I find the idea of McCain saying that Obama is a celebrity to be one that is causing issue with me, first off, the fact that he is trying to make celebrity status out to be a bad thing, is it so bad that everyone in the world knows his name and his polices? Is it so bad that when people think of who is running for President of the
The Handbook of Political Communication states that “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent-focused, rather than candidate-focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kidd, 2000, p. 157). By both McCain and Obama directing ads towards their opponents and not themselves, they are playing into the negative campaigning ideas. Personally, I believe that this is a terrible way to go about running a campaign, by smearing another persons name and trying to defame their character, is no way to win the presidency, or any official position. It is merely saying that the people who are approving the messages are allowing for their campaigns to belittle another person’s way of life and make them seem like the bigger person because of it.
Is it possible that these advertisements are actually helping the people who are putting them out, or are they slowly making sure that the candidate who is approving the message gets defeated by their own ad?
8 comments:
I don’t think candidates who sponsor attack ads will be defeated by their party’s advertisement for a variety of reasons. Recall the “Daisy Girl” ad from the 1964 election http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OKs-bTL-pRg. The ad only aired once (I believe) but it played a major role in Lyndon B. Johnson’s victory over Barry Goldwater. I agree that negative ads can become tiresome, especially when they attack ones own political candidate, but they are certainly beneficial. In the Handbook of Political Communication Research, Kaid notes their has been a distinct increase in the “number of negative spots used in presidential campaigns in the past few election cycles” (163). The continued use of negative ads proves their effectiveness. Kaid also mentions that voters can generally tell the difference between hostility and debate. “Although voters seem to be able to distinguish in practice between ‘mudslinging’ and legitimate criticism of an opponent’s record and policy positions (Stewart, 1975), the media and other political observers have so demonized ‘negative advertising’ that it is difficult to remember sometimes that discussion of the pros and cons of policy concerns and candidate positions on issues… is the very heart of the free choice system embodied by democratic principles” (171). Kaid unintentionally makes the airing of negative ads seem almost patriotic! But more importantly, the author addresses the fact that voters are not “turned off” by attack ads.
To comment on a few points made in the beginning of the blog:
People who knows Senator Obama’s name are not necessarily familiar with his politics. Obama is known as a “celebrity” because he possesses a level of star power no other presidential candidate has had before- this does not mean that his policies are understood. I think many voters feel they “know” their candidate, but are unsure where they stand on certain important issues.
Also, look to some resent political polls and to see who people ‘automatically think is running for president.’ Obama might have star power- but the candidates are pretty close (CNN has both candidates tied at 46 percent today) here are some others:
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/polls/index.html
http://www.usaelectionpolls.com/2008/quinnipiac-national-polls.html
When it comes to political advertising is image dominating over issue information? This is the true question and has been researched for many years now. The Handbook of Political Communications states "one of the perennial criticisms of advertising in politics is that it trivializes political discourse by concentrating more on candidate personalities and images than on issues.”(Kaid, 160). This can be a much debated topic due to the contrary that it has also been researched that “most political advertising whatever the medium, concentrates more often on issues than on candidate image.” (Kaid 161). With this sort of research it may be difficult to truly see the effectiveness of political advertisements. I believe it truly comes down to how relevant the ads are, can people relate to it, are the issues being discussed of great concern or is someone just mocking someone’s hair style or accent. Yes we all know how important image is, you always have to look your best and be on top of your game. However when It comes down to political advertisements they are just a slew of comparison ads but are the effective? Lately there seems to be a great increase in negative campaign advertising. The creative juices are flowing and each candidate is bringing their A game to this campaign advertising trail. The interesting thing is that people do not seem turned off from it, it almost seems second nature to voters to see this kind of commercial feud. I believe that image and issue information is equally distributed to all audiences. I believe it is up to the audience as to what they walk away from an advertisement with. There are some people in this country that it is all about image and nothing else while some look at just the issues and others hope to find a common ground between. Whatever the choice a voter makes the somewhat American tradition of negative campaign advertising will continue on and on.
