Go Back   Discussions > Archive > Discussions > Facing History 2012-2013 > FH 2012-2013 section 31 (03) Wisteria

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #41  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:29
ZoopZoop ZoopZoop is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Jamaica Plain
Posts: 42
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSam View Post
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=imLFV...ture=endscreen




Furthermore, at the end of the ad Eva Longoria signs off with a Spanish phrase meaning we are united, estamos unidos.
I think the part about "estamos unidos" is not only playing off the glittering generality of everyone being united, but it is also a strong slogan because that phrase sounds very similar to the spanish phrase for The Unites States (los estados unidos), in fact, they're nearly homonyms. this adds to the effect of the slogan, associating Latino Americans as a unified group, specifically from America. This could also be very helpful in pushing Obama's immigration ideology.

Last edited by ZoopZoop; 10-05-2012 at 01:29. Reason: miswrote something
Reply With Quote
  #42  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:54
hellohowareyou hellohowareyou is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 28
propaganda = political ads

“Deceitful”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3wfDQhtpzhQ
This ad is about Elizabeth Warren “not being a Cherokee”. First of all why on earth is this at all relevant to anything? I don’t understand why such a big deal is being made about her being Native American or not. I highly doubt the fact of her heritage is going to sway any Native American votes because, let’s be honest, she doesn’t look the part. Even if she was Native American (I’m not sure what to believe), I don’t think Native Americans would like her more because she doesn’t really identify with being one. As meow14 said, “Does it really matter whether she is Native American or not??” NO MEOW14 IT DOESN’T YOU ARE RIGHT. I Really don’t see her ethnicity being that important in the long run. Anyway, I think this ad incorporates card stacking because it’s trying to get you to believe that she is lying about being Cherokee. They keep centering around the same two accusations that she claimed she was a minority and that it was a lie. They just throw clips and quotes at you until you believe it.

2. “Doors”
http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/20...AC%29+-+Sep+19
This ad is against Mitt Romney. It revolves around the notorious 47% video that we all hear so much about. It incorporates transfer, appeal to plain folk and the bandwagon effect. The very first shot is of Romney’s mansion which is a symbol of his overwhelming wealth and unability to relate to the plain folk. Then they show these “plain folk” disagreeing with Romney’s 47% comments. There are many common folk (53% according to Romney) which creates the bandwagon effect. This ad is actually done quite well because all three aspects tie together very well.

3. “Bankrupt”
http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/20...omney+-+Sep+27
Okay. Oh lord. I just I don’t even know where to start with this one. Every part of it is just…wrong. Unbelievably blatently wrong. It’s a pro Romney ad that shows a clip of Obama twice. It’s a clip of him saying if somebody goes into the coal industry right now, it will bankrupt them. Does everyone understand what that means. IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT OBAMA HATES ALL COAL MINERS AND IS WAGING A WAR ON COAL. All he’s saying is that coal mining is not the best job to choose in America right now. You will go bankrupt. That’s all he’s saying and the ad say we’re “losing jobs to China”. What????? Anyway this ad also shows card stacking except not effective card stacking because for lack of a better word it’s pure stupidity. It appeals to the plain folk (working class aka coal miners) as well.

4. “Obama: Romney a ‘vampire’”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yhQln...eature=related
The title in and of itself already shows name calling. In the video, one of the interviewees refers to Romney as “a vampire. He came in and sucked the life out of us.” The slight fact that vampires suck blood, not your life aside, this is a powerful name. Not for everyone, but for a lot of people who watch this video with a pro Obama or open mind, they will forever associate with Romney as a life sucker. They will see him as draining the spirits of the people. This ad is about Bain Capital taking over small businesses and shutting them down, losing millions of jobs. This appeals to the blue collar working class or plain folk.

5. “Samuel L. Jackson ‘WAKE THE F*** UP’ Barack Obama”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og35U0d6WKY
I came across this video and just couldn’t not use it. It brings together three of my favorite things: parodies, Chrismas, and the name Samuel L. Jackson. (I just think Samuel, L. and Jackson go really well together I’m not sure why). The whole thing is to the tune of Twas the night before Christmas and it’s just a hilarious video about people not caring about the election. I can’t think if this specifically incorporates one of the 6 types of propaganda but there might be a seventh. I feel like this was a very honest type of propaganda. It clearly took the side of Obama, but there were actual issues in this ad that I haven’t seen anywhere else. Now that I think about it, it was probably card stacking because Samuel L. Jackson just kept saying positive things about Obama. But it wasn’t just about Obama it was about what he’s done for us as a country; all the things he’s helped with. It was sort of like a reminder or refresher propaganda.

note: I did not do any ads with the candidate talking directly at you because they feel like parodies to me and i am disappointed every time there isn't studio audience laughter filling the awkward pauses.
Reply With Quote
  #43  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:55
Calico Calico is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 46
Armies, Middle Class Apparel, and Homosexuals

Upon reading the assignment, I immediately thought of one ad that I have seen before. It was aired three years ago, but it is still one of the most horrific examples of modern propaganda I have ever seen. Nevertheless, this anti-gay marriage ad is still relevant to the 2012 election (though both candidates have silently moved away from controversial social issues and toward the economy, gay rights was a very hot topic during the Republican primary).

