are able to tailor their speeches to the needs of the audience. Twitter can also be used as a tracking device to keep people informed about the whereabouts of politicians and if they are using their time wisely and if anything you say or do can and will be used against you, you are probably going to want to project an image of competence at all times.
In my opinion technology is in the early stages of impacting the way that politics are conducted. It has yet to be fully embraced by the older generations who account for a majority of the active voters. However, the young voters will age and they will become the dominant voter demographic. It is important that future candidates embrace new communication technology because, whether they like it or not, it is going to affect them in some way. The access of power is starting to shift from the campaigns to the hands of the voters. The YouTube video with a catchy theme that cost 100 dollars to make could have more impact on a candidate’s election than the million dollar campaign commercial. The MySpace or face book page could attract more people than the hundreds of thousands of kiosks set up around the United States. Twitter may very well become the best way to keep voters updated on events as they are happening. As the transmission of information becomes easier to use, people will find that it is more beneficial to take part in politics and they will realize that their voice can go a long way. People will become more involved in the decision making process and will ultimately cut out the middle man between voters and politics. As more people see that their opinion does matter, more people will be optimistic about becoming part of the political discourse which would benefit America greatly.
Bibliography
“Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur” CNN.com 6:31 a.m. EST, March 4, 2007. Web. 09 Nov. 2009
Spcm 420
The reliance on the internet has become increasingly important to politicians in the past few years. I predict that in the next few, we will begin to see a full scale melding of politics and the use of online forums. In the election process, things like twitter, face book, and YouTube are becoming the biggest tools to convey the campaign messages of our future leaders, and for good reason. These forms of communication allow for a quick and effective way to spread messages across a large segment of the population of potential voters. Not only does this technology enable the candidates to reach out to voters, it encourages them to get involved.
Young people are finding it easier to get online and express their opinions about political candidates by starting groups and gaining a following. A popular social networking site known as Facebook, has more than 50 million users worldwide that is growing larger by the hour. In 2007 a university of Missouri student started a group called 1 million strong for Obama on face book that captured the attention of more than 1000 people in mere hours. In addition to voter turnout, social networking web sites also influence other things like fundraising, branding, and volunteering. Supporters can get online and actually be a part of the political movements which has a remarkable effect on political elections. Obama was one of the first candidates to get on board with this movement. He started a MySpace page back in 2007 where he quickly “friended” about 160,000 people. These friends were now able to receive updates about when and where rallies were being held, possible ways to contribute to Obama’s campaign, and things that they could do to spread the word. This is something that other political candidates overlooked and it may have very well cost them the votes of the young voting demographic. Not only did the use of social networking sites help Obama to acquire a large following, but it also helped market him as an average guy. The concept of homophily would describe this as the tendency of people to bond with other people that they perceive to be similar to them. Since Obama was seen as someone who was still in touch with the young people, the younger voters felt that they finally had a voice in politics and that encouraged them to take control and become more involved with the elections.
Online video web sites such as YouTube are another great way for politicians to spread their message. These web sites allow videos to be uploaded from anywhere around the world and instantly accessed by millions of people. Anyone can take a video of a speech on their cell phone and send it half way across the world in a matter of minutes. The implications of this technology could be either positive or negative considering the context. Imagine if a candidate slips up during an interview or a speech and says something offensive. Before that candidate has time to retract their statement their words have already been heard by thousands of people. In 2008 senator Ann Coulter experienced this first hand. “First, conservative commentator Ann Coulter called John Edwards a “faggot” in her CPAC speech. Second, after the campaign of Mitt Romney, who had spoken just before Coulter, labeled her remark offensive, video leaked showing Romney and Coulter laughing together backstage (CNN).” However, online video can also serve as an effective communication tool for politics. Hillary Clinton strayed away from the traditional approach of announcing her candidacy. Instead of holding a press conference or appearing on a television program, Hillary posted her candidacy on her website and shortly after posted a video on YouTube. Obama followed the same route.
YouTube also serves as a platform that allows voters to become more involved in the political process. People can edit video clips of candidates to convey their own messages about their character like the infamous apple parody ad about Hillary Clinton or the Obama rap video. This new technology puts a whole new spin on the attack ad. It is controlled by the voters and not the actual campaign. It also allows normal people to engage in political discourse one on one with the candidates themselves. In the 2008 election people were able to post questions online via YouTube that were discussed by the democratic candidates in a public debate forum. This alone broke new ground for the progression of political communication because anyone with access to a computer could now become part of the debate.
