Campaign 2012 Media Coverage: Campaign Ads

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Campaign Ads - September 19th

Which kinds of ads do you think are more persuasive – positive or negative ads? What types of advertisements are we seeing this year? Are they more positive or negative in tone, and what kind of media attention are they attracting? To support your answer, offer examples of at least three different types of ads (based on the categories outlined by Trent et al Ch. 5). Be sure to identify who produced each ad (ex: Romney campaign, Super PAC supporting Obama, etc.).

34 comments:

Audrey LawrenceSeptember 16, 2012 at 4:30 PM
For many, political ads on television are nothing short of annoying and repetitive. For others, they are the only source of information voters may ever see. Therefore, campaigns place enormous amounts of money into political ads in hopes of gaining votes. Personally, I find negative ads more persuasive, although positive ones are more enjoyable. By clearly indicating what is wrong with the opposing party, candidates automatically present themselves in a better light. However, society tends to have a poor view of politicians, often believing them to be harsh and corrupted. Negative ads can lean towards this view point and cause voters to reject certain candidates. For politicians running for election, it is imperative that they carefully walk the fine line between putting down their opponent while still remaining likeable.
This year, we are seeing a lot of negative advertisements. Both sides are running television spots that explain why the other candidate is the wrong choice for the presidency. In the article, “Obama, Romney Post-Convention Ads Stick to Familiar Territory from FoxNews.com, media advisor Elliott Curson says, “‘Obama has one goal – talk about Romney because he cannot talk about his record. And Romney needs to say the economy is in bad shape and that he can fix it.’ Curson also said the overarching strategy in the final ads is for each candidate to make the other ‘scare the voter more.’” Basically, Curson is explaining how both Romney and Obama need to stick to a simple plan that cuts down their opponent. They need to “scare” people into voting for them by claiming that the other candidate is going to bring the country to ruin. In doing so, they will gain the votes that they need to win.
For example, the ad titled “The Cheaters” produced by Obama for America, explains how Romney says he wants to protect jobs for the American people. The ad continues by providing examples of Romney’s previous job invested in companies that sent jobs overseas and encouraged outsourcing. “The Cheaters” ad is a clear example of assault, defined in the Trent et al. reading as “those directly assault the character, motivations, associates or actions of an opponent” (153). As Curson would say, by pointing out that Romney has been an advocate for sending jobs out of the country, the Obama campaign is scaring its audience into voting for him.
Another example of a negative ad we’ve seen this season is from Romney’s campaign. They have been directly targeting certain states in their television advertisements. For instance, one, entitled “A Better Future: Virginia – Families” produced by Romney for President, Inc., describes how people in Virginia are not better off under President Obama. It states how his defense cuts threaten jobs and lower home values. Then, conversely to the previous example, Romney outlines his plan to create jobs and for energy independence. This ad is an example of an ad that condemns and questions an opponent. “These are ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable or uncomfortable position. They focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate” (Trent et al 156). This ad first attacks President Obama and then uses cinema-verite footage of Romney shaking hands and establishing shots of Virginia to illicit a home-town association. President Obama is seen in dark, serious colors whereas Romney is shown brightly.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Stephanie Griffin
Advertisements have become an imperative part of campaign strategies for politicians. As Trent and corresponding authors write, “…political advertising on television is a central communication strategy for the growing numbers of those who seek our vote” (Trent 145). Nowadays, advertisements are shown more than ever before, thanks to the internet and smart phone technology allowing videos to be more accessible in the palm of our hands (Semiatin 38). The ads become very important in battleground states where voters must be persuaded to vote for a certain candidate. As Amy Walter of ABC News states, “for those voters who live in the remaining nine battleground states they should expect to be absolutely inundated with ads between now and election day” (Walter). These inundated amounts of ads will express positive and some negative messages from each candidate.
There are many different types of ads, including biographical, issue ads, accomplishment/achievement of candidate ads, and negative/attacking ads on the other candidate. The kinds of ads that can be more persuasive are positive ads rather than negative ads. This is because as Trent writes,”…in the parlance of the consultants, candidates attempt to reduce their negatives and build their positives by increasing their opponents’ negatives” (Trent 160). In other words, politicians will invest part of their advertisement costs to just criticize their opponent and make the politician look negative and express he/she cannot grow as much likeability by solely being an honest politician and having legitimate goals/accomplishments to share during his/her campaign.
One of the most utilized and yet controversial types of ads are the “attack” ads. According to an ABC news story by Devin Dwyer, many patrons stated Obama and Romney were displaying too many “attack” ads, mostly found on television in swing states (Trent 152). According to a Kantar Media’s CMAG survey, 89% of Obama ads were attack ads on Romney, and 94% of Romney ads were attack ads on Obama (Dwyer). A swing state voter also commented saying, “When you live in Florida, that’s all you see are the television ads…I don’t know how we’re going to live through three more months of it” (Dwyer). Therefore, even though the negative/attack ads shy away from a candidate’s accomplishments and the positive aspects to attack the opponent’s unworthiness, they can also “turn voters off” and affect in the end who they will vote for (Trent 173). An example of one of an attack ad from Obama’s campaign can be found here through You Tube- “http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM&feature=relmfu” (Obama Ad). This video was uploaded through the Wall Street Journal You tube account, providing video clips of many other advertisements. This also exemplifies how advertisements can now be seen almost anywhere online, especially You Tube, being one of the highest video social networking sites.
Another type of advertisement we are seeing through the campaigns are “ID ads” that are brief biographical ads to introduce and identify a candidate (Trent 152). We saw as early as July advertisements being broadcasted on television to kick start the presidential election. According to Sabrina Siddiqui of The Huffington Post, Obama’s campaign released a positive ID advertisement called “I Believe” that was planned to be broadcasted during the Olympics this year to attract a mass amount of people. As Siddiqui writes, “The ad keeps consistent with the president's focus on working-class Americans and features a clip from one of Obama's recent campaign speeches emphasizing the need to fight for the middle class” (Siddiqui). The advertisement did not refer to Romney at all, so the attention was solely on Obama and a positive outlook he could bring with another four years as president.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 16, 2012 at 9:42 PM
Griffin- 2

A third type of advertisement we are seeing through the campaigns are ads “visionary” ads, suggesting what a candidate has planned if he becomes president (Trent 152). Under this category, you may find ads responding to an opponent’s attack ad or innuendo. These ads focus more on the candidate himself, but can explain facts or false remarks made by his opponent. For example, a positive television advertisement produced by the Obama campaign, entitled “The Question,” asks the question “are you better off than you were four year ago?” The advertisement is featured in an article on Politico, in which it expresses how over the past four years, statistics shown 4.6 millions of jobs were made, however, Obama will not stop there. It lists off many of Obama’s plans for a second term, following the negative aspects Romney claims to have planned if he serves as president (Tau). The response to Romney’s attacks regarding if people are “better off now than they were four years ago” is truly manipulated in the sense that the ad expresses what WAS accomplished during Obama’s first term and what more he has to offer. The ads can serve as an important function to explain Obama’s stand or position on current issues, and can remind voters about the incumbent candidate (Trent 155). This also expresses how positive advertising can be more beneficial throughout campaigns because it shows a candidate in a more positive, sincere light which can increase his/her likability as well as attract voters.