National Organization for Marriage “Gathering Storm” ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wp76ly2_NoI

The ad describes a dark storm taking over America, the dark storm of gay marriage. It employs the strategy of appealing to plain folks by recording the testimonies of middle class clad Americans saying that gay marriage is destroying their lives as a member of a church group, a doctor, and a Massachusetts mom. “I am a Massachusetts parent, helplessly watching public schools teach my son that gay marriage is okay.” It also employs the bandwagon effect by having the speakers spread out on the scene, not to mention that each speaker is of either different race, gender, or age. The entire time the ad is playing, there is an ominous storm cloud casting over the speakers, further promoting homophobia (as if it wasn’t enough that there was almost no factual evidence in the claims that gay marriage was restricting freedom). The ad ends with an excerpt from “Enigma Variations” by Elgar, a classical piece inspired by the composer’s middle class friends and family. Though very subtle, I took this as a transfer strategy because it was a symbol of the common people.

The next ad is more up to date (and also mentioned in three previous posts). It is an Elizabeth Warren ad where she says she wants to talk to the viewer about herself before all the “ridiculous attack ads” are unleashed. Oh the irony.

Warren’s “Who I Am” ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_wj6NHdEQ

“Warren utilizes the Appeal to Plain Folks in this ad by clearly describing her humble background. She does this to, presumably, let us know that she is not so removed from us and has middle-class interests at heart. “ – Nohappenstance

I agree with nohappenstance and also cachilula that she describes her upbringing as very typical middle class in order to imply that she is down to earth. Furthermore, I’d like to touch upon the last 30 seconds as realslimshady had done. I would add name calling to the list of strategies that Elizabeth Warren employed in this ad. She denounces federally subsidized banks by calling their lobbyists an “army”. She denounced these big bank lobbyists in an ad where she also stated that she was a teacher. The fact is, the education industry that employs a larger “army” of lobbyists than any other industry including finance (I apologize to Ms. Freeman if this offends you or if I am misinformed but I’m 98.37% sure that I am correct). Where is all this irony coming from anyway?

The next ad is almost as horrific as the National Organization for Marriage ad, but after thinking it over, I realized some Americans may actually be able to relate to Rick Perry's statements. It is an ad advocating for prayer in schools and mocking gay rights, two very controversial social issues.

Rick Perry “Strong” Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V78ReJbjdxo

Rick Perry immediately starts with the strategy of transfer. “I’m not ashamed to admit that I’m a Christian.” Although he is trying to say something that is widely accepted in American society, he is somewhat shooting himself in the leg because the many people in America who are not Christian could not possibly relate to this statement. He uses this strategy of carrying over Christianity to the support of prayer in schools and “Don’t ask, don’t tell” in the military. His casual clothing and the outdoor setting appeal to plain folks, more specifically suburban plain folks who live among nicely trimmed lawns and lovely foliage. Rick Perry's use of propaganda strategies were very poor because they did not appeal to a wide enough audience.

Next is the Obama ad “The Choice”. The name of the ad itself suggests the emphasis of democracy, which is obviously widely accepted in America.

Barack Obama “The Choice” Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FBorRZnqtMo

Obama states “Over the next four months you have a choice to make. Not just between two political parties or even two people. It's a choice between two very different plans for our country.” His opening words of the ad suggest bipartisanship and power to the people. He uses the glittering generalities in order to appeal to every viewer whether they agree to his ideas or not. He then continues on to talk about how his plan is better than Romney’s, yet it is still “your choice” to make.

The constant cutting to different scenes of Obama embracing and talking to workers and businessmen creates a bandwagon effect that I have seen in many political ads. What Obama does differently in this ad is that he includes a scene of him working alone when he mentions “paying down our debt”. This imagery makes it seem as if he was the only one who worked on the federal debt, while in reality he was accompanied by hundreds of legislators who fought over every item on the budget.

The next ad is also one that many have posted about because it is a great example of a local political ad that displays propaganda strategies.

Scott Brown’s “Let America be America” Ad: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqDIjGsBEP8

The previous posts that have mentioned this ad have mentioned transfer as a strategy employed by Scott Brown. I completely agree, and not only that but he made sure the first quotation he used was from a Democratic Catholic president, which appeals to a strong blue state like Massachusetts (not to mention that Kennedy is Massachusetts’ idol and hometown boy). I agree with evanlyndelavega that he also uses glittering generalities; just the title itself, “Let America be America”, is a glittering generalities. Realslimshady’s comment over the contrast between bright and dark colors rings true for this ad as well. The stars and stripes on a shady patch of grass actually cracked me up a little because it was so ridiculous.

The George Mason University course on propaganda stated: "Persuasion has traditionally been associated with winning an argument using emotional or logical reasoning. Responsible rhetoric endorses the use of persuasion when the rhetor provides accurate and truthful information that contributes to an informed decision by its intended audience. Propaganda, on the other hand, is a persuasive form of rhetoric that attempts to influence human behavior without consideration for the needs of its audience."