Twitter is another form of online communication that allows people to create networks of followers that can receive updates about anything right to their cell phones. More politicians are starting to get on board with twitter and other micro blogging mediums after the success that Obama showed with it. Twitter not only allows politicians to supply their followers with vital information about current situations it also allows for real time public participation. People attending a political speech can send real time updates to their followers about what is being said, what they think about it and how people are reacting to it. This is extremely useful information for any politician to have in their possession. With this information they are able to tailor their speeches to the needs of the audience. Twitter can also be used as a tracking device to keep people informed about the whereabouts of politicians and if they are using their time wisely and if anything you say or do can and will be used against you, you are probably going to want to project an image of competence at all times.
In my opinion technology is in the early stages of impacting the way that politics are conducted. It has yet to be fully embraced by the older generations who account for a majority of the active voters. However, the young voters will age and they will become the dominant voter demographic. It is important that future candidates embrace new communication technology because, whether they like it or not, it is going to affect them in some way. The access of power is starting to shift from the campaigns to the hands of the voters. The YouTube video with a catchy theme that cost 100 dollars to make could have more impact on a candidate’s election than the million dollar campaign commercial. The MySpace or face book page could attract more people than the hundreds of thousands of kiosks set up around the United States. Twitter may very well become the best way to keep voters updated on events as they are happening. As the transmission of information becomes easier to use, people will find that it is more beneficial to take part in politics and they will realize that their voice can go a long way. People will become more involved in the decision making process and will ultimately cut out the middle man between voters and politics. As more people see that their opinion does matter, more people will be optimistic about becoming part of the political discourse which would benefit America greatly.
Bibliography
“Coulter under fire for anti-gay slur” CNN.com 6:31 a.m. EST, March 4, 2007. Web. 09 Nov. 2009
Monday, October 12, 2009
The Effects of Negative Political Advertising
Brent Fassino
10/12/09
Spcm420
The Effects of Negative Political Advertising
Political advertising has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry in the past few decades. It has come a long way from the newspaper and print era. Now for a candidate to be successful they need to spend a substantial amount of money on television advertisements. The bigger the size of the election is the more money gets spent. For most voters the political issues of the candidates take a back seat to their image because of the lack of education that they have about the candidates. The reason why the average citizen is not informed about the policies is because television advertisements have been overrun by attack ads. It seems to me that most politicians would rather have you think lowly of their competitors than for you to think highly of themselves which perpetuates the notion that we are only voting for the lesser of two evils. In this paper I will attempt to explain the possible reasons why attack ads are becoming more prevalent, as well as the intended effects and the unintended repercussions that attack ads have on the candidate’s image.
The trend of competitors using negative ads has become increasingly noticeable in recent elections. This is due to the highly competitive nature of elections. Advertisers for political candidates will seek votes by any means necessary. One possible explanation for why attack ads are so popular amongst advertisers is because it is easier to discourage someone from voting than it is to get someone to change their political affiliation and vote for their competitor. People are usually given their political affiliation by their parents when they are young and they are not very likely to change it because of a political advertisement. The message being sent by attacking the competitor is that if you are not completely sure that this candidate is the best, you will be harming the country by voting for them. This discourages people who are not educated about candidates from voting. Although negative advertisements might be affective in achieving political advertiser’s goals, they are sending the message that politicians don’t really care about the American public.
Another explanation to why negative political advertising is becoming more widely used deals with technicalities in the legal system. First, the Communication Act of 1934 defined candidate ads as different from product or commercial ads. This meant that broadcasters were able to refuse deceptive advertising ads except in the case of political ads. Second, in 1976 the Federal Election Campaign Act gave individuals and political action committees the right to spend as much money as they wanted to support political candidates, which includes the right to make their own commercials. “These expenditures are different from contributions to a specific candidate's official campaign, which the act limits to $1000 for an individual and $5000 for a political action committee (Maisel).” The court based its ruling on the fact that limiting independent expenditures by citizens was against freedom of speech. Since individual advertisers tend to be more aggressive, their advertisements are usually negative attack ads. (Maisel)
The intended effects of negative ads are basically to establish negative feelings towards the opposing candidate while conversely boosting the positive image of the sponsored candidate. I believe that the first part of this equation is true but I am skeptical about the second part. I think that the reason why negative advertising works is because people are more passionate about voting against something than they are voting in favor of something. Negative ads foster this way of thinking because they typically tackle controversial topics and pick at the opponents weaknesses. For example, in this context, an attack ad that chastises a candidate for supporting the pro choice perspective would be more effective than an ad that supports the pro life perspective because it is deflecting the blame on the opposing candidate. Despite the fact that people usually claim to be annoyed with attack ads, they also rate them as being effective in relation to their decision making (Devlin). This can be attributed to the fact that they succeed in their attempt to not let us forget. A week after we see a negative ad we probably aren’t going to remember how annoyed we were with it but we are going to remember what was said and that is probably going to influence our decision making at least on a subconscious level.
