WEEK NINE - Government Post
This week's theme is all about political ads. You may choose 1 of the following 2 choices. Please do not answer both prompts in your original response, but you may respond to anyone's post, regardless of whether they answered the same prompt you did.
Choice 1: Attack ads are a common and controversial aspect to most political campaigns. Do you believe attack ads are appropriate in campaigns? If so, is there a "line" that shouldn't be crossed? What is that line? Please explain. Then, find an ad from any current campaign (don't limit yourself to the presidential election) on YouTube that exemplifies your definition of an attack ad. Share the link and explain what worked or was inappropriate in the ad.
Choice 2: Campaign managers play an integral role for any political candidate. A successful manager is often rewarded with a position on their candidate's advisory team once that person is in office. Choose any current candidate and find 2 ads that candidate has produced; 1 ad should be one that you deem successful and the other one that you believe needs improvement. Include the links in your post and your analysis of the two ads. Be sure to include what was successful, and why,and what recommendations you would make for future ads. You should write as though you are the campaign manager advising that candidate.
In my opinion, the political system would be better off without all of the mud slinging and attacks against one another. I believe that we could make more progress if the candidates focused on things that they do and their own ideas, which would allow us to pick who we think is the best candidate. Instead we consistently hear what is wrong with the other candidates and all of the negatives, leaving us with a choice of who would be less awful. That is just not a healthy system for electing your leaders. However, I do understand that attacking your opponent is something that cannot be gotten rid of, it is human nature and it is effective with the voters. That said, I realize that both sides feel like they have to attack one another in order to keep up, but I think it is important to draw a line for what is appropriate and inappropriate in such a professional environment as a public race for political office. Attacks that are out of context or irrelevant to the race at hand should not be aired. For instance, any attack on somebody’s personal life or a decision they have made that will not be a factor while they hold office is truly wrong. Also attacks on a candidate’s character are not to my liking, the only time that it should even be considered is when it holds validity that it may affect their operation of the office they’re running for. For me, the main point is that if you have to put your opponent down to get votes, and you don’t even mention yourself, what does that say about your own policies? If you truly had a strong background and policies and something you believed in then you wouldn’t have to bring anybody else’s down, attack ads are a clear indicator of weakness if you ask me.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgg0VcO9vWY
The link above is an ad for Representative Ben Quayle, a Republican serving in the US House representing our state of Arizona. I say that the ad is for Ben Quayle, but really, it’s not so much for Rep. Quayle as is it is against President Obama. I find this ad entirely inappropriate not only because of the childish, playground trash talking, but because of the fact that the ad is completely irrelevant to Quayle in every way! Quayle attacks the president; this could be a seemingly reasonable thing to do, if he were running against him! The only thing that this ad provides to its viewers about the candidate is that he loathes Obama, the point of the ad, (I suppose), is to try to ally voters that have similar feelings about the president, because it surely has nothing to do with Quayle himself. Attacking a candidate that you’re not even running against just because he is a popular target is simply ugly politics, it serves no good to anyone, and it amazes me that this man would feel comfortable doing that. Any candidate that would run an ad like that would immediately lose my vote. This is a perfect example of an irrelevant attack ad, and one that definitely crosses the line.
I totally agree with everything you said, Henry. Your Ben Quayle example was a perfect representation of what is completely inappropriate mudslinging in a campaign. When a candidate is always pointing out someone else's flaws and never once mentioning their own qualifications, it just shows that they may not even have sufficient qualifications or experience that would make them a good choice for voters. Quayle's ads are out of context and irrelevant to his race. If someone didn't know better, they may think he is running against Obama with the constant attacks Quayle puts against him. If a candidate's final option is to attack the president, there is something wrong with that campaigning.
DeleteI agree with you also, Henry. And the childish trash-talk is only half of what's wrong with attack ads. Quayle made some bold promises: "going to Washington and knocking the hell out of the place." These were blatant lies; as soon as Quayle was elected, he skipped congressional meetings and was not very active at all (how can you knock the hell out of the place without even showing up?). Political ads should be honest as well as about the person running them.
DeleteI like how you say that if a campaign is dominated by attack ads, it becomes a contest of a "lesser of two evils" which should never be the case in a democracy trying to better itself. I agree that we should be building ourselves upon the structures and capabilities of our platforms instead of degrading the others'. If you have nothing to back you up as a politician and you only have the ability to play Jenga, then you are essentially a cell of destruction within the fabric of the United States.
DeleteIf the mudslinging is legitimate though, is it not fair game? A contest of who can come up with the bigger lie is an issue, but why not point out things to the voter that may show a new side to the politicians character? Herman Cain withdrew from the election after it came apparent that he had sexually harassed women over long periods of time? If ads spread such information, is that not something real enough for voters to judge the character of the man they are voting for?
