Attack Ads in Today’s Political Race
1. 1. Please click on the link below and the address will take you to an article that discusses the current presidential campaign and the frequent use of attack ads by the candidates. Read the article and answer the following questions:http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/17/us/politics/obama-romney-and-a-campaign-of-attack-ads-political-memo.html
· What do you think of attack ads in general?
· Are they harmful or necessary to candidates’ campaigns? Why do you think so?
· Do they have a place in today’s political race? Why or why not?
2. 2. After reading the article, please watch the attack ads posted on the blog.
Then answer the following questions:
· How did each one make you feel about the candidate it was attacking? How did they make you feel about the candidate who approved the ad?
· Did you accept what is being said as true or do you question it? Why?
· Did you believe the candidate who shares your political beliefs more than the one who doesn’t? Why or why not?
3. 3. When you have finished writing your own responses, please read all of your classmates’ posts and respond to at least one person’s answers/opinions.
Attack Ads in Today’s Political Race
ReplyDeleteThe Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President (Article)
1. I pretty much like attack ads in general. I do because it helps each candidate tell people something about themselves to help themselves win the competition. If there were no attack ads, there would be no competition or information being sent out to the public. Without competition, the election would be boring. And without information being sent out to the public of who a candidate really is, nobody would know who to vote for. However, there is a limit to them and far they can go. They should be appropriate and not go too far because that can really cause problems.
2. Attack ads can be harmful to candidates’ campaigns because they can portray them as a bad figure, but they cannot really affect them that much they are appropriate. They are necessary because without ads, there would be nobody winning; it would be a tie. They are necessary in order for the public to be informed and for different candidates to show others that they have stronger views than their opponent.
3. Political ads have a place in today’s political race because there would be basically be no election if they did not exist. Most of the money being used in the election this year is spent on attack ads so without them the election is useless. They are the sources of info delivered to the public.
“Get Real” and Anti Obama Attacks Ads (Videos)
1. The attack ads made me feel as if the candidates that were being attacked were sort of bad and not the best for the country. It made me feel as if the candidate that was the attacker was good in a way because they said they would do the opposite thing than the attacked candidate.
2. I questioned what was being said and did not accept it as true because I knew that what some of the candidate attackers do is take parts of what their opponents say and turn it as if that is the only thing they said to make them seem bad. I know that that is what they do to win over the people’s votes, so I find the statements they say hard to believe most of the time.
3. I did believe the candidate that shares my political beliefs more than the one who does not because I am big believer in Obama and not so much in Romney so the fact that I do not like him anyway (Romney) makes me not believe what he says but makes me actually believe a little what Obama is saying.
I completely agree--> (3. I did believe the candidate that...)I dont seem to believe a word Romney says; or Elizabeth Warren (in the Senate Election).
DeleteI disagree partly with number two. I don't necessarily think that without attack ads, all elections would be a tie; we still have debates that can help sway undecided voters to one candidates side. While attack ads can and do have an effect on voters, I think that the debates and speeches have an even bigger effect on the people in deciding who they will vote for.
DeleteThat's true, Justin. However, when you go to a debate, your opponent can easily say "not true," and how do you combat that without going back and forth? I think attack ads are a chance to avoid that, and only people voting for that candidate would go to their speeches anyways (most of the time) so I'd say it depends on the content.
DeleteBut you should never, EVER choose a candidate based on commercials and random stories alone; go online and fact check everything. Anybody can stretch the truth or throw it out the window altogether, but a president wins with the truth (or is really, really convincing).
I agree with most of your points, however I strongly disagree with question number three in the attack ads in today's political race because there would still be times when the candidates had time to attack each other with words during the debates, and during their town to town campaigning. But this would mostly be viewed by people much more into politics. I also do not really understand what you mean by saying that there would basically be no election without the ad attacks
DeleteI agree with what you have said, because although I am not a fan of attack ads, as long as they are appropriate and are not too harmful towards the other candidate they can be a good source of competition. I disagree with question number two of the attack ad article though, but understand your reasoning. I believe competition can exist without the use of attack ads, however any form of slander or hatred is essentially an attack on the opponent in a political competition. There are ways of winning without hatred involved, however this would be extremely difficult, as attack ads explain why not to vote for the competition, and without them many Americans would be left without a compelling reason to dislike one candidate. overall your response was well written and clearly thought out.