Dwyer, Devin. "Too Negative: Voters Blast Obama, Romney Ads." ABC News. ABC News Network, 21 Aug. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. .
"Obama Ad: Romney Is the Problem, Not the Solution." YouTube. YouTube, 23 July 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. .
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Thousand Oaks, CA.: CQ, 2012. Print.
Siddiqui, Sabrina. "Obama Campaign Releases Positive Ad To Air During Olympics." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 27 July 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012.
.Tau, Byron. "POLITICO." POLITICO. N.p., 15 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton,, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman &
Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Walter, Amy. "The Incredibly Shrinking Campaign Battlefield." ABC News. ABC News Network, 14 Sept. 2012. Web. 16 Sept. 2012. .

ReplyDelete
Replies
mcharkinsSeptember 18, 2012 at 7:06 PM
Matthew Harkins

Political advertisements in campaigns have become one of the most prominent features of a campaign. Through the use of television, political campaigns increasingly started utilizing television as a medium to advertise for the campaign, ultimately leading to present political campaigns today where political advertisements make up the bulk of the election. “Political ads came to dominate whatever portion of public attention is reserved for things political.” (Trent 145) In other words, a majority of the public now gets most of their information and views from the campaigns advertisement strategies.
Political ads have adapted a multitude of strategies for campaigning. As a result, scholars and political analysts have studied the political advertising strategies of past campaign and split them up into categories of advertisement, each strategy with its own purpose. This presents those trying to decipher and distinguish between the multiple categories of the ads a complex task, and one that I personally don’t believe needs to be. “We suggest that the only that the only important reason to categorize types of political commercials is to gain some understanding of their rhetorical purpose.” (Trent 154) Instead of worrying about distinguishing between categories of ads, we can look at the categories as strategies that can be mixed and matched accordingly to convey specific messages to the demographic the advertisement is being exposed to. Following the previous quote about political ads from the Trent readings, the authors go on to specify, “They have three primary rhetorical purposes: to praise the candidate, to condemn the opponent, or to respond to the charges.” (Trent 154) These three main purposes are not always singled out but can be combined to convey multiple purposes.
My personal experience with political advertisements has been scarce this year. But after watching a bunch of ads online, I have come up with an idea of what kind of advertisements are being used in this election. It seems to me that, at least at this point, the advertisements intend to both respond by defending claims made against the candidate as well as a re-condemn the opposing candidate. The reason for this being, the campaign is now not about introductions, but now about persuading key demographics on key issues currently being debated. The most obvious issue from the advertisements I have seen are all based on which candidate will do more for the economy.
For example, using the election political ad tracker on USAToday.com, I was able to view many advertisements, the first one I would like to mention was titled “The Question” an advertisement approved by Barack Obama and paid for by Obama for America. This advertisement fulfilled multiple purposes and in essence was a response to the Mitt Romney’s charge of, “This president cannot tell us that you’re better off today than when he took office.” Then the ad continues on with counter evidence to that claim as a means to persuade the audience that Obama is the right choice in this campaign. The ad finishes with a clip of Bill Clinton saying, “They want to go back to the same old policies that got us in trouble in the first place.” Then Obama saying, “We are not going back, we are moving forward.” This is a strong end to an advertisement, where its purpose was to respond to a claim and turn it around on the opponent. I would consider this advertisement a respond to the charges, but also serving other purposes. As noted in an analysis of the advertisement by Richard Wolf of USA Today, “The ad is running in the seven states deemed closest by the campaign: Colorado, Florida, Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, Ohio and Virginia. Notably, it’s not running in North Carolina, where Romney had a small lead in recent polls.” That statement is another strategic factor in political advertising, which is focusing on areas that are on the verge, in hopes of persuading followers to come over and vote for the political parties candidate.
ReplyDelete
Replies
mcharkinsSeptember 18, 2012 at 7:07 PM
Matthew Harkins Cont.

An example of an attack advertisement coming from Romney’s side would be the ad called “Give me a break”. This advertisement is one that attempts to demolish the legitimacy of a huge supporter and voice of the Democratic campaign, by showing clips of the previous election where Clinton and Obama were competing for the Democratic nomination. In the video, the announcer poses the question “But what did Bill Clinton say about Obama in 2008?” This advertisement is aired in Virginia.
On NBC News’ First Read blog, I discovered a blog post that was very interesting. The blog titled “Outside groups make up almost half of all presidential campaign ads” by Domenico Montenaro, which explains “Groups supporting the presidential candidates but not affiliated with the campaign, including super PACs, have spent $267 million of the $605.7 million spent on television and radio ads.” The article further mentions, “There’s a big difference between who they’re supporting. Three-quarters of all money spent by outside groups -- $212 million -- has gone to support Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney.” This made me curious as to how much this funding is benefitting the campaign. If the polls show that the race is close, then how come Romney’s campaign has such a larger amount of money being put in to pro-Romney advertisements?
Clearly, political campaign advertisements are open to be utilized by campaign and non-affiliated groups a multitude of uses and strategies in a campaign which is why they are so important. It is also the most accessed aspect of a campaign by the public, which is why ads are crucial to a campaign. The advertisements definitely take their time and resources to fight until the end of the election until voting time.
Finally, to answer the question of which ads do I think are more persuasive; I would have to substitute the word persuasive with effective. Attack advertisements personally turn me off, because my initial reaction is to feel that it shows weakness and a lack of confidence in the candidate. But, while researching and exploring this topic I know believe that attack advertisements are a prominent and effective strategy in a campaign. “In spite of the potential risks, most consultants believe that the advantages of using attack ads outweigh the disadvantages. And the preponderance of research suggests that voters are more influenced by attack ads than by non attack ads…” (Trent 174) Research clearly shows the influence of attack ads, and by the looks of things, I doubt we will see a decrease in political campaigns anytime soon.

Works Cited

"Content." Content. N.p., n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .

Montenaro, Domenico. "Outside Groups Make up Almost Half of All Presidential Campaign Ads." Weblog post. First Read. NBC News, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .

Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.

Washington Post. The Washington Post, 04 Mar. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .

Wolf, Richard. "Barack Obama: The Question." USA Today. Gannett, n.d. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. <http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-ad-tracker/video/844608/barack-obama-the-question
ReplyDelete
Replies
Ryan MullettSeptember 18, 2012 at 7:24 PM
I think that overall positive ads are more persuasive although negative ads can have their own advantages. I think that negative ads work well when they are supplemented with facts which stand the test of reason but overall I think that ads which are combinations like this official Obama ad (http://tinyurl.com/9sf5wjp) work best. First he addresses what other candidates wanted to do, but he followed it up with what he did and showed the success while still not taking credit for it. He puts the credit for the automotive industry's successes on the workers who made sacrifices and continue to work hard. Overall the main test I put an ad through is whether it fits within the facts of a situation. If I see that an ad ignores or distorts facts to a great extent it generally has the opposite of its intended effect. Overall I would say that this is not the same scrutiny most people puts ads up to but it is what I utilize as my judgement. This ad is a combination, it first questions the opposition's opinion during the automaker bailout and then it proceeds to extoll Obama's handling of the Automaker crisis. I think that it does a good job of seperating Obama's point of view with what Romney wanted to do at the time. This ad also stands up to facts because at the time Romney did not at all support an Automaker bailout, instead he favored a private restructuring in an op-ed he wrote.