DeleteI really don't believe that political attack ads are an appropriate way to earn votes. Most ads that are seen on television and on the internet are of this nature and the American public is learning what is wrong with the candidates than what is right. Why should we be constantly be forced to chose the lesser of two evils? A candidate should want his/her viewers to see all of the positive aspects that he/she would bring to the table if elected and act as a positive role model--not continually bash and trash talk the opposing side! Yes, it is political nature to show people why the other candidate is not a good choice, but an entire ad should not center around that ideology! Perhaps a better way of going about it would be to first explain what the other candidate is doing wrong in a brief and precise manner--just to simply state to the viewers what they should be scared of with the opposing candidate. Following would be the majority of the ad and would comprise of positive aspects about the candidate whose ad it is to convince the audience that he/she is the right choice primarily by showcasing his/her strengths, not the other's weaknesses.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPqfzFIpvzc&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ULN23SS3HKE&feature=relmfu
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LPiLuaX5LM&feature=relmfu
I really wanted to share all three of these ads because it simply exemplifies how some candidates only use attack ads to try to earn votes. Much like the ad Henry shared, these three ads are promoting Representative Ben Quayle for another term in the US House of Representatives. If you watch the ads, you will notice that Ben Quayle does not ONCE say anything positive about himself, he doesn't tell us why he should vote for him and he definitely does not state any of his qualifications that would make him a good choice for our Arizona representative. For the entirety of all 3 ads, he attacks president Obama on his government spending and "dividing our country" by announcing is his support of gay marriage. These ads are so inappropriate and frankly, disgraceful. Unfortunately, he will win some votes from these ads-- not because he is a good candidate but because he attacks President Obama. So pretty much he is going to win the votes of people who also hate Obama. Does that sound right at all? No. Especially since Quayle isn't even running against Obama! Every single one of these ads crosses the line and are completely inappropriate strategies for any candidate to use in their campaign.
Carlyn, I have to say that I strongly agree with you agreeing with my views. It is a shame to pick the "lesser of two evils" when we could be picking the greater of two heroes. The Ben Quayle case is for sure a quirky one, after watching nearly all his videos, I still feel as though I know nothing about him. The only thing I've learned is that he hates Obama, so I should vote for him, the sad thing is, as you point out, he will win votes because of that, he won his 2010 election running similar ads. Common hatred is a very weak basis for choosing a political candidate to ally one's self with, and truthfully an entirely cowardly and shameful way to attract voters. I'm embarassed to have such a person as that representing this beautiful and tolerant land of Arizona.
DeleteI completely agree with you both. It's a shame that all the energy they use for their campaigns goes into bashing their opponents, rather than their skills and the goals they have.
DeleteI completely agree with choosing the lesser of two evils. You hear bad things about each candidate and it kind of makes you lose hope for choosing the best, because in the back of your mind you start to think about how their name got slung around. It's very unfortunate, especially because these stories can be skewed just from one minor detail.
DeleteDepending on the situation, I think that some attacks ads are ok. They can be very effective at showing things about the opposition. Why do you think that politicians use them? Although they can be very effective, the attack ads shouldn't go overboard. You shouldn't mock or question somebody's integrity.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Lr49t4-2b8
This first ad is romney's "these hands" ad. Romney does a good job at portraying a business owner reacting to how Obama siad that you didn't build your own company. Romney also makes himself look good at hey end by countering Obama's statement with his views.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ud3mMj0AZZk
This next ad is Obama's "Firms" ad. In this ad he focuses on how Romney outsourced jobs while he was a governor in Massachusetts. It doesn't attack Romney in a mean manner and seems respectful. The only thing I didn't like was how the ad has Romney singing "America The Beautiful". That seems like a slap in the face to Romney. Also, who cares if he had a swiss bank account.
I agree that attack ads do show things about the opposition, sometimes. Attack ads definitely shouldnt go overboard, I agree. The thing that I dont like about that Romney ad is that it takes a statement out of context and warps its meaning, which actually shows the viewer a false perspective of the oppposition. The thing that I don't like about the Obama ad is that it is almost cruel exposing Mitt's terrible singing voice like that, even if he did it himself in front of thousands of people and television cameras. I dont like the vibe of that ad because it sems like a kind of mockery of Romney, which is not nice play. I do see the purpose though, that being Obama's basis of attack which is that Gov Romney says "believe in america" and sings that song, yet it is in a way hypocritical in his actions showing that he doesn't himself believe in America, having invested so much in other countries.
DeleteHenry, how does the Romney add take the statement out of context? It came straight from Obama's mouth.
DeleteWell, James, out of context does not mean the words were changed, it means that they were taken from a speech that had many more elements to the description that completely changed the meaning of the statement. Surely you understand that you could take someones words, that they said, out of context and it may give a totally diffent meaning to them in another situation. If you would like to listen to that entire segment of that speech I will post the link below so that you can decide for yourself whether the meaning remains the same.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=192oEC5TX_Q
Romney has another add that shows more of that speech. I wish that politicians would focus more on why they should be elected, instead of why you shouldn't elect the other guy. If you can show that you are more intelligent and passionate then the other guy people will pay more attention to you.
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBcwBF96OsU <--- This guy shows a Mitt Romney attack ad against Obama and very effectively pulls it apart and shows all the reasons why it doesn't work. It's kinda funny how many holes the ad has. This ad is a perfect example of an attack ad because it not only tries to bring to the public all the wrongdoings the opponent has done but it offers an alternative. This alternative is Romney's plan that he promises for America if elected. An ultimatum is also subliminally shown because the commercial restricts the view to an either/or thing.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, I think attack ads are one of the worst kinds of advertising for political campaigns. Some of them only attack the competitor and does nothing to boost the status of the candidate who paid for the ad itself. It is a very low-handed way of campaigning and puts a negative spin to the candidate that it's supporting in my opinion. I want to see why I should support one guy, I don't want to see why I should hate the other. Ads that put one candidate in a good light are much better than ads which put the other in a negative light.