I disagree with this standpoint. Propaganda has in fact evolved into responsible rhetoric. Propaganda does use information that is simply bologna sometimes, but at the end of the day, modern propaganda aims to use accurate and “truthful” information that strategists pick out with much consideration for the needs of its audience. What does everyone else think about this?

Propaganda has definitely become very similar to political advertising. While Realslimshady said that political advertising targets more specific audiences at a time, propaganda has changed in the past decades so that they have become like political ads. The average viewer is more informed these days, and therefore propaganda strategists had to be less in-your-face and more subtle to truly get their message across. I have no doubt political advertising influences propaganda because it is much easier to see overall reactions in political ads than in non-political ads and thus propaganda strategists sit down and take notes during election season.
Reply With Quote
  #44  
Old 10-05-2012, 01:57
Plastic Pirate Plastic Pirate is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 32
Sorry for the Novel...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=4oIVinDXzOw

We’ve all heard about the controversy concerning Elizabeth Warren (and if we all haven’t, it basically went like this: Elizabeth Warren was listed as a Native American, i.e. a minority, when she worked at Harvard. She claims that it was because she wanted to connect with people who also came from a Native American background, but it is also being said that she did it so that she could receive tenure at Harvard. Also, she refuses to show documentation about her minority status, so she is being called out on that.)

This ad is short, but interesting; Warren is sitting in what is, presumably, her home, and through her window, we can see a forest-y view behind her. Though it could be a coincidence, as I have seen the same view in some of her other ads, I think we are supposed to make the connection, as she talks about her Native American heritage and how it shaped her family as her parents had to elope because of it. She goes on to say that her employers didn’t even know about her heritage, this is not the case, as she was listed as a minority while working at Harvard.

The way that Warren talks about her family sort of seems to say “I have a family, you have a family, Scott Brown is attacking my family, what if he starts attacking yours?” This follows the slippery slope logical fallacy as A (i.e. having a family) does not lead to Z (i.e. Scott Brown attacking your family.)

http://youtu.be/sLw8tpSy-IE

This is one of my favorite Scott Brown ads, it was probably the first one that I saw on TV and I still think it’s great. Brown walks into a small, presumably locally-owned diner (I mean, look at that bell on the door) and we immediately see that he is on a first-name-basis with the man working the cash register. Small town America, middle class workers, and drinking coffee at a diner? Smells like an appeal to plain folk.

This ad focuses on his appeal to democratic voters, he talks about his more liberal views and how he will work with anyone (that means Democrats) in order to solve problems. And he’s super-duper proud of it. (Hey everyone, I’m a Republican, but I’ve voted for democratic things, just for you. Do I get a cookie?)

Well Scott, at least you get another cup.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0N5QMx0thAM&feature=plcp

If you couldn’t tell from the content alone, you would be able to tell from the Spanish subtitles or the Latin-style guitar that comes in towards the end of the video that this ad is supposed to appeal to Hispanic voters. Romney starts off by naming several famous Latin-Americans from history, and then tells us how students of all races will be influenced by their success. My goodness, if you did not find someone in that ad that you were able to relate to even a little bit, you were not paying attention. Romney managed to cover just about everyone there.

This ad uses a pseudo card-stacking technique combined with a backwards testimonial; Romney talks about how he thinks that this person is great, and that person is great, and they are of Hispanic descent, just like you, therefore he thinks you are great, so you should vote for him. This ad is also supposed to lead you to believe that Romney is all for immigration, but that simply isn’t the case as Romney has been rather vague about his plan to address immigration.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YkvN7...feature=relmfu

Unfortunately, I have seen a few ads like this; ads that aren’t really about women, but because women’s issues are such an important part of this election, they think they can gather a few more women voters. (Apparently someone out there thinks women will pay more attention to ads that contain cute babies.)

This is an appeal to (female) plain folks, as Romney doesn’t have much of a female following due to his conservative views on abortion, his plans to cut Planned Parenthood, and to end insurance coverage for birth control. But actually, this ad is an attack on Obama’s economic policies disguised as an ad for women; the baby didn’t need to be a girl. The card stacking of Obama’s economic policies only seek to prove the point that Obama’s economic policies are bad, not that women are doing horribly. Of course the unemployment rate is higher for women, it usually is, but Romney certainly isn’t going to fix the economy for women’s sake.

http://youtu.be/pWnwDtc_gJw

This ad starts out with a simple black screen and the date “September 11” cutting through the middle, obviously forcing us to think about the tragic events of September 11 and then create a (nonexistent) connection with them and Obama. Then violent images of the attacks in Libya flash across the screen as Obama is criticized for campaigning in Las Vegas when this happened. Obviously, Obama was partying all night long rather than doing work in this key battleground state. (Sarcasm)

Obama is then criticized for his television appearances and some of his sillier lines are quoted. (This could be surprisingly effective as Obama is often criticized for just being a “fun” president.) But seeing as weekday morning talk shows are often seen as a waste of time and not given any value, Obama is also supposed to be associated with having no merit.
Reply With Quote
  #45  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:10
Calico Calico is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 46
What would you do?