I feel as if I am seeing a good mix of positive and negative ads this election year. I do however, feel that Republican ads are normally more negative with very little focus on actual policies that they will employ. An example of a very negative ad from the Republican ticket is (http://tinyurl.com/9gvpgjh) which says nothing about what Romney can do for you and instead it focuses on facts which are simply shells of real facts because they don't address any of the causes and act as if Obama is entirely responsible for our deficit. This ad is an attack ad attempts to show people that Romney is better simply for the fact that he is not Obama. It attempts to say that Obama continued to do nothing but spend money and that this has to end, implying that Mitt Romney will do a better job of cutting spending. This ad is an official ad sponsored by Mitt's campaign.

Another attack ad directly from the Romney campaign (http://tinyurl.com/9vumzh6) This ad is interesting because it has a graphic within it that can be very misleading if you do not look at it correctly. At 14 seconds into the ad we see a graphic that implies that America lost half of its manufacturing jobs and that china now has twice as much as us. The graphic is interesting because it shows America's stack representing manufacturing jobs as half the size as at the start of the video and China's stack as twice as big as America's. Obviously America does not have half as many manufacturing jobs as China now, in fact we are barely trailing, with America having 96% as much as China according to a Washington post blog on the ad (http://tinyurl.com/8uhpk7q).
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 18, 2012 at 10:54 PM
In my opinion, negative ads are more persuasive than positive ads. However, I believe things should be different. It’s unfortunate to see that in our world, negativity has more power over positivity. I feel as though more people are tuned in to the negative things President Obama has to say about Governor Romney than the positive things he has to say about himself, and vice versa. Personally, I would find positive ads more persuasive, because those are the ads telling me about plans for the future, past successes, and hope. And if I voted, I would be much more likely to base my decisions off of commercials like that rather than ones telling me Mitt Romney approves a message about how Obama used the last four years to make our country worse.

This year, we are seeing a lot more negative ads than positive ads. I think a main reason why is because of the fact that President Obama is running for re-election. This gives Governor Romney the opportunity to create ads solely based on the president’s failures over the last four years. For example, Mitt Romney’s campaign created the “Time For A Change” (YouTube) ad. This ad uses voiceovers of the president, and then in text on the screen shows statistics about the economy and failures during his term. Not once does the ad talk about Romney’s plan, instead it ends with “We need a new president.” This can be seen as a negative ad, because it degrades the current president while failing to discuss the potential future if we did in fact elect a new president.

In the same way, Obama’s 2012 campaign had produced many negative ads criticizing Romney instead of highlighting the past successes of Obama, and the potential success of America if we so choose to move “forward.” For example, BarackObama.com, the official site, recently produced the ad, “The Cheaters.” (YouTube) This ad uses all of its 30 seconds to inform its viewers that contrary to popular belief, Romney has not made moves in a positive direction with China, but rather has “never stood up” to the country, instead “all he’s done is send them our jobs.”

Just recently, Politico featured an article titled, “New Obama ad targets moms.” What is funny about the ad is that the only time the president’s name is used is when he is approving the message. The rest of the ad is about how Romney does not focus enough on moms, but where in the ad did it discuss the idea that Obama does?

These types of ads are identified as “attack spots.” (Trent et al 152) In our Chapter 5 reading, Trent et al writes, “These ads are designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position. They focus on shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate.” (Trent et al 156) The two ads I just discussed are prime examples backing up this statement, and I could not agree with it more. Chapter 5 also discusses the idea that, “…the style or form political ads take is frequently a reflection of the larger society of which they are a part.” (Trent et al 150) To me, that makes a lot of sense. This 2012 election is filled with negative ads because politically, our country is considered to be in a negative state. When it comes to this election, the major focus seems to be placed on failures rather than successes, because failures are always more prevalent.

ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 18, 2012 at 10:55 PM
CONTINUED.

Visionary spot ads provide a “reflective/thoughtful/dignified view of the candidate.” (Trent et al 152) I believe we see many ads about Obama that can be considered visionary because a major part of his campaign focuses on the successes of his first term and how his second term will only develop more. These visionary ads express the incumbent in a positive light and can persuade a viewer to look at president Obama with hope.

For this election, there are certainly positive ads as well. However, I must admit, I did have to dig a little deeper to find them. Argument spots contain positive messages from each candidate about their plans for the future. For example, the Romney campaign produced “The Romney Plan,” which focuses on just that. Three goals are expressed, and the positive results of those goals are achieve are also discussed. These ads, too, can be extremely persuasive, if only we let them. The media plays such a major and effective role in elections these days, and the positive message media portrays should be just as resourceful, if not more resourceful, than those considered negative ads.

So much power is given to both positive and negative political ads. For many, they play a huge factor in who gets their vote. The many different types of ads are utilized in different ways, some certainly more than others. However, in my opinion, that’s the way of the world. We are more likely to focus on the negative and hold someone accountable for failure than focus on the positive and ways to seek more. Advertising is vital to any campaign, and with the technological advances of our country, ads are only becoming more prevalent as we reach November.

Works Cited
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton,, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman &  Littlefield, 2011. Print.

Slack, Donovan. "New Obama ad targets moms.” Politico. 18 September 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .http://www.politico.com/politico44/2012/09/new-obama-ad-targets-moms-135917.html

"The Romney Plan.” YouTube. YouTube, 17 September 2012. Web. 18 September 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dFQAZYZrjVU

"The Cheaters – Obama for America TV Ad.” YouTube. YouTube, 14 September 2012. Web. 18 September 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lQzZdyzDZVY&feature=plcp
ReplyDelete
Replies
Phil NobileSeptember 19, 2012 at 1:16 AM
Phil Nobile - Blog Post #3 (1 of 2):

Advertisements in the political realm have changed drastically over the years. From the “Eisenhower Answers America” television spots of the 1950’s to the Johnson’s “Daisy Ad” of the 1960’s, there have been very apparent changes throughout political advertising strategies – some even only a few years apart. Over the course of fifty years of television advertising, however, one thing has become clear: negative ads, and subsequently the attention-storm that follows, produce more advantageous outcomes for candidates than positive ones.

While positive ads may place emphasis on the virtues of a political candidate, and further project their personal attributes, policies and skills, negative ads get the opportunity to do both. In one fell swoop, a candidate can not only discourage viewers away from the opposition with negative overtones and statistics, but draw stark comparisons between their own campaign and that of their opponent’s. Chapter Five of Political Campaign Communication points out that certain techniques have been used, such as comparisons via charts or graphs, that don’t demand a certain allegiance or emotion, but imply one onto the viewer instead:

“At times, viewers are directed to make up their own minds; that is, the attack or condemnation is implied. For example, the records of the candidate and opponent are compared, and the opponent appears to have no positive attributes. But direct charges or conclusionary statements are not made.” (Trent, Friedenberg, and Denton 157)

Because Americans hold values of decision making and choice dearly, simply “teeing up” the viewer for a certain opinion is all an advertisement needs.