I agree that attack ads are low handed. I think it's the easy way out. It's supposed to make you look so much better when you put someone else down, when in reality it has the adverse effect and makes you look like, for lack of better terms, a jerk.
DeleteTotal attack adds I think are I agree not appropriate because they do usually only attack the opposing candidate and do not help the candidate that has the camercial.
Deletei totally agree that attack ads are wrong. As a candidate you want to make people like you. I also hate when politicians make promises. They never fulfill their promises. When they make broken promises it just makes it harder to trust them.
DeleteIf attack ads were as useless as you claim them to be, people would stop using them. They're really just a symptom of the larger issue. The 30-whatever percent of the population that's Democratic is almost always going to vote Democrat, and the 30-whatever percent of the population that's Republican is almost always going to vote Republican. Nobody bothers trying to sway those demographics, because it's useless. Instead, they focus on the people who don't particularly care about politics, but vote anyway. People who lack strong opinions on policy aren't going to vote based on policy, they're going to vote based on charisma and likability. Attack ads effectively damage the target's likability, as seen by undecided voters.
DeleteWho draws the line between right and wrong? this question baffles america in all morale quetions whether it is immagration or political ads. However there is never going to be a direct line of saying how far an insulting ad can go. Just like the press theywill use any information against someone to make themselves look better. It is childis and honestly quite annoying to be insulting an american who wishes to improve the area they live in. attacks are like children bickering saying, "ya i did this but look at what he/she did!" all it is doing is shifting focus away from their own problems or faults. In this day and age there is no line to hide information from people and there is no line of how people can use that information against you. facing it, no one can draw the line to freedom of speech, which i believe is abbusing the right, but people need to realize that no one can draw the line even though childish and immorale.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfttw9V-Tb0&feature=autoplay&list=PL6B326A799C8EB269&playnext=2
The video listed bashes a candidate by stating what he voted against so it is most liely focused open a certain party or area to win a majority vote. its ment for embarrasment but it is embarrassing to the candidate supporting and condoning that kind of behavoir and openly welcomes it into their election.
ReplyDeleteHere's another form of ATTACK ad I just wanted to share from a couple of congressional candidates right here in Arizona. They took the attack ad to a whole other level, a little bit too literally.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NLAirystfdY
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GqnjzONrPiA
Oh my gosh I just watched these! I literally could not focus on anything the actual ad was saying because all I could hear was gunshots. This is definitely too literal..how is knowing how to shoot a gun going to help make decisions in Congress?
DeleteThe second video is a little ridiculous. We really fail to learn anything about her. However I don't see anything wrong with the first add. He's pointing out a lot of true things about the government and saying that he doesn't agree with them.
DeleteJames,Do you agree with Ron Gould's approach to shooting something that he does not agree with? What do you think this mentality says about him and how would it affect his leadership? Although I understand that Gould was proposing a metaphor by shooting the book, it seems that he should be more focused on trying to change or create laws instead of just literally shooting them away without an alternative.
DeleteI believe attack ads are appropriate to an extent in any campaign. It is important for voters to know the differences between the candidates. If one candidate points out the weakness of another, voters may be comforted by the fact that the strengths of that candidate will outweigh the weakness of the other. If a candidate makes questionable decisions or has a downfall that may affect the wellbeing of the voters, it should be brought to their attention. I draw the line at complete personal attacks and nothing else in a candidate’s campaign. Obviously a candidate will not support their competition, but it is pointless to tell the voters how bad their opposition is over and over again. We want to know what a candidate has that their opposition doesn’t. Simply stating their flaws can only go so far. Yes, a common enemy will win some votes, but not with people who want to know more about the candidates. It isn’t right to make a decision based on an attack ad, especially because candidates are likely to exaggerate and fabricate some facts. When it’s my turn to vote, I won’t be paying any attention to TV commercials; I will be doing my research to find out each candidate’s strengths, weaknesses, and goals.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rVQRgDKkGLM
This is a medley of a few different campaign ads and an analysis of them all. At about 1:30, an attack ad is made on Mitt Romney in which he is actually compared to Richard Nixon and referred to (in a beating around the bush sort of way) as a crook, again back to the Nixon comparison. At 8:25, Romney supports an anti-Obama ad. In the ad, he does get his point across because he compares what he spends money on versus what Obama has spent money on. However, the ad goes into detail about what Obama is supposedly doing wrong and turns into a complete personal attack. At 11:22, there is another anti-Romney ad which quite literally makes fun of his habit of dancing around questions. As he answers questions, the image of a dressage horse dancing around an arena is shown on the screen.
I really don't like attack ads, but they are unfortunately a big part of elections on the state and national levels. When based on fact I believe that attack ads are important, even though you will always have the people that believe an elected official can do no wrong or its all the the predecessor's fault. Even when the person elected has broken promise after promise, "not his fault"
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpLWCvIZDuI&feature=related
they are a big part but do you think someone could put a sensor on it or atleast make the people put truth behind their accusations?
DeleteI wish there was some way to do that, but you can make just about anything sound true by taking things out of context along with other strategies.
