I found an article from CNN Money about how political ads are actually helping the media industry. Leslie Moonves, the CEO of CBS said that the increase in political ads is boosting CBS' revenue, especially since the VP picks from both Obama and McCain. Moonves also noted that the auto industry is experiencing a boost in income and spending more money on advertising. You can see the article here: CBS CEO Leslie Moonves notes political ad gains
A boost in the media industry's revenue is just one of many effects of political advertising. Political ads can help viewers with name recognition, remembrance of specific campaign issues, and formation of candidate images. Of course there are also some negative effects of these ads, as we have seen with John McCain's use of Paris Hilton in an ad about Obama's "celebrity".
What kind of effect, if any, do political ads have on you? Do you think that they do a good job promoting the candidates or do you think they do more harm than good?
Aside from just political ads, the media has other outlets in which they can inform the public about politics. In the 2000 election, "the use of traditional news media, along with information from the Internet, had independent effects on political learning" (Handbook 371). Eight years later, the Internet plays a much larger role in our knowledge of politics, for better or for worse. Political blogs are so common now, it's hard to know when to believe what you read. As I looked for a news article to post in this section, almost every article from my Google News search was from a blog, saying how bad the political blogs are. Here is a particularly entertaining one from The Moderate Voice: Blog Addiction
How do you feel about political blogs? Do you read them, and if so, do you think they are an accurate depiction of the political situation?
4 comments:
Political ads have a positive effect on me. They often reinforce the the ideas I have about the candidates or provide new information for me to consider. I think they do a great job of promoting the candidates because they are capable of garnering free airtime through ad watches, a segment of news broadcasts that has been said to "create a boomerang effect, further enhancing the ad and benefiting the candidate's campaign strategy" (Kaid et al. 187).
As a viewer I learn a lot about what the candidates are asserting about each other as well as the "truth" behind these assertions. This is a good thing because it adds to my overall knowledge of the issues on the table as well as the candidates.
I do not feel anyway about political blogs because I do not read them.
To be blunt, political ads really piss me off. I find them entirely inane, providing little to no useful information about policy or the issues. Unfortunately, as the use of ads have become more prevalent in presidential elections, it would seem as though candidates rely on sheer image building, or shameful acts of mudslinging. Within chapter 7 of the Handbook in fact, Kaid indicates that research clearly shows an increase in the amount of money spent on political ads, as well as an increase in the reliance on negative ads: "it is unquestionably true that there was a real increase in the number of negative spots used in presidential campaigns in the past few election cycles" (Kaid 163). Based on these findings, it becomes safe for one to assume this trend will inevitably continue. The fact is, why wouldn't it? Kaid also cites research clearly indicating that negative ads carry more weight; they are more issue orientated (164) and have the potential to higher levels of recall (168).
For me personally, the only reason I remember negative ads more than those of a positive nature is simply because they make me so angry. To that degree, here's to higher levels of recall! What it seems to boil down to is Hart's notion that we are overexposed to our candidates and personality politics. Call my a cynic, but when I'm trying to avoid the latest Sarah Palin and in the middle of one my favorite shows I see the GOP telling me Obama's a terrorist with a big American flag flopping in the background, I'm about ready to snap. If the Republican's were really about country first they'd consider letting me enjoy my nightly television without undue political intervention. Thankfully, it would seem that I'm not alone in my cynicism and frustration; "Research has shown that candidates who sponsor negative ads may be subject to negative responses themselves" (Kaid 172). Even still, that is not to say positive ads aren't just as useless and obnoxious. Here we see that depending on particular individuals, the use of ads can either have a very negative effect on the candidates, or can potentially have a positive one. I have no doubt that there are some Grannies out there who know very little about the current issues and are easily swayed by the small policy details shown in quick 30 second spots. Throw in repeated use and any naive and uneducated person can be taken along for the ride.