DeleteI do not completely agree with your comment that attack ads are sources of information. They are usually produced by the other side so I think that they are sometimes out of context. I think there are more reliable ways to get information such as debates and speeches because these are coming from the candidates themselves and not their opponents.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteNew York Times Article
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of attack ads in general?
I don’t like attack adds because to me they’re more like “Don’t vote for him/her” than they’re like “Vote for me”. That’s ok, but recently most candidates have had more reasons why you shouldn’t vote for their competition, than for why they are the best choice; so it’s more like “Only vote for me because they are worse” (as opposed to “Vote for me because I’m the best for the job”).
Are they harmful or necessary to candidates’ campaigns? Why do you think so?
I think attack ads are mostly harmful to a campaign. Even though many adds are by organizations outside of the official campaign, I still usually sympathize with the victim of the add. When I see an ad for the senate race, or the presidential race, I usually mute it; no matter whom it’s for. I really don’t like the ads because most of them are out of context, stretching the truth, or just outright lies.
Do they have a place in today’s political race? Why or why not?
If I had it my way, there would be no attack ads; but I don’t, and there they are. As long as Super PACs are aloud, I think there will be attack ads. I think this because there are people out there that do believe everything they see on Fox News and NBC, just because it’s on “their channel”.
Attack Ads
How did each one make you feel about the candidate it was attacking? How did they make you feel about the candidate who approved the ad?
In each ad I felt a little bad for the candidate being attacked because they were obviously being taken out of context. As for the candidates approving the ads, no candidate approved the “Anti-Obama” add. At 1:12 it says “The National Republican Senatorial paid for and is responsible for the content of this advertizing. Not authorized by any candidate or candidates committee. www.NSRG.org”. As for the “Get Real” add, I didn’t mind the least that Obama approved it, it was a kind of funny add
Did you accept what is being said as true or do you question it? Why?
I just don’t believe it at all; not to say that it is all untrue, but it is all out of context so it may not mean what it seems to.
Did you believe the candidate who shares your political beliefs more than the one who doesn’t? Why or why not?
I do believe the candidate I like better. I liken this to something like this: I would believe something unlikely more if it came from a close friend, than if it came from someone I don’t know. Now I'm obviously not saying I'm close friends with Barrack, but I like him more so I believe him more.
I agree with number 1 about the attack ads. I think that you are correct about not liking them because it makes the opposing candidate look bad when ads are publicly shown about them. Also I agree because you don't know what ad to believe.
DeleteI too noticed that the Romney ad wasn't sponsored or approved by Romney or the RNC.
DeleteI disagree with the Obama ad being "funny." Now, alone, it is made to be humorous, but when paired with Joe Biden laughing his way through the VP debate, and Obama smirking during the first presidential debate, the mood of the campaign efforts have become downright immature. It's just not presidential. Again, by itself, yes, it was made to be humorous, and I'm not attacking you for saying so, I'm just saying that the bigger picture says something else.
Yes, I agree on the context part, I don't like ads with 3 second sound bytes, but my question to you is, if the only thing you ever knew about these candidates was in these videos, which would you choose based on that?
Attack Ads in Today’s Political Race
ReplyDeleteWebsite:
1) I personally believe that attack ads are pretty good because they allow the candidates to exploit bad qualities of the other candidate. This is good in some instances but in others it can be irrelevant or misguiding. But overall I like them and they are useful tool in a candidate's campaign.
2) I think that they can be both actually. I think if someone puts out an attack add and the information is false than it is a harmful thing for both parties. If they do it properly and it is accurate than it can become a necessary tool in some cases for their campaign. These are good when done well.