DeletePersonally, I don't enjoy attack ads. I don't find it morally wrong to find out the shortcomings of the opponent, but when that is used to absolutely humiliate and to purposely put a bad name on the other person, I can't stand it. I feel like the campaign could be putting its time, energy, and money elsewhere instead of hunting down reasons why the other candidate is inadequate. It's easy to sling someone's name around until it leaves a bad taste in peoples' mouths, but I find that when a candidate can be, in the most simplest term, classy in their campaign, I'm much more enticed to pay attention to what they're doing. Also, the information that is used in attack ads can often be misjudged or skewed, so the American public can't be certain of the entire truth.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG08nR475s4
Many people are familiar with this ad from Ben Quayle. In his first sentence, he accuses Barack Obama of being the worst president in history. This ad was played about half way through Obama's first term, and I feel like that statement is overdramatic. Yes, he wanted to get the viewers' attention. And yes, it worked. But at what cost? I remember when I first saw that ad, I thought, "Seriously?" This attack was so bold, and also so short that it left the viewer thinking, "What?" It was nice that he mentioned that he loves Arizona, but at that point the first sentence still loomed in the viewer's mind. He also mentions how he was "raised right." That could be very offensive and seems very uncredited. This campaign ad did not sit well with me whatsoever.
I love your example video! This, like most of Quayle's campaign ads, is completely and blatantly disrespectful to a man who Quayle is not even running against. Many ads in politics are similar to these nowadays and the only votes they are winning are those of people who share a common hatred toward the person being attacked. They simply show the lowness of the candidate and in my opinion, makes them lose credibility.
DeleteI'm going to be different here and say that I have no problem with attack ads. Why is it so bad to point out someone's faults? In my opinion, a good campaign should have a balance between attack and non-attack ads. The attack adds should have specific proof and evidence of the fault of the opposition. The others, should be about what the candidate is going to do and also defending him/herself from the accusations of the other candidate. Attack ads do become a problem though when a campaign is only based on them. A good example of this is Ben Quayle's ads posted by Henry and Carlyn. Another problem with attack ads could be when they are not even true like this one:
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCZM19l6lVQ&feature=relmfu
The accusation that Romney had anything to do with the outsourcing of jobs is completely false. It is very inappropriate to spread information that isn't even true.
I completely agree about romney, and there isnt alot wrong with attack ads but then again the line cant be drawn by one person. Attack ads are really childish and its up to the american citizens to research the information being fed to them but that can lead to ignorance when voting by listening to lies
DeleteI do agree that campaign attacks are not all that appropriate. They usually but not always attack the other candidate instead of just focus in what needs to be done about problems.
DeleteI think that instead of attack ads candidates should run on their record and their beliefs. UNLESS what they are saying is extremly releavant or are calling out the opposition on a lie or broken promise.
DeleteI believe that advertisement attacks are appropriate but I think their approach on many attacks is not appropriate. I believe that these campaign commercials are inappropriate because i believe they are inneficent since they waste time attacking another candidate instead of talking about what needs to be fixed and a waste of money. Instead of attacking another canoeists I think candidates should instead lure people into agreeing with some of the can orates thought about what is will take to be a successful president. This could be carried out by listing some of the difficulties the United States is facing. After listing the problems faced in the campaign commercial, there could be possible solutions to these problems that the candidate could preform if elected as president of the united states. Another radical and maybe effective approve might be to lure voters by making the commercial educational and entertaining. For Example
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SPqfzFIpvzc&feature=relmfu
It would have been better to state the problems instead of just attack another candidate because this does not just show that the candidate cares, but it also distracts the voters from what needs to be fixed.
So directly addressing the prompt, I believe that attack ads are indeed appropriate for political campaigns. If a candidate running for an office did something disapproving in the political world, I want to know about it and think it would be important for others to know as well. However, there is a barrier between appropriate attack ads and inappropriate attack ads (obviously). This line is crossed when the attacker mentions something private about the opponent that has nothing to do with politics, or something else totally unrelated to politics at all (ex. Ben Quayle). As many people stated above, arguments used by men like Quayle are completely irrelevant to the position he's running for. He attacks Obama in his ads even though he's not running for the presidency just because he knows that others share this dislike for Obama and would be able to gather their votes. Also, excessive muckraking into a politicians personal life is bad just because one's personal life often doesn't mimic his political life.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5Aohgrn1peA
The attack ad above is an attack from Ron Paul on Mitt Romney. Although it is a bit dramatic, it highlights a lot of important truths about Romney that people may not know about. There is some name calling however, that I disapprove of because it's unprofessional and unnecessary. The facts are strong influences without it and serve to enlighten people about what Romney has done in his career. In no way do I believe that these ads should be the base of a candidate's campaign but I do believe that they are appropriate and important in politics. As for those who say that attack ads make one choose the lesser of two evils, I do agree that this weakens the patriotic bond of Americans towards its government but the reality is, the government is corrupt and the people need to know it (ex. military industrial complex).
You make a good point, Andrew. Sometimes the attacks are warranted and necessary. In my experience however, most attack ads are either irrelevant to the campaign or incorrect information. I guess it just depends on what is in the ad.