Image, image, image! That’s what it seems to be about, right? With that, it goes as no surprise as to what kind of ad campaigns are being shown on television. Sure, there are negative ads out there, as well as positive ones. But to be completely honest, I don’t really pay attention to them too much. I actually just saw that the Obama/Britney/Paris ad campaign as of recently. There is so much that these presidential candidates are doing prior to the election in November (speeches, ads, conventions, stump campaigning, debates, etc.) It is it no surprise that advertisements are included in this. Do I think they hurt the candidates? No, I don’t think they hurt the candidates. Just because I don’t pay attention to them doesn’t mean that other people don’t either. This is a competition, and the two sides are going to do what they have to do to win. Whether they are promoting themselves, or showing the other candidate in a negative light, they are without a doubt going to dabble in both sides of the spectrum. In The Handbook of Political Communication Research, Kaid says it was found that “the negative campaign of the opposition is just as believable to voters as the positive campaign of the incumbent party,” and it was also found that “the effect of negative information was four times greater than the effect of positive information when both were considered in favorability toward the candidates” (172). Very interesting! It seems people do respond to the negative ads just as much, if not more so, than the positive ones that are out there. The positive ones effect me more, but that's just my own opinion. But I think effectiveness for others is going to depend on what kind of content is in those ads (positive just as much as negative), as well as how relevant that information is, and what kind of person is watching the ad (are they an "image voter" or are they, hopefully, paying attention to the issues at hand). I think people like to see the kind of back-and-forth “game” that the candidates do when knocking their opposing candidate in an ad. As long as people don’t solely base their decisions upon an ad and know the issues behind McCain and Obama, the ads won’t hurt the candidates and are just another piece in the “presidential game.”
It seems that these days campaigning is no longer about getting the public to vote for a candidate. Rather it comes down to getting the public NOT to vote for the opponent. According to the Handbook, "negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances" (157). Perhaps McCain began this idea of negative campaigning when it comes to this particular campaign but one thing is for sure, it is going on with the Republican and Democratic parties. Not only did McCain attack Obama comparing him to a celebrity (And that's a bad thing because..?) But he also attacked Obama by saying that he wanted to teach sex ed to kindergarteners which can be seen here (http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Multimedia/Player.aspx?guid=e83dcac3-0e13-4111-adde-afecffae4c18
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IzspZ8pjeP8&feature=related). This was a bad move on behalf of the Republicans because whatever was said was taken completely out of context. This just kind of made the Republicans (MCCAIN) look dumb. On Obama's side he is trying to act as though he doesn't care about what McCain has to say and maybe he doesnt but he is apparently telling individual groups that support him to create negative campaigns about McCain rather than it look like they are coming from his camp. Over the years this concept of "negative campaigning" has been on the rise. According to the Kaid, the "number of negative spots used in presidential campaigns in the last few election cycles" (163). To me, candidates have strayed away from what campaigning was originally all about. Now it is about bashing your opponent and making them look like they shouldn't be President because of x, y and z. I guess that this is just the way that campaigning in going to be from now on but I just hope that the public understands postive things about the candidate and their plan for the future of the United States..
I think the negative ads might hurt the candidates more than they may help them this election. This election is all about change, and I think the American public was hoping that this election would be different in that it would be about the issues rather than the negative ads and bickering between candidates. But that has not been the case, as both candidates have been on the attack for a majority of the election. Many of ads have focused on the candidates themselves rather than the issues that matter to Americans. In the Handbook of Political Communication, Lynda Lee Kaid writes that, “research has shown that most political advertising, whatever the medium, concentrates more often on issues than on the candidate image.” (161) While that may be true for this campaign, it seems like this campaign more than many in the past, have used ads that have to do with image rather than issues. The ad by McCain calling Obama a celebrity and comparing him to Paris Hilton had nothing to do with the issues at hand. The same goes for this Obama ad, which focuses on the number of houses McCain owns. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vpmFd25tRqo This is such an important election, and I feel that the American public is tired of these cheap shots by the candidates. In the long run it doesn’t matter how many houses McCain has or how big of a celebrity Obama is. All that matters is which candidate is going to the best job in making this country a better place.
Political advertising is a big part of campaigns these days. As the media continues to play a bigger and bigger role every election, advertisements play a bigger part as well. I agree that producing negative ads about your opponent is not going to win you the election. I think that ads should inform voters about what that candidate stands for instead of bashing the opposing candidate. Negative ads put the opponents name in voter’s heads whether or not that was the intention of the ad. “There is no universally accepted definition of negative advertisements, but most would agree that they basically are opponent-focused, rather than candidate-focused. That is, negative ads concentrate on what is wrong with the opponent, either personally or in terms of issue or policy stances” (Kaid 163). In addition the number of negative ads seem to out number the number of positive 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). I think that elections in general should not be so negative and I think that a way to change that is getting rid of ads that are so negative. I don’t think that these negative ads are helping anyone.
u suck
Post a Comment