Plastic Pirate, you seem to harbor some animosity toward American Crossroads' ways of presenting Obama in their propaganda video. If you were you run a propaganda against a presidential candidate you strongly disagree with, how would you do it differently (other people can answer this too)?
Reply With Quote
  #46  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:12
Plastic Pirate Plastic Pirate is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by PajamaSam View Post
[url]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1892856.html

This is Romney’s “Dear Daughter Ad.” In my opinion the Republican Party has taken a very restrictive view on women’s health, which has resulted in losing a percent of the support of the women voters. In order to gain back these votes Romney used a whole lot of card stacking to emphasize what had worsened for women during the Obama administration. Note: he never discusses Republican policies on women’s health. The baby in this ad is definitely used as a transfer. Baby’s are viewed as innocent and symbolize the future. By using a baby the Romney campaign gets a person thinking about what the future would look like for this girl when she grows up. Based on the statistics in the background Romney is a better choice for your baby girl.
Ugh, yes. I feel like someone was like "Hm. We need more women voters, what do women like? Babies! Let's put a baby in here!"

It just bothers me so much how there is SO much in this election about women's health, Romney has an ad about women, and doesn't even address the women's issues that are being brought up in this election.
Reply With Quote
  #47  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:24
Plastic Pirate Plastic Pirate is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, MA
Posts: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calico View Post
Plastic Pirate, you seem to harbor some animosity toward American Crossroads' ways of presenting Obama in their propaganda video. If you were you run a propaganda against a presidential candidate you strongly disagree with, how would you do it differently (other people can answer this too)?
I'd like to say that I wouldn't run a propaganda ad against a presidential candidate that I strongly disagree with, as I personally don't think they are effective. I don't really believe that people are actually swayed by political propaganda ads, but hey, I'm not in everyone's head.

However, to answer your question, I had(have?) a problem with the way the Crossroads tried to associate Obama with September 11, 2001 as Obama had nothing to do with that, but I can't honestly say that I would do the rest of it much differently. I would probably still twist and manipulate words and video clips to make the candidate in question look bad.
Reply With Quote
  #48  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:33
Calico Calico is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by Plastic Pirate View Post
I'd like to say that I wouldn't run a propaganda ad against a presidential candidate that I strongly disagree with, as I personally don't think they are effective. I don't really believe that people are actually swayed by political propaganda ads, but hey, I'm not in everyone's head.

However, to answer your question, I had(have?) a problem with the way the Crossroads tried to associate Obama with September 11, 2001 as Obama had nothing to do with that, but I can't honestly say that I would do the rest of it much differently. I would probably still twist and manipulate words and video clips to make the candidate in question look bad.
I agree, it's almost as if they are trying to paint Obama as non-American (oh wait but people actually believed he was not a US Citizen). I feel bad for putting you on the spot, so I'll answer my own question. Being a moderate (a moderate with really strong opinions), I would only make a propaganda video if the person in question is completely irrational in relation to my views. If I agreed on some points and disagreed on others, I would focus the video on only the points I completely disagreed on. That way I would not have to manipulate anything. That being said, I have another question for you given the resources and time, would you make a propaganda video against any current American politician right now?
Reply With Quote
  #49  
Old 10-05-2012, 02:40
cake37 cake37 is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston
Posts: 24
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kE_wj6NHdEQ
In this ad Elizabeth Warren appeals to plain folks. She uses this device of propaganda to try and convince the people of Massachusetts that she had a tough life growing up. She describes how everyone in her family had to work and she got married very young but made it through motherhood, college and law school. She is trying to connect with people who are like her when she was growing up. She then continues to try and connect her family to the reason why she is running for senate and explains how she wants “Massachusetts families to have a level playing field.” Overall I find that the ad doesn’t have much to do with her campaign and she is just trying to get the people of Massachusetts to like her and then she tries to quickly throw in a few of her ideas at the end.
http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/
In this ad Mitt Romney is competing against Barack Obama. In the beginning Barack Obama’s video wasn’t very good quality and had a hazy look as realslimshady stated.He was standing alone in a room with just a reporter who asks about redistribution. The video then quotes Obama saying “I actually believe in redistribution” twice. I thought it was funny how they could only actually quote him saying I believe in redistribution once and so they replayed it to make it seem that it happened more often. The quote was also from 1998 but the date was written very small in the corner of the screen so people wouldn't notice and they would think it was from recent years. Meanwhile when it gets to Mitt Romney's half of the video the screen is very clear and bright. Romney is also surrounded by hundreds of people when Obama was alone with just the reporter. He also makes statements as a whole instead of being quoted on just one phrase.

http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/
In this ad Barack Obama quotes Mitt Romney’s speech about 47%. You can hear Romney talking in the background and the key points of his speech are written on the screen such as people are “dependent on government” and feel that they are “victims” and “entitled to healthcare and food”. While these words are being shown on the screen there is a slideshow of pictures in the background. These pictures show families, veterans, and people hard at work. Barack Obama is trying to show that these people matter and they shouldn’t be pushed aside like Mitt Romney would like to do. This could be considered glittering generalities and also appeals to plain folks. Obama tries to highlight the people that would be affected by Romney’s change by putting a face behind the statistics that Romney has been using.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UPWn4...layer_embedded
This ad was produced by the Priorities of the USA. They got small business owners to speak about how Mitt Romney’s campaign would cut jobs and leave hardworking people out on the streets. The woman discusses how she originally was on board with Romney but after him being governor Massachusetts had fallen to 47th in the country on job growth. She states that he only cares about big businesses and tax cuts for wealthy people and that he doesn’t care enough about the small businesses that make towns run. She wants to protect her employees and she will vote for Obama because he cares about hard working people.