Furthermore, requiring a candidate to go on the defense instead of using airtime to promote themselves, or attack the other campaign, is extremely beneficial. It not only puts the focus on the original ad (which in this day and age would garner YouTube hits and tons of traffic on the original candidate’s accounts/website), but forces the opposition to put their efforts elsewhere. Because attack ads “can set the rhetorical agenda for the opponent who will, in some fashion, have to respond,” the conversation can almost entirely can shift in the direction of one candidate (Trent et all, 159). The factuality of these ads doesn’t even need to be completely concrete, just enough for tactics to work such as diversion of an incumbent/challenger’s own faults or issues.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 2:37 AM
Similar to what we discussed when researching and talking about National Conventions, political campaigns were drastically changed by the introduction of television. This is greatly due to the effect television had on political ads and the type of ads that began to be produced was a result of this. While certain ads will be more persuasive and better at getting its point across, throughout the election we will continue to see all types of ads being produced by both sides of the political campaign. “Political ads came to dominate whatever portion of public attention is reserved for things political.” (Trent 145) The success of political ads would not have been made possible without the explosion of media in our society.
Within media today many different types of ads are being produced and then shared throughout network television. Some of the most commonly used ads are, issue ads, biographical ads, attack of other candidate ads, and ads that show the accomplishments of the candidate. (Trent 160) One this that I find to be interesting is how the ads will change from election to election. For example, because Obama is running for his second term and is widely known throughout the country an ad that is biographical may not be necessary while Mitt Romney has been seen investing more money in these types of ads.
While biographical ads have been common, I believe the type of ads that are gaining the most momentum are “negative attack ads.” Both candidates have had numerous ads produces simply to make the other candidate look bad. In these ads facts are often taken out of context and the motive behind the ad is clearly seen. I believe the use of positive ads, which would entail candidates simply promoting themselves rather than degrading their opponent, would be more successful.
Voters want a president they can trust; do these negative ads convey trust? I do not think so. The main reason why these negative ads become the majority rather than the positive ads that are more likely to persuade a voter is because once one negative ad is made there is a rebuttal. This means that once a candidate feels attacked through the media they find it necessary to “fix” what their opponent has said about them.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 2:37 AM
cont.
In recent news an ad created and distributed by the Super PAC, “features a steelworker who essentially attributes his wife’s death by cancer to the decision by Mr. Romney’s investment firm.” The allegations were eventually proven false but as a result of this ad there was backlash from the Romney campaign. Because of things like public relations the Romney campaign did rebuttal but they are not being blamed for pushing the debate to its current level, Obama is. (Rutenburg 1)
One ad that I found to be the most interesting was one that featured Bill Clinton. While the ad does not mock Mitt Romney I find it interesting how often the Obama campaign is utilizing former President Bill Clinton. While this strategy may be working for the Obama campaign I believe Clintons ads should remain more positive if they hope to attract voters.
Overall I find the media coverage on campaigns to be the most interesting thing. Similar to the national convention, myself and many other Americans are beginning to lose sight of why these ads exist. If they are there to spread lies and take information out of context they will continue to lose credibility. In my opinion, politicians are supposed to inspire people and be elected based on their own authenticity. But instead through negative attack ads leaders are being elected because they are seen as, better than the alternative.

Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.

Rutenberg, Jim. "POLITICAL MEMO; The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President." The New York Times. The New York Times, 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .

‪ Obama for America TV Ad: "Firms.” YouTube. YouTube, 14 July 2012. Web. 18 September 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk

"America Deserves Better.” YouTube. YouTube, 10 August 2012. Web. 18 September 2012. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-EEETo3Sqo&feature=endscreen

Sink, Justin. "New Romney TV Ads Refocus Attack on Obama Economy." The Hill. N.p., 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .

ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousSeptember 19, 2012 at 9:05 AM
Matthew Struzzi
Blog 3

Unfortunately negative advertisements are more persuasive. This is mostly the case, because people tend to care more about what someone or a candidate is doing wrong and not what a person or a candidate is doing right. It seems more likely for a person to react more towards a negative advertisement than a positive one. For instance, someone who sees something that someone else did wrong is more likely to talk about it and be upset over it than someone who sees someone doing something correct. There is more to talk about and to think about when something is done poorly.
This year the tone of advertisements towards both the republican and democratic parties seems to be very negative. It seems to be attracting a lot of media who also notices this negative tone and who reports on it to the public such as the New York Times. For instance, the New York Times commented in an article this year, “If you’re a talented video producer with a tendency toward scathing, sarcastic attacks, this appears to be your year” (New York Times, 1). Further, the New York Times goes on to say, “The 2012 presidential campaign has become a battlefield of mocking, rhetorical missiles, many of them delivered in the form of cheap, quickly produced videos posted to the Internet and publicized by the campaigns on Twitter and Facebook. President Obama’s campaign and his Democratic allies are testing that thesis with a series of videos and TV ads that have made fun of Mitt Romney’s off-key singing, his awkward lapses into corporate-speak and even his wife’s beloved dancing Olympic horse” (New York Times, 1).
In the book “Political Campaign Communication” it states that there are a couple of phases or styles of political advertisements. The phases or styles are as follows: advertisements attacking/questioning the opponent; advertisements responding to attacks; and advertisements ignoring the opponent and promoting the candidate’s strengths (Trent, 152). There are many advertisements during this presidential campaigning year that fit into these categories. For instance, there was an advertisement made by the Democratic National Committee in which they made a video of Mitt Romney dancing around issues when asked questions with a clip of a man on a horse galloping around in between Romney clips. This advertisement was attacking Mr. Romney for dancing around issues and not answering them directly. The New York Times better describes when they say, “In two videos produced by the Democratic National Committee, Mr. Romney’s words were juxtaposed with images of Ann Romney’s horse, Rafalca, performing the Olympic sport of dressage, or horse ballet, with a top-hatted man in the saddle” (New York Times, 1). Also, to go along with that the DNC has also put out advertisements making fun of Romney’s offshore accounts and private firms he used to be a part of. Romney and the RNC are also doing advertisements attacking Obama, as well.
ReplyDelete
Replies
AnonymousSeptember 19, 2012 at 9:08 AM
Matthew Struzzi cont.
They put out advertisements that made fun of Obama’s golfing habits and also his poor economic policies. On top of negative advertisements, there are also other commentaries on both campaigns such as Jon Stewart who called Romney an idiot on his show (The Daily Show). Comments like Jon Stewart’s could have been in response to an advertisement. These are the things that advertisements help to do. They get people to talk and comment on issues. However, there are also other advertisements that fit the other two categories. For instance, the Obama campaign has put out advertisements promoting his healthcare policies, which fit into the third style mentioned before. Finally, there are advertisements from the Obama campaign which showed all of the great accomplishments he has made during his four year term in response to attacks made from other candidates who accused or attacked Obama for not doing enough during his four year term. That advertisement fits the second category for an advertisement responding to attacks.
In conclusion many advertisements have a negative tone to them or are at least responding to another advertisement that had a negative tone to it. This happens, because the public responds to these advertisements and recognizes them more. Candidates know that negative advertisements get people thinking about issues and help their campaigns and that is why they do it.