On the other side of the coin, I find political blogs to be a very positive form of community activism and political engagement. Although some would contend they are far too bias to provide any reliable information about the candidates or the current election, if taken with a grain of salt I find them at the very least entertaining, insightful, and at times can even be informative about particular issues. The other great thing about blogs is that they are continually updates - seemingly faster than the tickers on CNN or other 24 hour cable news programs. While I wouldn't go as far to say they provide a "balanced" perspective on the current political landscape, if audiences are to rely on both conservative and liberal blogs and then make more informed decision on their own they could prove exceedingly effective to the political process. In addition, I think the Internet and political blogs are the ONLY way we may see the rise of a legitimate third party in this country. It's still a long shot, but if the masses can be reached with the right messages simultaneously, someday a candidate may come around and use the internet in the right way and put a decisive wrench in all this two-party bias driven war.
Political advertisements do affect me, just not in the way the campaigns would like them to. Where they don’t really make me want to vote a certain way, actually they make me distrust both sides. Facts and statistics can be turned so many different ways that I don’t really look for the policies in the ads anymore. I can never get past the idea that no matter who it is, there’s no such thing as “no personal attacks,” when you’re competing against someone and you want to show that you are a superior pick. So I don’t watch political ads. When I want information I research it myself. But for the majority of people, I think political ads do more harm than good, because they have become so negative. As Kaid says in the Handbook of Political Communication Research, the backlash could result in “more negative views of the sponsoring candidate” of the ads, even though “negative ads result in higher levels of audience recall than exposure to positive ads.” (172).
As far as political blogs are concerned, this is the only one I’ve ever read or been involved in, so I can’t really say how they affect me, other than my experience here makes me think a little more about politics in general. But I think just like anything on the Internet you need to be wary of the source of your information. I think that this blog would be a pretty fair one to read, since we have some guidelines to follow, but we still voice our opinions backed up with facts that support our ideas, and none of us are really experts in the field. Blogs are good to share ideas and opinions, and it only really becomes a problem when people take them as facts and not opinions, just like anything else on the Internet.
I agree with mera that political ads give us new information about the candidates and do provide their issues and where they stand on policies. But at the same time I think that is what political ads use to only be. Now politicians bash each other and I think that they are begining to play into that,"celebrity" that we talked about in last weeks class. Its become more than giving the audience knoweldegable information. Also, the candidates have learned to use these ads as a persuasion tactic. They know what audiences they already appeal to and they want to target these ads to keep those audiences and gain the targeted audience. So therefore, the ads may not be on the politicians stance but rather a message to sway a groups opinion. For example Kaid on page 178 discusses male candidates attempts to appeal to female voters. He also says that, "Many studies that have measures negative ad effects on recall and candidate image have also identified effects on voting behavior, leading to a clear conclusion that negative ads do affect voting preferences[Ansolabehere& Iyengar, 1995(Kaid, 174)]. I believe that voting hould be done on the idea that you agree or disagree with the candidates veiws, not whether or not you like their ads. That is why I do not like political ads. However, I think the are a good idea and could serve a good purpose if they are done right.
Just as everone else, I do not read political blogs; but, i am addicted to Perez Hilton.com, and he blogs about everything celebrity and has now ventured into the political blogging world. I have not read all but have read some and I, personally, have read these political blogs and taken them for nothing but entertainment. These have not swayed my opinion in anyway. Although, I believe that other people can and will be swayed by this. For some, this is their "news" station. This could be some people's only form on information on politics. I believe that his quote of the day, from Kid Rock, stated it best, ""I truly believe that people like myself, who are in a position of entertainers in the limelight, should keep their mouth shut on politics.Because at the end of the day, I'm good at writing songs and singing. What I'm not educated in is the field of political science. And so for me to be sharing my views and influencing people of who I think they should be voting for ... I think would be very irresponsible on my part.I think celebrity endorsements hurt politicians. As soon as somebody comes out for a politician, especially in Hollywood, when they all go, 'I'm voting for this guy!' – I go, 'That's not who I'm voting for!' " Now I never thought I would agree with Kid Rock on anything, but I'm going to have to go with him on this. Celebrities and everyday bloggers talk about politics and attempt to influence others, what makes them so qualified? Because I for one can not think of anything.
Post a Comment