http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012/
In this ad Mitt Romney immediately brings children into play. If your child was 1 years old when Obama was elected they are now starting kindergarten. This ad asks if your young children have a bright future ahead of them and then continues to state everything Obama has done wrong. They discuss how the real unemployment rate is 19% and it just seems low because many people have dropped out or stopped looking for work completely. Obama has also added more debt to the US and caused America to have the “worst economic recovery since the great depression”. This is using glittering generalities because they are showing you young children growing up and then stating everything that has gone wrong and will continue to go wrong if Obama is reelected. It gets people to vote for Mitt Romney because he is showing how Obama doesn’t care about the future generation but Romney does.
Reply With Quote
  #50  
Old 10-05-2012, 04:14
PurpleCrow PurpleCrow is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 31
Propaganda, or Political Advertisement?

Most of these Advertisements come from http://pcl.stanford.edu/campaigns/2012 (unless noted)


Stand Up to China –Mitt Romney Sept 24

This advertisement by Romney is all about Name Calling against Obama Fewer. Right off the bat it is highlighted that more and more Americans are becoming unemployed due to China’s industrial works; it criticizes Obama’s inactivity and ignorance to help the situation. The gray pictures with Obama looking down or walking away in the camera shot dissuade followers for Obama. It is emphasized that Obama had many years to decide something for China and the jobs the Americans are losing. On the other hand, the ad doesn’t say anything about how Romney will fix the problem, leaving that obscurity left in limbo. There are references to intending to stop China’s electronics and fighter jets production, but for what exactly? The allusion to fighter jets channels the mind to weaponry and war. But there was no detail for the purpose of that statement. Was it to stop the production of other countries gaining strong forces? Or to stop the production in China, but allow the US to keep its superiority in that manner? It is unclear; the statements are not examined. Nevertheless, this advertisement has good examples of name calling .


Tires – Barack Obama Sept 17

This ad by The Obama Campaign is very compact in time, but it has a strong position in its criticism for Romney. Name calling is visible right from the start, with Romney called a “cheater”. Even if Romney is suggesting that the cheaters are China, whom are presented to be taking away American jobs, this ad characterizes Romney as the cheater; he does nothing as Obama helps by raising tariff prices on Chinese tires, protecting American workers. It highlights Romney’s ignorance about Obama’s accomplishments for the people. “Tough on China? Not Mitt Romney” it shows that he hasn’t done anything, and mirroring that he will not do anything in the future as president. With the use of Glittering Generalities, the “threat” of American jobs allows Obama to be the hero by standing up to China. He colors the ad with snapshots of him supporting middle class workers, and disfiguring Romney with his singularity and remoteness to the people.


-----------------
Actually, I watched Romney’s advertisement before watching Obama’s advertisement. I didn’t know that they were about the same reference to China. I don’t know if there are even more ads about the reference to China, but from the ones I have noted, Obama had his ad put out first, before Romney. I personally think Obama’s was much more well-put than Romney’s, but Romney made this one after Obama’s just as a retaliation. If someone were to watch both of them, one after another, I have no doubt that s/he would believe Obama’s did not have many obscurities in relation to Romney’s.
------------------------


We the People – Obama (SPAC) Sept 8

“We the People” advertisement by the SPAC is very appealing to the Plain Folks – all the visuals are about family or middle class jobs, except for that one still-frame of Romney at the podium. Well, that’s how active Romney is for family and the middle class – not active at all, essentially inexistent and also bringing down the efforts of the working class with tax change. On the other hand, people may disagree with the last sentence, “We can’t rebuild America by tearing down the middle class”. There are people out there who believe that starting afresh is better than having difficulty in adjusting to a new system or lifestyle. There are aspects of Appealing to Plain Folks, and also a little of Transfer. This advertisement is very middle class oriented, talking about working hard and raising families. Romney comes in with his tax increase on middle class and a tax cut for the wealthy. This is depicted as an outlier in the tone of the advertisement in contrast to the little boy with a spirit flag. It displaces Romney in the eyes of the viewer, and allowing Obama to fill in that void.


Kindergarten – Mitt Romney(SPAC) Sept 26

This advertisement for Romney by Restore our Future has been craftily laid out with multiple propaganda strategies. It starts with an appeal to Plain Folks, with a little girl starting kindergarten soon, and it ends with a picture of the little girl. Name calling is used as Obama led the country into debt and unemployment as the country continues to have a rough economic recovery. The viewers see that such things are not the best circumstances under Obama, reinforced with the question whether America is going forward or backward.