Works Cited

Narr. Jon Stewart. The Daily Show. Comedy Central.
Shear, Michael. “Campaign Videos Turn to Mocking Candidates." New York Times. N.p., 20 Jul. 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2012. http://www.nytimes.com
Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 10:07 AM
In the technological world in which we live, it seems that there is never a day in which we are not exposed to some form of media. Whether it’s via television, computer, or smart phone, the American public is constantly bombarded with messages within the media. For this reason, political campaigns ensure to take full advantage of the use of advertisements in the media and “spend more on paid media than on anything else” in an attempt to sway the public’s opinion in favor of their candidate (Semiatin 29).
In the case of political campaigns, positive ads are more persuasive to the viewing public for the fact that they inform the public of the positive aspects of a candidate while distributing a commercial that is not disconcerting to most viewers.
Unlike negative advertisements that are described as annoying and “anti-productive,” positive advertisements convey the message that a campaign chooses to highlight throughout their commercial while making a connection between their candidate and positivity within the mind of the viewer. Elizabeth Mcann, a lawyer from Denver, Colo., expressed her annoyances with negative advertising, stating, “What I'm most worried about is that people in Colorado will say: 'We've had enough of this, we're not voting. We're sick of it, we're not going to vote'" (Gabbatt).
However, if one is to make the assumption that positive ads are more persuasive than negative ads, one must then ensure to clarify the distinction between the words “persuasive” and “conducive.” Just because a candidate’s advertisement is able to convince an audience to think positively about his or her hopeful future candidacy, this does not mean that said type of advertisement is more helpful for a candidate’s campaign.
Negative campaign advertisements, although evoking reactions of annoyance throughout the viewing public, can still be quite helpful to a candidate’s campaign. Through constantly staying on the offensive by producing numerous negative advertisements, campaigns force their opponents to put in more effort in both refuting and accusation and displaying a positive aspect of their hopeful future candidacy. Trent writes of the importance of negative advertisements, stating, “Candidates attempt to reduce their negatives and build their positives by increasing their opponents’ negatives” (Trent et. Al. 160).
Throughout the 2012 election year, there have been a plethora of negative advertisements produced by both sides of the campaign. Campaigns have utilized tactics including, comparative ads that juxtapose the issues of the two candidates (Trent et. Al. 153). One in particular produced by Obama for America can be viewed at (1). Another negative advertisement produced by Obama for America is categorized as an implicative advertisement because it uses Mitt Romney’s innuendo to convey his untrustworthy political agenda; it can be found at (2). Another negative advertisement, sponsored by NewSimpleAdams, is categorized as an attack advertisement for the fact that it attacks the character of Mitt Romney (3).
ReplyDelete
Replies
Daniela MendesSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:12 AM

While at the RNC one of our speakers Dr. Genovese explained to us that although most individuals dislike negative ads, negative ads work. This theory is being tested in this year’s election. Both candidates Barrack Obama and Mitt Romney are both using negative ads and some are saying this election is one of the most negative campaigns our country has seen in some time. These negative campaign strategies, used by both candidates, are attracting a lot of media attention as a result.
I am personally not convinced by any ads that I see during the campaign, negative or positive. I find that most, if not all ads are exaggerated truths and only give tidbits of information with a lot of biases in it. Although it has been said that negative ads are more effective than that of positive ads, seeing that this is such a close election it does not seem as though either sides’ negative ads are working. The American public does not seem to trust either side in this election and the negative ads may be contributing to that. This is because the overall American opinion of politics seems to be very negative. It seems Americans believe that politicians are not the most truthful and they are out to serve their own purposes rather than that of the American people. With this said, the negative ads that are being shown repeatedly may be having a negative affect on both candidates’ image rather than just that of their opponents.
Even though negative ads may not have as much of an effect as it has in previous years it is certainly getting the candidates media attention. With this year being such a negative campaign it has been discussed heavily in the media. The media has been discussing some of the negative ads that they thought were considered to be controversial. Having an ad discussed in the media can be useful to a candidate because it helps get more people to see the ad. “As the number of televised spots used during the election campaigns has increased, so, too, has the number of people writing or talking about them. Whether the report of a practitioner or the analysis of a scholar, all seem to have contributed a name to describe the ads they have studied or those they have used”(Trent 152). Although depending what news station is covering the story could either help or hurt the candidate as well. For example if Obama plays a negative ad towards Romney and Fox News picks it up they will most likely criticize Obama for the ad and same goes for Romney if MSNBC picks up on one of his negative ads towards Obama.
ReplyDelete
Replies
Daniela MendesSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:13 AM
CNN made a report on a negative campaign done by Romney. The ad was a negative ad towards Obama and was also targeting the Hispanic/ Latino vote. Trent in Chapter 5 of the reading discussed different types of ads and Romney’s negative ad falls under the category of “ads condemning/ attacking/ questioning the opponent”. The purpose of this type of an ad is to “… focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate”(Trent 156). In the ad seven Hispanics spoke stating that Obama has not done enough to help them. One individual in the video stated, “Are things better off for you? Not for me”. This ad was shown because Romney is trying to get more Hispanic votes. Trent also discussed ads praising a candidate. The Obama campaign showed an ad where President Bill Clinton spoke about Obama and why the American people should vote for him. Bill Clinton stated, "This election, to me, is about which candidate is more likely to return us to full employment. This is a clear choice". This ad praised Obama in an effective way because it came from a popular former president. Another form of ads Trent discusses in chapter 5 is “ads responding to attacks or innuendos”. An example of this in this years campaign is that of Obama’s campaign. Obama put out an ad rebutting Romney’s Medicare ad. In Romney’s original ad it stated, “You paid in to Medicare for years- every paycheck. Now, when you need it, Obama has cut $716 billion dollars from Medicare”. The Obama campaign then responded with their own ad stating, “The non-partisan AARP says Obamacare cracks down on Medicare fraud, waste, and abuse, and strengthens guaranteed benefits.” When a candidate is attacked politically they are put into a position where they must respond or they could end up looking weak to the American public. With this said, sometimes this kind of back and forth rebuttals can detract attention from the actual issues and focus on small unimportant “catty” issues.

Sources

Playstationality. "Bill Clinton In Obama Ad: "This Is A Clear Choice" Barack Obama 2012." YouTube. YouTube, 23 Aug. 2012. Web. 17 Sept. 2012. .

CNN Political Unit. "Obama Ad Rebuts Romney Medicare Ad." â€“ CNN Political Ticker. N.p., 17 Aug. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .

Wallace, Gregory. "'Promises and Nothing,' Romney Spanish-language Ad Says of Obama." â€˜Promises and Nothing,â€™ Romney Spanish-language Ad Says of Obama â€“ CNN Political Ticker. N.p., 8 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .

Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. Seventh ed. N.p.: Rowman &Littlefield, 2011. Print.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:17 AM
I so desperately want positive ads to be more persuasive, but there is something about finding out that a candidate is the biggest liar, most money guzzling, America hating human being alive that just sways me in the other direction. Positive ads seem both too trusting and too hopeful for the message they are conveying to be true. It does not help that any time there is a positive ad after a negative ad for the same candidate; the negative facts are still there nagging you. If voters’ attention is gained through entertainment, which seems to be a theme with campaigns, negative ads play right into it. Something as dramatic as a cute blue eyed blonde haired baby being held in her mother’s arms with a voice over stating: “Dear daughter, welcome to America. Your share of Obama’s debt is fifty thousand dollars and growing” (Romney for President Inc.), is going to grab your attention on many different levels. There is the visual of the soft innocent chubby cheeked baby, unknowingly gnawing at her own hand, which could be distracting to anyone anywhere, on the street, in a restaurant, and especially on a screen in front of you. Then there are the contradicting harsh words, telling you that this baby is already suffering from President Obama, and not just in anyway, but with debt, and there is nothing the baby can do about it. Negative ads have more of an ability to grab a voter’s attention, and keep them entertained with information that makes them feel like they are affected or worse—could be affected in the future.
No matter what format the ads take or which campaign they are coming from, if ads are getting media coverage, it is negative. If it is a positive ad they are hounded for not being truthful or not addressing issues. If it is a negative ad they are too over the top, attacking the opponent too much, and not using facts. Television ads very rarely have a positive reaction from the media. If the ad itself does not grab the media attention, who paid for it and how much money is being spent to have it on the air is discussed and again it is not in a positive light.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:27 AM
As Trent et all discuss, political television ads have a strong role within political campaigns. Unlike stump speeches, which candidates must not only rely on the media to report, but also they must rely on the media reporting the speech in the way that the candidate wishes it to be perceived by the public. Political ads provide the candidates with the ability to bring a unfiltered message to the American people. Yet while the public is able to watch the ads without the media interfering, the pundits and reporters do still speak, compare and analyze the ads. Just like other aspects of the campaign, the media is an ever present.
An example of how the media are still an influence with political ads can be found on Politico. A post in the “Burns & Haberman” blog alerts the reader of a new ad from the Obama super PAC Priorities USA Action that goes after comments Romney said at a fundraiser that were recently made public. While there is a link provided to the video, the blog post tells the reader what to look for in the ad and why it has importance. Not only do they explain that the super Pac is “perhaps the sharpest-elbowed of all the outside players in the presidential race”, but also provide input on the “47 percent” line which the ad attacks (Burns). Burns says, “Romney hasn't defended that line about personal responsibility and a number of pundits have flagged it as the hardest one to explain” (Burns).
Just like the ad most recently discussed, this year’s election has featured more negative ads than positive ones. These negative ads “can set the rhetorical agenda for the opponent who will, in some fashion, have to respond” (Trent, 159). For example the Obama Campaign just released an ad entitled “47 Percent” which criticized Romney. The “47 Percent” utilizes thoughts of the American public to criticize the remarks Romney. Both this ad and the one from Priorities USA have seemingly done their job, as Romney has recently addressed the remarks. These ads are both considered to be examples of ads which condemn attack and question an opponent.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:28 AM
CONT
These ads have also drawn a response from the Romney super PAC Restore Our Future. The super Pac just released an ad called “Disappearing” this morning which attacks Obama using the detrimental economy. It claims that the unemployment rate is truly at 19 percent. This ad would be considered an ad which responds to an attack. The type of strategy used in this ad would be counterattack in which, “instead of refuting the charge, the candidate launches an attack on the character/issue positions/motives/actions of the attacker” (Trent, 161). The ad does not mentioned Romney’s remarks, but instead speaks about how weak the economy has become under Obama. I found this ad on the Washington Post Election 2012 Blog with Rachel Weiner. Just like the blog post on Politico, Weiner tells the reader what is important about the ad. She even breaks it down into three neat categories: what it says, what it means, and who will see it (.
As demonstrated, negative ads are quite prominent in this election. In my search for an ad used the candidate’s view and in a way “praise the candidate” I had difficulty locating one (Trent, 154). An ad from the Obama Campaign entitled “Come to Ohio” seemed to be the most like a positive ad. The ad encourages people from Ohio to vote for Obama to move the country forward. While this ad plays upbeat music and features happy faces, it does not have the powerful punch that the negative ads do. If someone does not like a candidate, a positive ad about how great they are will probably not persuade them to vote for them. Negative ads have the ability to rile a voter to vote against a candidate rather than for one. Many Americans do not closely follow politics and often do not find either candidate favorable. Negative ads that strongly argue against a candidate give those people a reason to vote.
While the candidates continue you to use these ads, some may argue that they are not as effective as they once were on televison with the onslaught of digital media, as well as with the prevalence of the DVR. Also the context of the ads is a significant part of their impact. Walter Shapiro on Up with Chris Hayes suggests, “A good ad may make the difference, but most of the ads in this campaign have not been good ads. They are the cookie cutter things that are boring if you watch them on Youtube.” Hayes later goes onto to say, “The possibility of targeting, particularly online right now, is really incredible. Not only to get potential supporters so that they become more excited and potentially become donors, but to actually find those people who the campaigns know need to be persuaded in a swing state while they're watching a Youtube video and converting them at that moment” (Shapiro). Hayes is arguing that political ads may soon be shifting from television to the internet in their focus. Since I found most of my ads on Youtube, I would begin to agree with this to a point. While young voters are seeking more information on the internet, but I still believe that most voters are influenced by the ads on the television. I have an uncle who lives in New Hampshire and much of the information he gathers about the candidates come from the television political ads. No matter where they are viewed, though, political ads will continue to remain of importance to the campaigns.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:29 AM
CONT
Works Cited

Works Cited
"47 Percent." YouTube. BarackObama.com, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
Burns, Alexander. "Priorities USA Ad Hits Romney Fundraiser Comments." POLITICO. POLITICO LLC, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
“Come to Ohio." YouTube. BarackObama.com, n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
"Shapiro: Most Ads This Season Have Not Been Good Ads." NBCNews.com. N.p., n.d. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.