Some examples of attack ads that were extremely successful in making a long lasting impact in the past were the John Kerry “windsurfing ads”. This ad depicted John Kerry windsurfing in different directions attacking his flip flopping or unclear stance on key issues with a quote at the end stating “John Kerry: Whichever way the wind blows.” This commercial succeeded in attacking the credibility of Kerry by illustrating his weakness and at the same time strategically implied that Bush was the stronger candidate despite the fact that Bushes name was not even mentioned in the advertisement. Another example dates back to the early 60’s when Lyndon Johnson was running for president. This ad starts out with a little girl picking the petals one by one off of a daisy and concludes with a massive nuclear explosion. This ad was successful in instilling fear into the American public and convincing them that voting for his opponent would result in nuclear war. Also, a more recent attack ad supporting McCain poked fun at Obama’s celebrity status by comparing him to Paris Hilton. This ad made Obama seem like a fluke and implied that his success was nothing more than a popularity contest. Although this ad may have been successful, it had nothing to do with any issues and was strictly attacking the seriousness of his campaign.
Although attack ads, if done right, can be persuasive, they can also be counterproductive and backfire on the sponsor. People who view attack ads as unethical have the tendency to act in a manner that is contradictory to the sponsors intention because they view them as being untrustworthy or just plain desperate to win the election. It makes them seem like they have to attack the character of their opponent in order to boost their credentials. In a survey conducted in Michigan on the effects of negative advertising in relation to feelings toward the sponsor and the target, the results showed that negative ads produced a strong negative perception of the sponsor but only a slight negative perception of the target and that 75 percent of the people surveyed disapproved of negative attack ads (Garramone). This study proves that the costs of using negative advertising outweigh the benefits.
I personally feel that attack ads are hurting the public’s perception of all politics in general. It is an ethical issue that needs to be examined more closely. Just because negative advertising can succeed at persuading voters doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be used. I think that it undermines our intelligence and is demoting civility amongst our future leaders. This is not something that I want to be associated with. But the fact is that as long as it continues to work it will remain a huge part of political campaigning and people who want to learn about the truth about political candidates will just have to go elsewhere for that information.
Work cited
L. Patrick Devlin, "Contrasts in Presidential Campaign Commercials of 1988," American Behavioral Scientist 32 (1989): 407.
Louis Sandy Maisel, Parties and Elections in America: the Electoral Process (NY: Random House, 1986), 137-138.
Gina M. Garramone, "Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads"; Stewart, "Voter Perception of Mud-slinging in Political Communication."
10/12/09
Spcm420
The Effects of Negative Political Advertising
Political advertising has evolved into a multi-billion dollar industry in the past few decades. It has come a long way from the newspaper and print era. Now for a candidate to be successful they need to spend a substantial amount of money on television advertisements. The bigger the size of the election is the more money gets spent. For most voters the political issues of the candidates take a back seat to their image because of the lack of education that they have about the candidates. The reason why the average citizen is not informed about the policies is because television advertisements have been overrun by attack ads. It seems to me that most politicians would rather have you think lowly of their competitors than for you to think highly of themselves which perpetuates the notion that we are only voting for the lesser of two evils. In this paper I will attempt to explain the possible reasons why attack ads are becoming more prevalent, as well as the intended effects and the unintended repercussions that attack ads have on the candidate’s image.
The trend of competitors using negative ads has become increasingly noticeable in recent elections. This is due to the highly competitive nature of elections. Advertisers for political candidates will seek votes by any means necessary. One possible explanation for why attack ads are so popular amongst advertisers is because it is easier to discourage someone from voting than it is to get someone to change their political affiliation and vote for their competitor. People are usually given their political affiliation by their parents when they are young and they are not very likely to change it because of a political advertisement. The message being sent by attacking the competitor is that if you are not completely sure that this candidate is the best, you will be harming the country by voting for them. This discourages people who are not educated about candidates from voting. Although negative advertisements might be affective in achieving political advertiser’s goals, they are sending the message that politicians don’t really care about the American public.