3) They absolutely have a place in today's campaigns because they have been doing them since the very first elections and every election since. It has a place in modern elections because they are what is normal for politics in America. Every politician has the right to express their opinion and even if it’s through subjective reasoning and proof then it is still okay, and as long as they have those rights it will always be that way.
Videos:
1) These attack ads have made me feel as is if the candidate being attacked was being belittled and hurt socially among the American people. I still believe it is a necessary tool for each party but it is shocking how badly they portray the opposing candidate. Also it made me feel like the candidate who approved it was being a little cruel, but also very smart.
2) Some of the things being said I accept as being true and some I don’t and it depends on what my opinion is on the matter really. The things I would accept are the basic facts on the ads because they are most likely true. The things I don’t accept are some of the generally accusations that either party states about the other because it is not always the solid truth.
3) Yes I believe the candidate that shares my beliefs more because he shares my own opinion. My opinion will make my judgment of “truth or false” bias depending on if it is better for my candidate. I will believe one more than the other because I want my guy to win, so my judgment may be altered.
I agree that attack ads can be good since it helps the voter know what they are voting for. Without these ads voters could elect someone and then learn something bad after he is in office and it would be too late. I also strongly agree that these ads can be misreading and manipulate people into believe untrue statements. Attack ads have their ups and downs but overall i believe they are for the good of the people.
DeleteI agree with number 1. Attack ads are pretty good because if the opposing candidate is bad, the public deserves to hear that so that they are informed. Sometimes they can get out of hand but they are still necessary and useful in order for an election happen.
DeleteI am going to have to disagree with number one, yes they can be a good tool to use in order to make the other candidate look bad but most of the time,these ads seem to be false and turn out to be that way.Its more of a risk than a way to get more votes because they will see the accusing candidate as a bad person and possibly vote for the other candidate.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAttack Ads Corey Roach
ReplyDelete1) What do you think of attack ads in general?
I think that attack ads in general are a way of the candidates to point out what flaws their opponents have. I believe that they can be very helpful to the candidates and also let the voters know more about who they are voting for.
Are they harmful or necessary to candidates’ campaigns? Why do you think so?
I believe they are harmful but also necessary to campaigns. I believe that they are harmful since they can ruin a candidate’s reputation, since most of the things they say are stretches the truth, or just lies. They are also necessary to the campaign since it gives the candidates the opportunity to show the other persons flaws and mistakes which lets people figure out who they want to vote for.
Do they have a place in today’s political race? Why or why not?
I believe the attack ads are very present in today’s elections and they will always be present. These ads take up a lot of the money used by the candidates since they are a key role in winning the election. You can’t watch TV and not see an ad for an election; it feels like every other commercial says, “I approve this message”. I don’t believe that there will ever be an election without attack ads; they are one of the biggest impacts in elections.
2) How did each one make you feel about the candidate it was attacking? How did they make you feel about the candidate who approved the ad?
The attack ads made me think the attacked candidate was bad and no good for the country. It made me feel like if the bad candidate was elected we would go to chaos and everything would be bad. It made me feel as if the candidate that was the attacker was good since they would stop the bad candidate from being elected and that they would help America.
Did you accept what is being said as true or do you question it? Why?
I believed part of was being said but not all of it. I think that the creator of the ads are good at manipulating voter into choosing who they want. They make everything seem true but I knew not all of it was.
Did you believe the candidate who shares your political beliefs more than the one who doesn't? Why or why not?
I do believe the candidate that I share the same political beliefs with since it almost feels like we are working together. It feels as if what he said is truer since I believe him more than the opponent since we have the same opinion
I agree with you on how you thought the creators of the ads are good at manipulating the voters. Even though we knew some stuff werent true, they were still able to somewhat make us question our decisions and think twice about who we want to vote for.
DeleteTo Corey
ReplyDeleteI agree that Attack Ads can be a harmful but necessary during a campaign. This is true because the things being said could be stretched or misleading. But also they help the attacker gain trust and popularity a mun the public. These attacks may or may not be bad traits of a leader but they do get heard by the country.
