Politics and Advertising
In an article published in the New York Times, documentary filmmaker Errol Morris discusses the various ways that political campaigns have used real people ads over the course of the last half-century. Morris begins with discussing the campaign of Dwight D. Eisenhower and his opponent Adlai Stevenson. In the Eisenhower the commercial a young female asks supposedly spontaneous questions to Eisenhower and then he responds. In the Stevenson commercial a very well poised woman gives a testimonial of why she is voting for Stevenson. These commercials are very well rehearsed and it shows. But Morris argues that in its day the commercials were effective. Morris then moves to the 1960 election and an ad for John F. Kennedy. The commercial shows Kennedy stopping over to an average American family home, the Stills family, and off the cuff discusses the financial problems that the family is facing. The ad is supposed to seem candid but comes off very rehearsed and cold. He continues with the 1972 election and describes a commercial for Gerald Ford. The commercial is a man on the street commercial. A man on the street commercial being where people are stopped on the street and asked whom they are voting for and why. But this commercial is slightly different; the people that are being interviewed are democrats who are going to vote for republican Gerald Ford. The commercial also shows a diverse range of people, a businessman, a black female, and an average working man. The commercial is effective because the people are not coached and the environment is not staged. Morris then moves to the 1980 election and a commercial for Jimmy Carter. The commercial shows a woman from rural Oklahoma stating how Jimmy Carter is a peacemaker. The commercial is very good because the woman is real and her feelings and emotions are real and that shows up in the commercial. The next commercial is from the 1984 election, and shows Reagan on his famous cross-country train tour. The commercial shows average American towns people stopping their daily life to go and see Reagan on the train. The commercial is somewhat convincing but could be more effective if we heard from the people instead of the narrator. Morris then moves to more recent history and the 2004 election and discusses the swift boat campaign of John Kerry. These commercials showed the men that served with John Kerry in Vietnam disproving what Kerry had said about his service in Vietnam. These commercials are very effective because they provide first person testimony, which translates to having voters automatically believe the veterans being interviewed. Morris concludes with the last election and reviews the self-ads and some ads he created. The self-ads are people creating their own ads for a candidate with a web cam or video camera. He states that these ads are not very effective. The ads that Morris created are of different people stating why they are voting for Obama. In all the article is very insightful of the types of political advertising and how they are used and the history of political advertising. In my opinion political advertising is very misguiding. Ideally the voter could find non-bias information on the candidate and make and educated decision before voting, but sadly this is not the case. The ads discussed in the article are in some way deceiving and bias. This political advertising is in no way the best way to communicate information to the voters. But not heavily mentioned in the article is attack advertising. Attack advertising in the lowest and ugliest form of political advertising and in my opinion totally unnecessary. If a candidate cannot convince and inspire voters with their knowledge, skills, and experience then the candidate does not deserve the votes.
Comments
I agree that political advertising can be very misguiding. Throughout the course of history, the presentation of political advertisements has gone through many changes in form and quality, beginning with the most rehearsed and stiff approach, and leading to the more formal and casual ad, that still exists in part today. However, this is describing the changes taking place in the presentation of personal testimony ads, where a person is chosen “at random� to describe their views and why they feel that way. The point is to connect with the average viewer and present to him or her viewpoints which he or she feel they can relate to. This does not give mention to the other form of ad that dominates the political advertising scene today: the attack ad. As made obvious in the recent campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, the attack ad is a very powerful weapon in modern political races. There are far more ads telling about bad things that the opposing candidate is doing or has done than positive ads promoting the good things about any given candidate. It becomes very difficult for a conscientious voter to become educated on either candidate with regards to choosing the better candidate for office. And, thus, it results in citizens looking to find the lesser of two evils. In this way, political advertisements in general seem to lose their effect and their original purpose.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 16, 2008 7:41 PM
I agree that political advertising can be very misguiding. Throughout the course of history, the presentation of political advertisements has gone through many changes in form and quality, beginning with the most rehearsed and stiff approach, and leading to the more formal and casual ad, that still exists in part today. However, this is describing the changes taking place in the presentation of personal testimony ads, where a person is chosen “at random� to describe their views and why they feel that way. The point is to connect with the average viewer and present to him or her viewpoints which he or she feel they can relate to. This does not give mention to the other form of ad that dominates the political advertising scene today: the attack ad. As made obvious in the recent campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, the attack ad is a very powerful weapon in modern political races. There are far more ads telling about bad things that the opposing candidate is doing or has done than positive ads promoting the good things about any given candidate. It becomes very difficult for a conscientious voter to become educated on either candidate with regards to choosing the better candidate for office. And, thus, it results in citizens looking to find the lesser of two evils. In this way, political advertisements in general seem to lose their effect and their original purpose.