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=faI9dqY08Mc
Bill Clinton Stars in New Obama Ad

Testimonial of former president Bill Clinton supporting Barack Obama: He reiterates Obama’s plan to rebuild America from the ground up, supporting education innovation and job training. Clinton says that it is similar to his own plan when he was president, saying such as a reliable source for people to choose Obama. He Card Stacks and brings down Romney with the mention of the tax cut for high incomers, which he claims to bring down the country, and he claims the best for Obama’s ideas for support. There is an undefined line when Clinton says that Obama plans to build from the ground up. The means of carrying that out may be difficult; if there is already a problem present, then it must be more difficult to fix it as well as build all over again. Imagery of Obama and middle class folks displays Obama’s goal towards the people and his goals of investment.


------------
Political advertisements and propaganda are indeed different things, but they are interwoven throughout a general advertisement. Propaganda seeks to bring up the subject but put down the opponent. Political advertisement illustrates the persons in topic, but it also includes information about how s/he would go about the policy. They are really similar, in hopes to draw in spectators to either side of the box.
Reply With Quote
  #51  
Old 10-05-2012, 07:37
papercranetree papercranetree is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 27
Last but not Least...

I was watching the ad that stepssquad posted (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=og35U0d6WKY) and I noticed a few of the “Appealing to the plain folks” mentalities. First off, they used Samuel Jackson, someone easily recognizable from his catchphrase laiden with curses about being tired of snakes on planes. This ad was made by an organization that realizes that kids, with limited knowledge and experience of the English language, love expressing their frustration with curses. This ad is pandering more to the fresh out of high school young adults. It’s portraying America as a family, basically. The video shows every demographic and the perils that will befall them if they vote for Romney, for example there’s the student that’s concerned about student loans and the elderly couple concerned about medicare. The video makes Obama out to be someone that cares for the people, and Romney as a reverse Robin Hood. It’s also cardstacking several of Romney’s less popular reform ideas against Obama’s more popular reform ideas. Even the music portrays Romney to be dastardly, playing dark chords, compared to the hopeful major chords when they’re talking about Obama. I suppose that the little girl is also supposed to represent the reverbs in the next generation after Obama is president. It’s insinuating that the generations that can’t vote, yet, should still be worried about what the president might do that would affect their future.

I saw the Sarah Silverman video about Voter fry that Mike was talking about in class, so I clicked that video, as well. When the page loaded, in addition to the video, there was an ad in the corner that had a picture of the Obamas with the caption, “Wish Barack and Michelle a Happy 20th Anniversary , Sign the online card!”(https://my.barackobama.com/page/s/om...FQXhQgodazoA_Q) In the bottom left corner it said it was paid for by the Obama Victory Fund 2012. I believe that this is a little more of the Appealing to the Plain Folks tactics. It’s almost as if the Obamas are your next door neighbors. They invite you to cookouts and sometimes you babysit Sasha and Malia. In real life, if you were to receive thousands of anniversary cards from complete strangers, you’d probably call the cops. It’s also indirectly reminding you that the Obamas are pretty young compared to Grandpa Romney. My parents only just recently celebrated their 22nd anniversary, so for someone in my position, it’s comparing the Obamas to my parents. What better a comparison to subconsciously make than Barack Obama as a father figure to the nation?

Anyway, the video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ypRW5...eature=related) was another one of those “if I swear kids will think it’s funny and cool” videos. It featured the above card stacking and appealing to plain folks, however I noticed that both videos had to do with judaism. One video was funded by a Jewish Organization SuperPAC and the other featured Sarah Silverman who firstly came out and made a point to say she was Jewish. I researched where Jewish votes tended to swing and found out that Jewish voters tended to vote Democrat. I think that since Obama’s policies regarding the Palestinian conflict haven’t made very many people happy, he’s trying to win back voters by appealing to young Jewish voters. I see this as an example of the bandwagon effect. The intended purpose is to show the Jewish voters that other Jews are still voting for Obama, so he doesn’t lose their votes to Romney.

I then saw Hellohowareyou’s post about the “Decietful” ad and it reminded me of the ad that Scott Brown had endorsed called “Who Knows?”(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d0xWBRNrDfw) The background is red, white, and blue implying that it’s America that’s watching the TVs that the news clips are being played on. I think that Scott Brown is trying to imply that Massachusetts actually cares about whether Elizabeth Warren is Cherokee or not. I completely agree with Hellohowareyou’s post about her heritage and have been shouting it at the TV every time the ad plays. The ad is using the name calling tactic and trying to make Elizabeth Warren seem like a liar. it feels as though Scott Brown has run out of arguments against her policies and resorted to name calling like a spoiled child to get his way.

I also decided to look up an ad on Women’s rights because It’s something that I think is very important. On the Obama youtube channel, there’s a video called “Mitt Romney: Extreme on Women’s Issues” (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nypMS...feature=relmfu) which shows clips from various debates and speeches that Romney made in regards to women’s health and well-being. I feel like it’s the spiritual successor to Romney’s ad “Dear Daughter” which as PajamaSam said, is basically showing what would it be like growing up in the wake of electing Obama. Both have to do with deciding which Candidate is better for your baby girl. Romney says that he would fix the economy by then, but what’s the point of having a good economy if you’re a second class citizen in your own country argues Obama. Obama uses Cardstacking and appealing to plain folks, mainly women. He also transfers the idea that he really cares about women having the right to choose in issues relating to them.