Attack Ads
ReplyDelete1) I think that the attack ads in general are a bad thing for both of the candidates. These ads are bad because some of the ads are true and some could be false. This makes you not know what ad to believe. Also the ads aren't usually projecting good things about the other candidate. I don't think that the ads are necessary and they are also harmful to the other candidates campaigns. They aren't necessary because the candidates should be able to speak their minds without being attacked by the other candidate in a negative way. They do have a place in today's political race because the ads make most of the voters choose a side.
Videos
2)Each video made me think that the candidate that was being attacked will do bad for our country because of all the bad that was being said towards the candidates. The candidate that approved this made me feel like they were a good person because they made it seem like they would be doing the opposite of the other candidate. Yes I do believe the candidate that shares the same political beliefs as me because I agree with what Obama says compared to Romney. This is because he has been our president and I know what he is like. Also this makes me believe Obama more then what Romney say's.
1.
ReplyDeletea.) Attack ads, when well-executed, make for a very powerful advertisement for your candidate. Unfortunately, they are often poorly executed, and make me distrust the ad's sponsor. A common example for me is when Candidate A says Candidate B voted for X bill, when they both did, but it makes B look bad. It's far too common, but other than that, they get a clear message across; you don't just need to know good reasons for one candidate, you need to know why the country will be destroyed if the other takes office.
b.) If people don't do their follow-up research after an attack ad (and unfortunately, most never will, because you have no reason /not/ to believe the ad), than they can work wonders for a campaign. Two types of ads I've seen for the two presidential candidates are either trying to target specific groups of Americans, or trying to unite them under a common goal. I think it comes down to "whatever makes you feel good" when people see these ads but don't do any research (this goes for both candidates).
c.) Of course they have a place. Again, you can't just explain that you will save the country, you need to explain why the other person couldn't possible do the same. Most of what I'd write in this comment would be reiterating what I said in previous comments, so the simple answer is "yes."
2.
a.) I'll start with Obama's ads, because they were first.
They didn't make me feel anything for Romney. I watched these unbiased, but the sarcastic remark at the end as well as the "...his plan could...," emphasis on "could," made it feel very weak in comparison to other ads by both candidates.
They made me feel a bit disappointed in the president. They took a small quote from Romney, threw in a couple of possible outcomes, and made fun of him. It makes the president look desperate, especially with so few facts. There were more attempts to be funny that hard, cold facts.
Romney was largely missing in his own ad, but the numbers, data, and facts are all representative of Romney. Romney likes to throw in a lot of numbers, as seen in the past presidential debates, while Obama tends to defend himself; in other words, he puts Obama on defense.
This is a good example of an attack ad. It had all facts, quotes, and data, and left nothing to personal interpretation. It did exactly what I said an attack ad should do; it made you feel as if voting for Obama would mean the end of America (not as dramatic, but my point still stands).
b.) I had to question the president's ad. It used subtle terms like "could" or "might" that made his advertisement less powerful.
Romney's may or may not have been true, but it was powerful nonetheless. He had facts, numbers, and data that didn't single out a group of people (college students in Obama's video) it targeted America as a whole.
3. I believed my candidate; I support them because I believe them. I trust data, not assumptions, half-stories, and/or biased visions of the future.
Article
ReplyDelete1. I think the attack ads can be misleading an sometimes provide false insight on a candidate's plan. They are obviously aimed at ruining a candidate's reputation, and that isn't something I like to see in an election. The only time I think candidates should have attack one another would be during the debates. That way, the candidate who is being attacked has a chance to publicly respond to the comment, and defind themself.
2. I think it works both ways, depending on who is delivering or receiving the attack. If a candidate is attacking, this could sway the voter's minds. The candidate attacking also risks losing some respect and prestige from doing this. Instead of telling the people of what they're going to do to help the country, they're telling the people what the other candidate hasn't done to help the country, or has done a poor job of. Again, this could either get voters on their side, or ruin their reputation. As for the candidate receiving the attack, this again, could go both ways. The candidate could potentionally lose fans, but also could gain some out of guilt.