DeleteAttack ads are fine for political campaigns. If they are well-founded thoughts and revelations of flaws within arguments, then the attack is well played and should be considered a viable strategy to defeating an opponent. There are, however, ads that attack various non-political facets of their opponent's life, such as Herman Cain's affair scandal, that do not deserve to be aired and pass the competition from one of politics and ideas, or creating false analogies that are malicious and irrelevant to the actual character of their argument. If the ad has no correlation to the platform, then it should not exist. A private life is entitled "private" for a reason, it has nothing to do with their duties in public office. If a candidate is not capable of attacking without a resulting ad hominem, then they should just be limited to discussing the pros of their platform, and not the cons of their foes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSLGt0-bHIA&feature=bf_next&list=PLA478ED51501204F0
This video, though a satirical ad (which is legitimate and was actually featured on the air as an advertisement funded by Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow Inc.), highlights the extreme insanity of certain attack ads. Making large, exaggerated leaps in logic, the ad connects Mitt Romney with the serial killer Jack the Ripper. While it is obvious that the conclusion is unconnected with the true character of Mitt Romney, it is still effective. Why? Because it successfully leaves a bitter taste in your mouth because it made the connection for you. You now picture Mitt the Ripper, and that's how ad hominem attack ads work. And that's how these ads do it well. You can't kill an idea once it's taken root.
I think you have a thoughtful persepctive when it comes to negative ads and their correlations to political platforms. I agree that it is insufficient to attack a candidate's personal life because of it's irrelevance and weakened persuasion. I also like how you mention that discussing the "cons of their foes" makes the candidate appear to be incapable.
DeleteBrett, if the add is thought through and well founded, then is still an attack ad? Sounds like a good ad to me. Not ad hominem, but real factual information. It is merely a negative ad, not an invasive attack ad. But everything else you say though is well thought out. It is effective, though crude and way of the mark.
DeleteI think attack ads are inappropriate in political campaigns. A line should be set to not release false information about your opponent. That’s poor sportsmanship. The focus should be on the issues and character of the people we are electing into office, not the rumors the spread to make the other guy look bad. I think mudslinging shows lack of courage and makes our political look like cowards. It’s a very immature way to win votes.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LCZM19l6lVQ&feature=relmfu
In this video Romney is accused of outsourcing jobs, which is completely false.
You are right, Jessica, attack ads are annoying enough when they are true, but when they are just plain lies, it is very poor sportsmanship and in turn makes the attacker look bad. I personally wish that candidates would only talk about themselves and not about the opponent at all.
DeleteI agree with you, but I do believe that attack ads do have a place in a campaign. No, they should not tear down their opponent with false or exaggerated information, but they should be able to speak the truth and inform the viewers.
DeleteYeah and that's why I believe that a line should be set to not release false information. If the information is true then that's another situation. I just think we would have better men in office and campaigns would be more efficient and successful if attack ads were not used.
DeleteI completely agree. Bashing the other will not get you anywhere. I honestly believe it just makes you look worse in the end, but that's clearly not the case. The reason why attack ads have been getting more and more popular is because people like the entertainment. It's much more engaging to watch rather than some boring ad about someone. Attacks that are out of context or irrelevant to the race at hand should not be aired.
DeleteI think that attack ads are necessary in political campaigns to an extent and only when reporting facts IN CONTEXT; however, unfortunately today the ads are mostly about random snippets of the other candidates life that has nothing to do with the situation at hand. Also, the voters need to be able to fully know the candidate they are voting for- they need to know the person's past decisions in their jobs previously- and the only way they see the bad stuff is through attack ads since all the candidates ever do is talk themselves up, never owning up to their bad decisions on policies they may have made in the past.
DeleteIn our time, attack ads are inappropriate yet necessary in a successful campaign. It is unfortunate how negative ads against an opponent seem to be more effective than ads in which a person promotes him/herself, but that is how politics work in the current age. It is as if the candidates are telling you to pick the lesser of two evils, as opposed the person who is most fit for the job. If a person refuses to use attack ads against an opponent, it is very likely that they will get torn apart by the contender and will have no chance at victory, which is why I think they are necessary. As far as boundaries go, I believe that candidates should only be allowed to talk about themselves and not their opponent at all. Unfortunately, I don’t see that happening any time soon.
ReplyDeleteI am currently on a cruise ship and YouTube is completely restricted because they think that it takes up too much data. I apologize but I will not be able to complete the second part of the prompt.
I completely agree with you. Attack ads are too personalized and too biased. I think that the ads would be much more effective if they weren't so exaggerated.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteI agree that attack ads can be inappropriate, but I think they have their place. Unfortunately a lot of canditates are not truthful in attack ads and end up distorting their opponent's meaning. I don't agree with this, but when a canditate is sharing factual and relevant information their opponent is hiding I think that people have a right to know. I do think that a lot of attack ads are inappropriate, but there are some that bring real issues to light.
DeleteIn my opinion there are instances in which attack ads are appropriate and necessary in a successful campaign; however, these instances are very hard to find since the majority of attack ads twist the truth and take statements out of context. I do agree that attack ads are more effective than self-promoting ads in today's political world and that this needs to change.
DeleteAttack ads are the most abused type of political ad there is today. Even though they may help the candidate who is attacking they are overused and tend to become very annoying. Attack ads can go too far when false information is pieced together to make it seem like someone said something that they didn't. They are also a hassle when they are played more than once during a single commercial break.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PH7fU1-HrP4
In this add two different events are pieced together to make it seem like Flake was saying something he didn't. The ad makers try to show that Flake lied about his views on SB1070 and other policies. When the attacks piece together false information that is just wrong.