Weiner, Rachel. "Mitt Romney Super PAC Goes on Attack." WashingtonPost.com. The Washington Post, 19 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:31 AM
One major kind of ad that has been produced from both sides of this political race is the neutral reporter ads which are defined as “Those in which a series of informational statements is made and then the voter is invited to make a judgment or draw a conclusion about the opponent” (Trent et al. 153). Neutral reporter ads give campaigns the chance to look like they are trying to do a public service, they are just trying to help the voters know more, not trying to tell them how to feel. More than just not telling you how to feel, they ask you what you think. “Doesn’t America deserve better than a president that will do anything to stay in power?” (Romney for President Inc.) Along with neutral reporter ads personal witness ads which “feature regular citizens giving unscripted negative opinions about the opponent” (Trent et al 153) have also been prevalent in the 2012 presidential race. These ads are not the candidates; they are real people, like everyone else making a case for whichever candidate. There is no real surprise that the Obama campaign has personal witness ads “About three-quarters of the Presidents advertising has been critical of Romney…”(Espo 1). The president is clearly focusing on the negative because that is what the public is reacting to. Having an average looking woman telling you she takes care of her children, and following up with a statement about the opponent is a way for an ad to not really seem negative. "Mitt Romney—he's so focused on big business and tax cuts for the wealthy. It seems like his answers to middle class America are just: 'Tough Luck" (Obama for America) The Romney campaign does seem to be using more positive ads, such as benevolent leader ads which “focus on a candidate’s personality traits rather than programmatic actions, policy positions, or political values…” (Trent et al 153). Stating general facts that are positive and about you, cannot really be argued against by viewers. “I’m the guy that believes in the vision of the founding fathers; I believe this is the land of opportunity” (Romney for President Inc.). Who does not want a president who believes that ‘this is the land of opportunity’? These ads on both sides are focused on what the public wants to hear. For instance, in light of recent events and actions taken by Mitt Romney the Romney campaign has released ads that are positive and direct, moving away from the benevolent leader ads as well as the negative ads against Obama it had running before. “But a new 30-second television ad released on Monday amounts to one of Romney’s most direct attempt to explain his plan to voters today”(O’Keefe, Rucker 1). Right now people know who Mitt Romney is, but do not know what he is going to do for their country so his ads are trying to define that. The way political ads are functioning in today’s election they seem to be a last ditch effort to get one last word no matter what it is out to the people.

Sources:
Jeltsen, Melissa. "Obama Negative Campaign Ads: President's Spending On Attack Ads Soars." The Huffington Post. TheHuffingtonPost.com, 14 July 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
Mittromney, Mitt Romney For President Inc. "Dear Daughter." YouTube. YouTube, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
Mittromney, Mitt Romney For President Inc. "Mitt Romney: Introduction." YouTube. YouTube, 04 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
Obama for America. "Pay The Bills - Obama for America TV Ad." YouTube. YouTube, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .

O’Keefe, Ed, and Philip Rucker. "Mitt Romney Refocuses Campaign on Economy and Policy Details." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .
ReplyDelete
Replies
Morgan F.September 19, 2012 at 11:43 AM

As this presidential election continues to heat up there stills seems to be a notable lack of policy discussion and clear plans of action from each of the candidates. Even as the debates inch closer and closer it doesn’t appear that even a platform as formal as a debate will be the setting for a serious discussion on foreign policy or the economy – instead I can imagine that with the latest turn of events the debates will serve as just another arena for petty jabs and small talk about a misstep here or a wrong word there. The advertisements on television this year are clear examples of what I claim to be a presidential race with no substance. Each ad aired on television is nothing more than a jab at an opponent or a quick pat on his or her own back. No ad to date has talked seriously about the changes that need to be made or how to turn our economy around. Each ad scares the voter, saying we are going down the wrong path, but no ad details a map of the “right” path. No candidate has stepped up to reveal himself; instead, fingers are pointed toward everyone else. Trent claims that political ads have “three primary rhetorical purposes: to praise the candidate, to condemn the opponent, or to respond to charges.” (Trent, 154) Unfortunately for the voter, no ad is speaking clearly or directly about what matters – the issues that torment the people. Trent continues to explain that, “As research has demonstrated, voters can learn more about a candidate’s position or stand on an issue from a commercial than they can by watching the evening newscasts.” (Trent, 155) Although I agree that newscasts can be less informative than a television commercial, I think Trent fails to note the significance of YouTube and the new generation of online media. While television commercials are being aired back to back some viewers are instead turning to the Internet to find valuable information about candidates and their policies. For example, while a 30 second spot on a television can briefly skim and idea a YouTube video has the potential for the same (if not greater) viewership and can discuss in more detail political records or ideals. A video highlighting President Obama’s accomplishment as president was originally aired at the Democratic National Convention and it was extremely effective at showcasing President Obama’s victories, but a spot of this length would never be appropriate for television. Instead, the Internet now harness a great power for voters and candidates alike – free publicity.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 11:59 AM