3. I think attack ads will stay in the political races as long as politics exist. With that being said, I think they're more superfluous; added security to make sure they get the vote. We still have debates and speeches to settle the candidate's differences and how they are going to help the country, so I do not think they are as necessary as people say they are. They can still air, but to me, the real blows are delievered in the debates. Overall, I do not think they are needed in today's race.
Video
1. While I try to watch these unbiased, both ads made me slightly feel down on the candidate receiving the attack. After watching these, I have begun to think that they may actually be necessary to the political race. When watching Obama's ad, I felt like Romney wouldn't be the person to lead our country. He pointed out the facts, and left sources for extra accuracy. The second ad I did not see was authorized by any candidate, but it still worked. Again, the people who made the ad stated the facts and sources, and successfully conveyed their message. I felt the complete opposite than I had before; now I thought that Romney might be the better candidate for our country.
2. I question the reliability of sources. While the the companies providing the information may be big and reputable, that doesn't necessarily mean that the material is completely true. I also question whether the facts are exaggerated or not. The facts themeselves may be true, but the attacking candidate may stretch it out to make it seem worse than it actually is.
3. I believe in the candidate I favor; I tend to trust their information and sources better than I would another candidate because simply, I favor them more than the competition.
Nick Chaves:
DeleteI totally agree with you Justin. Candidates should only get criticize each other during debates, because that way the other Candidate is there to justify the information the other Candidate gave. This way there is less chance of a Candidate giving false information to us voters. I also agree with you on the attack videos. I too am wondering if the facts shown in the video are true or not. I believe that the attack ads are not trust worthy at all, and they kind of are scams. Like you said, "but the attacking candidate may stretch it out to make it seem worse than it actually is." Overall I think you did I really job on your blogpost and I agree with your opinions.
Justin you make a great point, it is not fair for both parties to constantly accuse each other and then not defend themselves. It should only be expressed in the debates and that is it.
DeleteArticle
ReplyDeleteI do not like Attack Ads, because they endorse hatred, and have a restricted perspective on the opponent's ideology. These ads can no doubt be effective, but are also very limited in how they educate the viewer.Attack Ads often contain information which is exaggerated or inaccurate. As described in the article, both political candidates broadcast attack ads which contained lies about their opponent, and by doing so these ads caused misinformed voters to change their opinion.
I believe they are both harmful but necessary to a candidate’s campaign, because they change the viewer’s opinion of the candidates. The ideas expressed in these ads can prove to be harmful to the candidate’s political opponent, as they tarnish their reputation, and misrepresent their views and opinions. They are necessary, because they educate viewers about their opponents “missteps,” and help the voters get a better perspective of the candidates. It is also an essential part to winning the election, as without these, people do not see the “harm” in voting for a candidate’s opponent.
Yes I do believe that attack ads have a place into today’s race, because they help a candidate build their image, while destroying that of their opponent. They are a necessary component of winning the election, as they educate the people on how the candidates perceive different issues. Citizens want a loyal, trustworthy leader, however when their character is stripped of these characteristics, and have them replaced with negative traits, the candidate becomes less appealing in the eyes of the viewer.
Video
Both ads made me feel less motivated to support the candidate it was attacking, as they both pointed out negative aspects about their competitors campaign. I believe the Obama ad was more impactful on helping me form my opinions of the candidates, as the ad shows how Obama will help college students, and how Romney will raise college tuition. The Romney ad did not explain his philosophy and offered no further information on the Republican presidential candidate. This could be due, in part to the fact that it was not officially sponsored by Mitt Romney and instead by the NRSC. Therefore the Obama ad was more meaningful as it gave a reason as to why to vote for Obama and offered insight on both presidential candidates.