Another explanation to why negative political advertising is becoming more widely used deals with technicalities in the legal system. First, the Communication Act of 1934 defined candidate ads as different from product or commercial ads. This meant that broadcasters were able to refuse deceptive advertising ads except in the case of political ads. Second, in 1976 the Federal Election Campaign Act gave individuals and political action committees the right to spend as much money as they wanted to support political candidates, which includes the right to make their own commercials. “These expenditures are different from contributions to a specific candidate's official campaign, which the act limits to $1000 for an individual and $5000 for a political action committee (Maisel).” The court based its ruling on the fact that limiting independent expenditures by citizens was against freedom of speech. Since individual advertisers tend to be more aggressive, their advertisements are usually negative attack ads. (Maisel)
The intended effects of negative ads are basically to establish negative feelings towards the opposing candidate while conversely boosting the positive image of the sponsored candidate. I believe that the first part of this equation is true but I am skeptical about the second part. I think that the reason why negative advertising works is because people are more passionate about voting against something than they are voting in favor of something. Negative ads foster this way of thinking because they typically tackle controversial topics and pick at the opponents weaknesses. For example, in this context, an attack ad that chastises a candidate for supporting the pro choice perspective would be more effective than an ad that supports the pro life perspective because it is deflecting the blame on the opposing candidate. Despite the fact that people usually claim to be annoyed with attack ads, they also rate them as being effective in relation to their decision making (Devlin). This can be attributed to the fact that they succeed in their attempt to not let us forget. A week after we see a negative ad we probably aren’t going to remember how annoyed we were with it but we are going to remember what was said and that is probably going to influence our decision making at least on a subconscious level.
Some examples of attack ads that were extremely successful in making a long lasting impact in the past were the John Kerry “windsurfing ads”. This ad depicted John Kerry windsurfing in different directions attacking his flip flopping or unclear stance on key issues with a quote at the end stating “John Kerry: Whichever way the wind blows.” This commercial succeeded in attacking the credibility of Kerry by illustrating his weakness and at the same time strategically implied that Bush was the stronger candidate despite the fact that Bushes name was not even mentioned in the advertisement. Another example dates back to the early 60’s when Lyndon Johnson was running for president. This ad starts out with a little girl picking the petals one by one off of a daisy and concludes with a massive nuclear explosion. This ad was successful in instilling fear into the American public and convincing them that voting for his opponent would result in nuclear war. Also, a more recent attack ad supporting McCain poked fun at Obama’s celebrity status by comparing him to Paris Hilton. This ad made Obama seem like a fluke and implied that his success was nothing more than a popularity contest. Although this ad may have been successful, it had nothing to do with any issues and was strictly attacking the seriousness of his campaign.
Although attack ads, if done right, can be persuasive, they can also be counterproductive and backfire on the sponsor. People who view attack ads as unethical have the tendency to act in a manner that is contradictory to the sponsors intention because they view them as being untrustworthy or just plain desperate to win the election. It makes them seem like they have to attack the character of their opponent in order to boost their credentials. In a survey conducted in Michigan on the effects of negative advertising in relation to feelings toward the sponsor and the target, the results showed that negative ads produced a strong negative perception of the sponsor but only a slight negative perception of the target and that 75 percent of the people surveyed disapproved of negative attack ads (Garramone). This study proves that the costs of using negative advertising outweigh the benefits.
I personally feel that attack ads are hurting the public’s perception of all politics in general. It is an ethical issue that needs to be examined more closely. Just because negative advertising can succeed at persuading voters doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be used. I think that it undermines our intelligence and is demoting civility amongst our future leaders. This is not something that I want to be associated with. But the fact is that as long as it continues to work it will remain a huge part of political campaigning and people who want to learn about the truth about political candidates will just have to go elsewhere for that information.
Work cited
L. Patrick Devlin, "Contrasts in Presidential Campaign Commercials of 1988," American Behavioral Scientist 32 (1989): 407.
Louis Sandy Maisel, Parties and Elections in America: the Electoral Process (NY: Random House, 1986), 137-138.
Gina M. Garramone, "Voter Responses to Negative Political Ads"; Stewart, "Voter Perception of Mud-slinging in Political Communication."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)