Posted by: megan lampert | November 17, 2008 9:48 AM
I agree that political advertising can be very misguiding. Throughout the course of history, the presentation of political advertisements has gone through many changes in form and quality, beginning with the most rehearsed and stiff approach, and leading to the more formal and casual ad, that still exists in part today. However, this is describing the changes taking place in the presentation of personal testimony ads, where a person is chosen “at random� to describe their views and why they feel that way. The point is to connect with the average viewer and present to him or her viewpoints which he or she feel they can relate to. This does not give mention to the other form of ad that dominates the political advertising scene today: the attack ad. As made obvious in the recent campaigns of Barack Obama and John McCain, the attack ad is a very powerful weapon in modern political races. There are far more ads telling about bad things that the opposing candidate is doing or has done than positive ads promoting the good things about any given candidate. It becomes very difficult for a conscientious voter to become educated on either candidate with regards to choosing the better candidate for office. And, thus, it results in citizens looking to find the lesser of two evils. In this way, political advertisements in general seem to lose their effect and their original purpose.
Posted by: megan lampert | November 17, 2008 9:49 AM
I agree that political advertising is not the best way to relay information to the voters, especially in this day and age. Of course there is information that may be useful in ads, but it seems that most of the ads today are used to bash the other opponent. This information can be very misguiding like you said because everything being said may not be the entire truth. They are also misguiding because things being claimed by candidates such as new policies and actions they are going to take which are hard to understand, especially when it doesn’t pertain to a college student like myself. Of course campaign advertisements make it seem as though everyone is affected by this new policy or idea the candidate is proposing; advertisements make it seem more important and more eye catching than what it actually is. Ads today have become quite clever in how they present information to gain voters’ support.
I agree with the statement about if candidates cannot convince voters to vote for him or her with their own skills, experience, and knowledge, then why should they deserve the vote. Much of their time seems to be devoted to finding dirt on the other opponent to make themselves look better. Of course there are advertisements which will support a candidate without bashing another opponent, but a person usually sees the other type more often. After awhile these ads just become annoying and it would be nice to hear the candidate just speak for himself or herself all the time instead.
Campaign advertisements have been used for many years now and have been effective in the elections. At this point, campaign ads are a main weapon in gaining voters and will probably not change their overall appearance anytime soon.
Posted by: Megan Jones | November 17, 2008 6:47 PM
This article really seems to deal with one of the questions of our current culture. Has the media become too much of a controlling force in our society? In this case media is being used to essentially persuade people to vote for a candidate based on appeals to pathos and really don’t give any consideration to the facts or the characteristics of the candidates. I agree that this kind of media practice is underhanded and can’t believe that it is anything but detrimental to the forward progress of our country. By letting the media persuade our votes we are giving back the power to the elite society or upper society. I think that your position really encompasses all of this and that it is the real topic of Morris’s article. Media has become the pied piper it seems of the modern day and you have the right idea, in my opinion, that knowledge of the subject is the only way to combat being led to our own sad endings. It is interesting though how we like to relate ourselves with people we see in the media when for so long we have been an independent, anti-conformity, against government power country and society. Now we have come to trust in believe in an establishment that is run by those things that have enough money to implement the media as a way of persuasion.
Posted by: Anonymous | November 18, 2008 11:59 AM