I agree that they are the most abused type and super annoying! I like how you point out how easy information is put together to make something look like something its not, kind of like the game telephone.
DeleteI agree that many attack ads have lost their credibility due to the lying and exaggeration of the truth often in them. I don't have a problem with attack ads that are true and relevant to the campaign, however. I think that voters have a right to know who they are voting for, and as long as the information is true, I don't see a problem. I also don't think attack ads are okay if they overtake a campaign; they have their place but should not be overused.
DeleteThe main concern against attack ads is that they develop a sense of dishonesty through a bias and blurred facts. Yet if all attack ads contained completely factual information, I still think that there will always be a better alternative. It seems fine to find faults in an opponent’s argument and to display an opinion against them; however, this informs voters that the candidate may have a weak enough stance to distract instead of drawing attention to their policies and beliefs. Proposing policies without addressing the opponent may seem insufficient to some, but if the candidate is clear in conveying what they want in government, there should be no need to point out what they do not want or have not wanted. Also, some may feel that attack ads are the most memorable form of advertisement or that they have the strongest effect on voters. This may be true but it does not signify that attack ads are entirely necessary, yet they will continue to be used until the public realizes how weak their persuasion really is. Attack ads do not exist because politicians enjoy using or creating them; they exist because voters respond to them and clearly elect officials who utilize them. They will continue to be used until candidates who use these ads are no longer voted into positions. Although I believe that candidates should abstain from using negative ads, I also believe that it has become a struggle for politicians who do not want to use them but feel forced to for fear of falling behind their opponent. In this sense, a vicious cycle is employed.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UevjLaIM_Fs
This ad layers the idea of using attacking as advertising because Romney’s argument against Obama is that he has falsely attacked him as a politician. This is the result of having negative ads as a main focus in the public’s politics. Now instead of simply speaking out against an opponent’s policies, candidates are speaking against their “unfair and untrue” advertisements. It seems to be insufficient that Romney claims that Obama made unjust attacks and then proceeds to attack him in the same biased and over dramatic manner.
Nikki all I'm going to say is watch this
Deletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oEq_H8u6oJY
Soooooooooooo
Nikki, I think you make several valid points about attack ads, including the distraction from actual policies and beliefs. Ads should focus on what the candidate will do if elected and what he believes in. This is the information that people actually need to make their decision about whom to vote for. Your comments about attack ads becoming a cycle are thought-provoking and, unfortunately, true.
DeleteJosh, I don't see how your comment relates to this post. Nikki's response to the question was thoughtfully nonpartisan.
Just so you know Josh this is the website you'd go to if you wanted to find any of the things he talked about in that video.
Deletehttp://www.whitehouse.gov/the_press_office/TransparencyandOpenGovernment
I usually try to not just blindly believe every random video I happen to stumble across on youtube.
Okay Henry if he is so transparent why does he have his college transcripts protected under executive previldge? He won't release Fast and Furious documents? You do realize you are reading directly off of his website right?
DeleteRegardless of your viewpoint towards Obama, your opinion on his lying is not even relevant to my argument. He very well could be lying, I do not dispute that. As Kandace already said, the point that I was making solely related to the evolved dynamics of attack ads and not my personal political beliefs.
DeleteI don't think attack ads are especially unique in "develop[ing] a sense of dishonesty through a bias and blurred facts." People who have already decided which candidate they're voting for aren't going to change their minds, no matter what any speech, ad, or debate says, and undecided are undecided because they don't really pay attention. The undecided will either not vote, or vote based on who seems more likable/less evil.
DeleteThe problem with what I see in your argument against attack ads is the fact that you say they act as red herrings, directing the topic away from what the candidates platform really is. But to be honest, let's create a hypothetical scenario. Here you have two people, on two different sides of the political spectrum. Person A follows their party zealously, as well as Person B. Neither can convince the other of their merits being more worthy than the other candidates: they brush it off as pish posh. Now, you have to be able to counter an opponents argument in order to help the person discover why your path should be chosen, which is what informative attack ads do.
DeleteIf you can't see the faults, why would you change?
Attack ads are acceptable if and only if they rebut the opposition's stance in a fair and reasonable manner. Ads which feature blatant fallacies or falsehoods never fall in that category.
ReplyDeleteExamples
Inappropriate: Romney misrepresenting Pres. Obama's views: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvYCeXAcdG4
Appropriate: Pres. Obama attacking Romney for lying: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z-z-U57BaSc
Inappropriate: Pres. Obama speculating on Romney's financial history: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=45TzZa_wEnE
Appropriate: Romney attacking Pres. Obama over a policy disagreement: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdF-cR66V8
I like this haha.
DeleteI completely agree with you. They have a place in today's politics only when they are exposing something wrong in policies or even bringing up the past decisions a person has made on a similar- not irrelevant- policy or exposing hypocrisy. They shouldn't be acceptable when going outside the topic's range (3rd video) or taking things out of context and exaggerating them, essentially through mudslinging.