As we get closer and closer to the November Presidential Election, the more are televisions are being saturated with campaign advertisements. The importance and significance of television advertisements began in the 1980s, and the impact of these campaign advertisements only continued to grow throughout the 1990s and the 2000s. In the reading Trent explains,” By 1990, during the first election of the new decade, there was at least as much discussion about the number and nature of the ads being used as there were about the candidates themselves.” (Trent 145). Since it has become very clear that television campaigning is directly linked to what decisions voters will make on Election Day, a lot of weight and focus are put on a candidates advertisements. While there is range of different advertisement they can all essentially be broken down into three different types of ads. One type of ads are positive advertisements, that highlight a candidates virtues and great accomplishments. Trent elaborates on the purpose of these commercials “To develop and explain the candidates stand or position on issues (Trent 155). There are also negative ads, as explained in the text,” These are ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position. They focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate.” (Trent 156). Another type of advertisements are response ads to negative advertisements about the candidate. To better understand these types of advertisements,” The only “rule” or “law” that appears to be consistent in regard to these ads is that they must occur and occur very rapidly and repeatedly after the initial attack.” (Trent 160).
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM
CONTINUED
Negative advertisements that attack the candidate’s opponent are the most persuasive and effective advertisement. Even though campaigns are running the risk that voters will be turned off by the constant negativity of the candidates, for the most part this is the best strategy for them to use. The reasoning for this is that it if negative advertisements are used effectively they can accomplish several different things that are important for the candidate. First of all, the American people for the most part are not well versed in politics. The average American is going to go into the voter’s booth on Election Day and vote for the candidate that they were told are going to do the best job for our country. So, if candidate can prove that his opponent has a track record, personality, or belief that would deter from doing what is best for our country than chances are the American people are not going to vote for that particular candidate. Adding to this point, as Americans we tend to be critical and untrustworthy of politicians so if an opposing candidate can find proof that his competition is lying or has acted in a way that is different from is political platform the people of the United States will become even more skeptical of that particular politician. Another reason why negative ads are the most effective is because it allows for the focus to be taken off the candidate actually is going to do in office, and on to what their challenger has not done. The less time the candidate has to explain his stances which the American people might not all be favorable of, and the more he explains why his opponent is bad choice the easier the election race will be for the candidate.
This year’s election period is also proving that campaigns believe that the American people find television ads to be very significant in their voting process. While there have been a variety of different types of advertisements by each candidate, the most popular and memorable advertisements that the candidates have been using are negative advertisements. Both candidates in this election period have promoted themselves, by putting down their opponent. In an article from Los Angles Times, the author explains how Mitt Romney is actually playing right into Barack Obama’s advertisements in battle ground states. After statements from Romney surfaced of him speaking about Obama voters, and how they are dependent on government money and aide, it only added fuel to Barack Obama’s fire on Romney. The article elaborates. “On TV news shows here in Ohio, snippets of the video aired within minutes of Obama ads saying that Romney was hiding his tax returns and refusing to release details of a tax proposal that would benefit millionaires like himself while denying healthcare and college aid to the middle class.”(Finnegan). From the beginning of the campaign Obama’s advertisements have been focused on how out of touch the Romneys are with the middle class Americans, and this new footage and information about Mitt has supplemented everything Obama has been saying.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 12:00 PM
Obama is not the only one that is distributing negative advertisements. Mitt Romney has also had his share of negative advertisements about Barack Obama. Many of his ads consist of explaining how Obama has not lived up to his promises. According to a CBS news article, billionaire Joe Ricketts is giving money to a super PAC he created called Ending Spending Action Fund. This super PAC will air national cable ads, as well as in battleground states. CBS explains,” The ads will feature stories of disenchanted Obama supporters who are voting for Mitt Romney this year. In one video posted online, a voter named Lynne from Davenport, Iowa, explains, "I've been a lifelong Democrat and a teacher for 40 years... I voted for Obama in '08, but he's taking our country in the totally wrong direction."(Condon). These advertisements are obviously created with the mindset to make the American people question Obama, and in turn vote for Mitt Romney.
Works Cited
Condon, Stephanie. "Breaking News Headlines: Business, Entertainment & World News." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .
Finnegan, Michael. "Obama's Unlikely Ally in Battleground State Ad War: Mitt Romney." Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles Times, 18 Sept. 2012. Web. 18 Sept. 2012. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton,, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lenham: Rowman &  Littlefield, 2011. Print.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 1:33 PM
Throughout history, politicians have used various methods such as whistle-stop speeches, political advertising and political rallies to win over voters. However, over the years, politicians have found that political advertisements are the most persuasive when it comes to winning votes. Political advertisements date back to the 1950s when Dwight D. Eisenhower ran forty ads entitled “Eisenhower Answers America.” (Trent et. Al. 146) Authors Edwin Diamond and Stephan Bates argue that political advertising produces four types of ads; ID spots, argument spots, attack spots, and visionary spots. ID spots are advertisements that are biographical. They set out to introduce the candidate to the people. Argument spots are ads that identify the candidate’s causes, ideas, and concerns. Attack spots are ads that are direct and personal attacks meant to reduce credibility of opposing candidate, and visionary spots are used at the end of the candidate’s campaign. These ads are meant to be thoughtful and reflective. They are the last push to get at the voters they wish to win over. (Trent et al. 152)
A significant trend in today's political advertising is the increasing use of negative political advertising. In today's political campaign, candidates, either challengers or incumbents, use negative ads from the beginning of a political campaign to try and persuade voters that their opponent is not worthy of the presidency based on either their decisions made in another political capacity or things they have said in speeches. For example, a video came out of Romney talking about the 47% who do not pay taxes say that “they are victims.” The super PAC, Priorities USA Action, took that video and made it into an ad against Romney. The ad closes with a narrator saying “Romney will never convince middle-class voters he's on their side.” (http://news.yahoo.com/obama-super-pac-uses-romney-video-ad-111713548--election.html)
Each candidate’s campaign team uses sound bites and facts from the opponent and uses it against their opponent to try and dissuade the voter from choosing the candidate. For example, an ad with Bill Clinton as the narrator came out in support of Obama. The ad stated that who should be president “is a clear choice.” Clinton goes on to stay that in order to have a strong economy, you need to have a strong middle class and Obama can make that happen because “that’s what happened when I was President.” The ad was paid for by Obama for America. Romney Inc then did a twist on that ad. They used Clinton’s words from a speech he gave in 2008 against Obama. It is a sound bite of Clinton saying “give me a break, this whole thing is the biggest fairytale I’ve ever seen.” Then at the end the line “give me a break” is repeated over and over again to add effect. So the Romney campaign used Clinton’s support of Obama is used against them.
However, in this election, there has been so many negative advertisements that are so persuasive, that I believe that based on the ads all over television, voters do not want either candidate in office.

Trent, Judith S., and Robert V. Friedenberg. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. New York: Praeger, 1991.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmH2hFN6oBg
http://news.yahoo.com/obama-super-pac-uses-romney-video-ad-111713548--election.html
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0F4LtTlktm0
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Sdl2MmLxDPI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ECIBr60snXg
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 5:52 PM

Political advertisement campaigns are a “central communication strategy” for persuading and gaining voters (Trent 145). Today, candidates highly depend on the television to broadcast their advertisements to the public. Although this is a useful tool, “attention has centered around what appeared to be a growing reliance on negative as opposed to positive ads” (Trent 145). There are many different types of ads that campaigns are able to use such as leadership ads, concept ads, personal witness ads, neutral reporter ads, implicative and comparative ads, and assault ads. Trent discusses that although there are a plethora of types of ads, they only have three primary rhetorical purposes; “to praise the candidate, to condemn the opponent, or to respond to charges” (154).
This year the presidential candidates have focused on mostly negative ad campaigns by attacking their opponents. In a New York Time’s article by Jeff Zeleny, he explains how Obama’s team chose to take a gamble going negative. Zeleny is describing Obama’s television commercial which stirs suspicion of Mitt Romney paying his own taxes. Since April, Obama has broadcast negative commercials 118,775 times compared with 56,128 times for positive commercials. In the same time, Romney has ran negative spots 51,973 times and positive 11,921 times (Zeleny 1). Although Obama statistics show a greater balance, since June he has completely turned off “the positive spigot” (Zelony 1). A recent advertisement, which can be viewed on every channel, shows Romney singing “America the Beautiful”, while headlines about outsourcing and overseas bank accounts flash on the top of the screen. Obama has chosen to stick with this tactic throughout the campaign, however polls suggest that it could be hurting him in return. Although this is not the clearly defined reason, he has significantly gone down in voter likability. As mentioned in the chapter, too much of this type of campaigning could potentially turn off the public.
In order for each candidate to defend their name, they must rebuttal with ads responding to the attacks or innuendos. In Obama’s newest ad, he explains how his economical plan is much stronger and fairer than Romey’s who proposes a new $250,000 tax break for multimillionaires, roll back regulations and raising the taxes of the middle class, with the help of Bill Clinton. Romney fires back with an ad directed toward Clinton, who in 2008 said there was no way Obama’s plan to fix the nation would work (Caldwell 1). Nearly, every attack ad that has been fired at an opponent this year has seen one of these in return.
ReplyDelete
Replies
UnknownSeptember 19, 2012 at 5:52 PM
Although it is rare, other types of advertising can be found in this election. For instance, both of the candidates have used the benevolent leader advertisements where they focus on their own positive values such as courage, honesty, strength of character, sense of fairness and justice, or compassion (Trent 153). In one of Mitt Romney’s advertisements entitled “Strong Leadership”, it shows how Romney will be able to lead the country stronger than anyone else, having the best jobs record in a decade as the governor of Massachusetts. In one of Obama’s ads titled, Remember, it remarks on all of the positive things has done for the country while being in office such as domestic oil production’s at an eight-year-high. He uses this to remind the country how he is a strong leader and is still pursuing change.

Works Cited

Caldwell, Leigh Ann. "Romney's New Ads: One Positive, One Negative." CBSNews. CBS Interactive, 17 Sept. 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .

Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 7th ed. Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011. Print.
Zeleny, Jeff. "Obama's Team Taking Gamble Going Negative." The New York Times. The New York Times, 29 July 2012. Web. 19 Sept. 2012. .

 
ReplyDelete
Replies

Add comment