The main idea that kept getting nailed into my head during all these videos was that you can’t stay nice in politics, you have to play a little dirty. The way that politicians can do this is through Propaganda. They might start off with campaign videos about what they’re going to do and what they believe, but when it gets down to the wire, they resort to the name-calling and card stacking. They don’t need to look like they have spotless policies, they just need to look cleaner than their opponent. Political advertising always devolves into clever propaganda.
Reply With Quote
  #52  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:39
NativeAmerican NativeAmerican is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 34
Can you hear me now?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yuJu...ture=endscreen

Verizon: Can you hear me now?

This commcerial is an advertisement for verizon. In it a man is woalking around on the phone asking "can you hear me now?" As he walks around people start to follow him. By the end of the commercial it seems as though there are thousands of people following. This advertisement uses the badnwagon affect. It suggest that many people have this phone company so you should too. Verizon is attempting to persuade the viewers to follow the crowd, to add on to it. The people are an example of wide spread support of the winning side, Verizon instead of other comapanies i.e. AT&T.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=laLvns_bCWI
Dunking Donuts commercial

This advertisement is all about how the patriots support Dunkin Donuts. The ad uses two types of propaganda techniques in one commercial. The first is the testimonial technique. "The New England Patriots support Dunkin Donuts" Many people in New England support and idealize the Pats. So, if the patriots like Dunkin Donuts, and I like the Pats then I must like Dunkin Donuts. The respected team endorses DD in order to get more people to buy from there.
The second type is the andwagon effect. At the end of the commercial they say, "America Runs on Dunkin"
This statement suggests that most of america goes to dunkin. You should join the crowd because it is obviously the better and leading side. If you don't join, you'll be left out.
Reply With Quote
  #53  
Old 10-05-2012, 10:46
NativeAmerican NativeAmerican is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 34
Pull it together

From my five examples, I believe it is fair to say that political advertisement and propoganda are in some ways the same. Depending on how the company or person portrays his/her/its side, it can easily become propoganda. For example, both commercials related to Obama are definitely propoganda. They use atleast one technique to make it so. However, I do not think that a political advertisement is always propoganda. It merely depends on how/what is said in the commercial. For example, If Obama had talk about Mit Rommney, even for a short moment, one coiuld easily argue that it is not propoganda. But, seeing how Obama only talked about his side and and then said "decide for yourself," it became propaganda. From the advertisements I've seen, and from what some of you have posted, I believe it is fair to say that propoganda and political advertisements are one of the same.
Reply With Quote
  #54  
Old 10-05-2012, 20:55
papercranetree papercranetree is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 27
Quote:
Originally Posted by Calico View Post
That being said, I have another question for you given the resources and time, would you make a propaganda video against any current American politician right now?
I know it wasn't directed towards me but Todd Akin, comes to mind. (He's The Congressman behind the "Legitimate Rape" comments.) I'm not a big fan of is idea not to resign after that. I don't really think that somebody that refuses to accept basic science is fit to govern. Missouri should care more about the people they elect to represent themselves. :/
Reply With Quote
  #55  
Old 10-06-2012, 19:50
Calico Calico is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Location: Boston, Massachusetts
Posts: 46
Quote:
Originally Posted by papercranetree View Post
I know it wasn't directed towards me but Todd Akin, comes to mind. (He's The Congressman behind the "Legitimate Rape" comments.) I'm not a big fan of is idea not to resign after that. I don't really think that somebody that refuses to accept basic science is fit to govern. Missouri should care more about the people they elect to represent themselves. :/
Hmmmm that's a good example, but I beg to differ . What he said was totally not politically correct at all (not to mention scientifically correct) and even if I were a hardcore Republican he probably would have lost my vote. But after reading this article I would not mind him continuing his campaign. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/0...n_1812052.html
Reply With Quote
  #56  
Old 10-23-2012, 00:17
FOURDEEPFAM FOURDEEPFAM is offline
student
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 25
Political advertisement is just another word for Propaganda guiseee

Alright, let's start with my 5 different campaign ad videos!!!!

http://m.washingtonpost.com/blogs/co...SfdO_blog.html
I don't even know who Rick Perry is but I know that he's close minded as hell. I remember this video from a long time ago and I share it with you guys now because I remembered just how ridiculous it was! The tactics involved were from Name Calling in which Perry openly denounces Obama and his campaign and actions. Then it has Testimonial as it the message was conducted and approved by Rick Perry, which makes the message more sickening. Then it involves Appeals to Plain Folks as he is on a ranch. He comes out in this workman coat of autumn leather and work boots and seems to be "just like us." Of course, he is appealing to the southern part of the US, because I don't see no ranches around here.

http://politicalhumor.about.com/od/b...rrell-bush.htm
I for one, am not the biggest Will Ferrell fan, but he does a damn good George Bush impersonation. This political ad is all about the Appeals to Plain Folks and if I could make another category, Irony. Widely known comedian Will Ferrell is making fun of George Bush's running campaign as he portrays George Bush at his home in Texas, a place were George Bush was accused of being for a good portion of his presidency. He shows his connection with simple, farming life and compares himself with a hardworking rancher, when it makes fun of how he knows nothing of the farming tools and animals. Will Ferrel portrays himself as a stupid, off-topic, and distracted George Bush, (not surprising for Will Ferrell since that's all he knows how to do as an "actor"). There are interesting moments in which it shows Will Ferrell as George Bush, completely biast and unprepared, as he begins to tell people to not vote because it's liberal. He also says to not watch any channel besides Fox. This video was appealing to me because I know little about politics, and to see this parody was the exact level of political knowledge that I'm at!