DeleteIn my opinion, attack ads are far from appropriate in political campaigns in which people are pinned against one another doing whatever it takes to gain a role of power. This is a slippery situation that involves some serious ethical and moral considerations. Although I would prefer to see a campaign free of this childish slander, "well he did this... but he did this!... etc.", it has firmly molded itself into our political society. No longer does honesty and facts win campaigns. One must now simply APPEAR to be the better person based on what has been said about their opponent. Why, you might ask, has politics taken this shallow direction? Because, frankly, its much more engaging to watch. In an era were technology broadcasts most of what we know about the world, it is much more interesting to read about the love life of [insert political figure’s name here] than to see a list of pros and cons of their newly formed policy regarding lowering national debt with no raise of taxes(just an example of a vital yet seemingly boring topic). “OBAMA: THE SOCIALIST”, is an example of an attack add one might see in this years campaigning. Now this is something that someone can get riled up about and stand behind because the thought of socialism in America evokes feelings of strong nationalism. Instead of listing the facts about Obamacare, which in fact proves to have no intention of creating a socialist nation, this direct attack at the character of a political figure is easier to get angry or passionate about. However, there is a detrimental lack of truth in this method.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBcwBF96OsU
The link above is to an attack ad made by endorsed by Mitt Romney aimed towards Obama during the 2012 campaign. In it he states that he will get rid of Obamacare because it’s, “killing our jobs and its keeping our kids from having the bright prospects that they deserve”. First of all, a large majority of Obama’s healthcare plan does not even take effect until 2014, which proves Romney’s accusation is wildly unjustifiable. His use of children to play with the emotions of his audience is also unwarranted because he has absolutely no grounds for believing that a policy that enacts healthcare for everyone will be detrimental to our society’s youth.
I have read the Obamacare law in its entirety which is probably more than the President, but its not what I am concerned about the most. It has opened a flood gate saying that the Federal Government has the ability to tax us on something we do not want to buy. Now what can't they tax us on? There is nothing stopping them from saying "If you don't have an American or Hybrid car you will be taxed," Oh you haven't exercised today? We are going to tax you for burdening our new socialist healthcare plan. Now I actually just read the second part of your post. What part of paying higher premieums on buying gold and other precious metals have to do with healthcare? Or how about the 3.8% tax when you sell your home?
DeleteI know much to everyone's suprise I agree that healthcare reform is a necessity, but this is not the right way to go about it. I like the fact that students can stay on their parents' healthcare program until the age of 26 (even though if Obamacare stays we will be on the Gov't option within a decade).
We did not even address the main problem which is malpractice reform, a doctor can't do his job at a reasonable price when they are worried if they prescribe the wrong birth control pill so the girl breaks out and tries to sue? He needs to do what's called stop the problem at the source, correcting American laziness and expecting to get spoon fed by the Government and not sue over pety things like being handed a coffee that was too hot at a Mcdonald's drive thru.
I know its crazy.
With all due respect Josh, I highly doubt you have read the "Obamacare law" (Affordable Care Act) in its entirety considering its nearly 2500 pages long.
DeleteI couldn't agree with you more Henry. I love how you pointed out how easy it is for one to over look the facts and let their emotions get the best of them.
DeleteYes Henry you are right, I only read 372 pages of it. I did mean to actually delete that part. Jessica, what facts have I overlooked?
DeleteJosh, I simply aimed to point out the attack ad strategy of a Romney ad against the democratic party. The topic of his attack happened to focus on the Obamacare law. I think you're spouting generalizations before you can even tell what differences Obamacare is going to make. Healthcare reform that makes health insurance available to all citizens of the Untied States doesn't automatically mean in the future if you don't exercise, you will be taxed. Its a step towards better quality of life for everyone; and not just a conglomeration of facts from the news.
DeleteChoice 2:
ReplyDeleteAd 1: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CG08nR475s4
Though I personally feel that attack ads are pathetic, I deem this advertisement from Ben Quayle's 2010 congressional campaign successful, assuming that the ultimate purpose of political advertisements is to help the candidate win the election. This ad was released in the hopes that Quayle would win his first term in Congress. His comments about the President struck a note that is relatable to many people in this largely conservative state, and given that he had never been a Congressman before, people had hope that he would follow through with his promises of "knocking the hell out of the place." Arizonans voted for him on this hope, even though he was inexperienced and had been involved in scandal, writing on "Dirty Scottsdale." The ad captured attention and, in the end, won Quayle the election, making it a success. Different things can be said for his new reelection ad.
Ad 2:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cgg0VcO9vWY
This advertisement kind of takes up where last election's ads left off, further insulting and attacking the President. It's lost its novelty, and now Arizonans want real action. I would advise Quayle to stop trying to run against the President and to start running against his actual opponent, David Schweikert, who is now leading Quayle by sixteen percentage points. Quayle should stop focusing on attack and try to think of things he's done to win him credibility. Then he should make some specific, believable promises that he can actually follow through on. His next ads should be about him and the things he plans to do.
I do not believe that attack ads are appropriate when it comes to political elections. Every political candidate is going to have their pros and cons and I believe there are more mature ways in showing you are a better candidate other than completely humiliating your opponent. I believe majority of the time attack ads give a false representation of candidates, they're extremely biased.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eeaM4t2Ycgk
I may not be a fan of Barack Obama, but I feel this is a nice representation of an attack ad.
I agree that there are more mature ways of criticizing your opponent instead of slamming them with horrible attack ads. However attacks do catch the attention of the public because they are very annoying and are more likely to be stuck in someones mind when thinking about the election. These ads are the most effective way of getting the bad qualities of a candidate out to the public because ordinary citizens don't usually look up the cons of a political leader by themselves.
DeleteTo me attack ads are an inappropriate campaigning strategy. These highly bias ads take much of their content out of context from its original setting. The makers of these ads dig deep to twist one's words to the liking of the attacker. Sometimes these ads don't make any sense whatsoever and force me to change the channel because I know I am being fed inaccurate information.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Ud3mMj0AZZk
In this ad Obama is attacking Mitt Romney's background of outsourcing jobs to foreign countries within his firms. Even though I support Barack Obama, his ad attacking Mitt Romney and creating the slogan "Mitt Romney's not the solution. He's the problem." just doesn't feel like it is right. Bashing your opponent through the television seems weak and I rather have a debate than an ad that may not even be true.
I completely agree on your take on this. I think that attack ads are appropriate, to an extent. In some ways attack ads can be useful, if they are not distorting the truth. The reason why attack ads have been getting more and more popular is because people like the entertainment. It's much more engaging to watch rather than some boring ad about someone.
DeleteI believe that attack ads have their place in a campaign and can provide citizens with useful information. There is, however, a line that shouldn't be crossed. Attack ads should not focus on topics irrelevant to the campaign issues or be personal. Most attack ads, like the "Same As Obama" ad by Wil Cardon are extremely exaggerated and are used to bias the viewers opinion against the individual that the ad is aimed towards. In this particular ad, some of the points made were valid, but most of the points were taken out of context and highly exaggerated.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vOSQWdTfNiw&feature=related
I agree that attacks should not get into the personal life of a candidate. Also when ad makers purposely take words out of different discussions and piece them together and lead the public to a false conclusion. That in my opinion is just wrong and unfair to the person being attacked.
DeleteI definitely agree with you that if used correctly, attack ads can provide useful information to citizens and could be an important part of any campaign. I also see your point that most political attack ads are usually used poorly and usually things are taken out of context or twisted to give an unfair point of view to anyone watching. However, in rare cases when such ads are used correctly they are perfectly appropriate or even necessary.
DeleteI think that attack ads are appropriate, to an extent. In some ways attack ads can be useful, if they are not distorting the truth. For example, if an attack ad is showing relevant and factual information about a candidate I think that people have a right to see it. There is definitely a line that should not be crossed; I don't think that personal attacks are appropriate at all. I also think that while attack ads play their own role, they should not take over a campaign. More time should be spent focusing on the candidate running than pointing fingers at opponents.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x2UhEKQTXDk&feature=relmfu
I think this ad is inappropriate, because it leaves out important factors contributing to the situation, painting everything in black and white. The baby in the background was completely irrelevant and was simply meant to gain sympathy from voters.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2174327/New-Obama-ad-mocks-Romney-singing-America-Beautiful.html
ReplyDeleteOption 1:
Attack ads have their place in politics, even if they are not appropriate, and are often without merit. The "Singing Romney Ad" attacks Romney's business tactics, and his personal strategies and choices outside the realm of politics. Rather than attacking Romney's platform or political record, he attacks his business strategies. Though this has more merit than many attack ads, it doesn't connect Romney's business decisions with his political dealings and how this has influenced his political career and decisions.
I agree with your belief that attack ads have their place in politics whether or not they are appropriate, however, I think in a capitalist society business and government go hand in hand. Therefore, imploring about business strategies could be relevant to the political actions of Romney in this case. That being said, the manner of which these "strategies" be implored for could have been less invasive or impersonal as they were.
DeleteI'm not trying to claim the information is irrelevant, but the idea behind the add was to attack Romney's person.
DeleteI think that certain "attack ads" have their place since in a campaign, the participants tend to only share with the people the good things about them, the good choices they have made in their past as a politician. However, they rarely share with the voters their bad calls and their previous mistakes they have made in their respective office in the past. Voters need to be aware of the old choices they have made to be better informed voters though videos these days tend to take irreverent opinions and wildly exaggerate them, causing the voters to be very aware of apparent "character defects" rather than political choices. These opinions usually have little or sometimes even nothing to do with the person's campaign and turn into personal attacks. In the video that I found, it shows that Romney has made poor choices and shows evidence of him being a hypocrite regarding the job situation. However, it only glances over the issue and focuses on the people that were affected by this event, rather than just going with the facts. They are trying to attack peoples emotions and use those negative emotions rather than solid facts to get the vote.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhQlnx1NSUw
In my opinion, our political system would be a lot better off without the bashing and attack ads. I feel as though they are completely unprofessional and pathetic. There are much better alternatives to show why the people should vote for you. Bashing the other will not get you anywhere. I honestly believe it just makes you look worse in the end, but that's clearly not the case. The reason why attack ads have been getting more and more popular is because people like the entertainment. It's much more engaging to watch rather than some boring ad about someone. Attacks that are out of context or irrelevant to the race at hand should not be aired. For instance, any attack on somebody’s personal life or a decision they have made that will not be a factor while they hold office is truly wrong. Also attacks on a candidate’s character are not to my liking, the only time that it should even be considered is when it holds validity that it may affect their operation of the office they’re running for.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBcwBF96OsU