http://youtu.be/ArC7XarwnWI
The Simpsons is a great show, and I thought it was interesting that the commercial for this was in no way towards Mitt Romney at all. I know that Matt Groening would not be biast at all because he's freaking Matt Groening, but it's interesting that it was against Mitt Romney, even though The Simpsons is aired on Fox, a well-repudiated Republican channel. It begins with Appeals to Plain Folks as Homer begins to list his identity as an average white male that knows nothing but what he watches on Fox. Then Glittering Generalities and Card Stacking as Homer decides between what he has heard from rumors and facts. Then as he chooses Romney, he learns facts about his past, as the government paying him and such, in which Card Stacking is involved. These tactics are funny because it's already from a hilarious cartoon, and it's exciting because it's an ad that doesn't go with Fox.

http://laughter.a1healthy.com/best-c...-rightface-us/
Yet another person that I do not know. Apparently it's Roger Williams. His ad for Congress was so funny and satirical that it was even witty. He starts off in a ranch, I don't know what's with these campaign runners and ranches, but they love them. He goes on to use satire as he comments on how Obama isn't listening to the donkeys, which Williams used as a pun towards the Democratic Party. It's funny how in the end, Williams threatens to change in the Donkeys for Elephants. The tactics used in this video are, obviously Appeals to Plain Folks, and then a lot of Name Calling. He targets Obama especially, because he's our President after all; but he targets that he has done nothing and comments on the "change" promise of his campaign so many years ago. He remarks on how Obama doesn't listen. This ad was extremely funny, and outright bold for this member, as in campaign ads, you don't really see funny nowadays, at least something that they approve of.

http://youtu.be/Xfv1v-WNzAM
I saved my favorite for last guys. This is the 2004 Cartoon Network elections, I know it's not a real election, but it counts, and it also is a comment on the election of 2004 and the slander and mud-slinging it involved. This is the best one because it involves every single tactic mentioned in the key strategies of Proopoganda: Name Calling, Glittering Generalizations, Transfer, Testimonial, Appeals to Plain Folks, The Bandwagon Effect, and Card Stacking. In Name Calling, the announcer openly calls Numbuh 1 a puppy hater and has people saying that they're scared of him. In Glittering Generalizations, it involves the appeal to family as it shows families together, and generalizations made that the opposing candidate is threatening. In Transfer, it shows Ed and The Grim Reaper in front of a moving American Flag to get people enticed by their pride in America. In Testimonial, it gives testimonies and opinions by children and the announcer approves of the message that slanders Numbuh 1. In Appeals to Plain Folks you can see honest, young, care taking kids and mothers and how they fear Plank and Numbuh 1. In The Bandwagon Effect, the announcer clearly states how one shouldn't be following on what others do, and to look at how great our person is. Finally, in Card Stacking, the entire ad is constantly name calling and denouncing the other candidates as inferior for the job. This is a pretty effective Propaganda because honestly, Ed ad Grim got my vote. It was hilarious.

In the end, political advertising and propaganda are all in the same thing. There is not one political advertisement that doesn't use one tactic of propaganda. The advertisement wouldn't be effective in that way. One major, reoccurring theme is [I][Appeals to Plain Folks/I], I think this is because political advertisements draw most of their votes from the stupid population of America. In this way, they can fill their minds with stretched truths and mud-slinging. It's crucial to understand this though, political advertisement is based off of propaganda, yet propaganda does not need political advertisement.

In accordance to some of the other people's videos, I think that they are all a lot of mud-slinging. One of BalthazarsBaby included a huge focus on Mitt Romney supporting the upper class and leaving the middle class to fail. This video was directed towards only one aspect of Romney, yet that was the only point highlighted in the commercial. Personally, it needs more mud-slinging, hahahaha. There was also, yet again, another Appeals to Plain Folks in nohappensance's video with Elizabeth Warren. She didn't even say what she wanted exactly. She just told us a brief one minute bibliography of her life. That did nothing but reassure us that she was on her side, but it didn't reassure me, and I don't even know politics. Anyone that's going to do a one minute bibliography instead of what they want to do for me, is not fit to do anything for me. In "StarSky's video with Bill Clinton advertising and supporting Obama, I agree with you that it said absolutely nothing. It was the tactic of Testimonial and just because a former president likes this one means that we're doing a good job picking our leaders? Some of these ads are just a waste of money! The last video I'll be reviewing is a video from papercranetree because honestly, I laughed so hard at this video. I love Samuel L. Jackson, and when people's swears are bleeped out. He is a recognizable figure and his message was clear because it involved every age and gender. It also used harsh language which made us even more attentive. Thank you papercrantree because that video actually made my day.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -3. The time now is 21:17.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Copyright 2000-2011 learntoquestion.com All Rights Reserved.