I accepted the Obama ad as being more true, because Obama explained in greater detail his plan, and purpose in creating the attack ad. The Anti-Romney ad seemed to offer more content, and explain not only what the other candidate (Mitt Romney) was doing “wrong,” but how Obama intends to do it differently. Specifically, Obama talks about helping college students by doubling the amount of college grants, while Romney’s plan will raise college tuition. Romney’s anti-Obama ad explains how under Obama’s presidency the economy has suffered, however it did not explain how Romney’s approach will change this negative aspect of America.
Lastly, I believe the candidate which shares a greater number of my political views is Barack Obama, as I am able to easily relate to college tuition and see the benefits in Obama’s plan. The attack ad explains how Obama wishes to lower the cost of college, while Romney’s plan will raise tuition costs. I currently have a brother in college, and intend to attend one when I am older. Having lower prices would be a better option for me, as I could afford this education more easily.Romney does not share many of my political views, as his attack ad against Obama is used only to tarnish the image of his opponent and his political views are not mentioned.
1. (a) In General, I think that the ad attacks are a necessary part in election campaigns, but are not always the most accurate place to receive information about candidates. They can sometimes be misleading and can place blame on candidates for things that could have not been their fault, or taken out of context. I also find it very interesting to see how the candidates opponents will take a strike at them in regard to the issues.
ReplyDelete(b )I Believe that the Attacks are both necessary and harmful within the campaigns. They are necessary because if a candidate is behind in the poles and want to get ahead; they use them to redirect the public’s opinion. However, they can be taken as harmful to the person who is striking out, showing that candidate in a negative light.
(c)Yes, I do think that they have a place in today’s elections because no matter how many thing you do right, people usually remember what you did wrong. Bad news gets more press, and once the negative ads start it is expected to have retaliation.
2. (a) I feel the The Anti-Obama ad is focusing on his use of the term “lazy” and the Republican party is comparing his term in office with that of the struggles the US had when Carter was in office. I think they are hoping people will see the relation of Regan. a republican, coming into office and lifting the economy. fixing the gas prices, and addressing our military; which is what Romney could do if elected. The Anti-Romney ad makes it look like he doesn’t care about the lower class; not everyone can “ask their parents” for money. Most people need financial aid or some form of government help to get an education.
(b) I believe the words that they said were true, but I do not believe that the meaning was portrayed properly. I believe that Romney was telling students that they need to take responsibility. As for the anti-Obama ad, I think the republicans want people to view him as condescending and dismissive.
(c) I do not yet have any strong political viewpoints; however, I tend to believe the ad backed by the Republican party because it was not from the candidate rather than the one with Obama saying he himself approved the message.
(I replied to this comment but it didn't show up as a reply.. See below)
Delete1)
ReplyDelete• I think that the attack ads in general are ways for Mitt Romney to get back at Obama vice versa.
One wants another to look bad and make them look even better. It’s a type of way for them to say something that they wouldn't say to the others face, like releasing anger to make you feel better. They didn't want you to vote for the other person.
• I think they are harmful to campaigns because it can make them loose votes which are very essential. It can also make them look bad because it would make others voters so him as weak and why would they want a weak person as our president. It’s better for someone to highlight their own strength.
• Yes, they do because it’s an essential point at the elections at this time. Mitt Romney and Obama are trying to get as many voters on their side. They are willing to do anything to gain voters. Attack ads are one of them.
2)
• It made me feel like the candidate they were attacking was stupid because not many parents have a lot of money for their kids to burrow for college. Also because he doesn't suggest for kids to even get a job to help with the money save up for college. It makes me wonder how he got this far? This made me feel like the candidate who approved this ad is smarter and better than the one he is attacking. It makes me feel he is the one I should vote for and not the other person.
• I do kind of question it because they could have taken some small thing he said that had more to it but cut it off. The might just doing it because, again, they want those voters on their side, not their opponent.
• I would have voted for Obama because he beliefs in education and getting a job. When I watched those ads, I believed Obama because I didn't like How Mitt Romney didn't tell student to make their own money. He just straight out and told them to borrow money, almost saying to lack responsibly and just burrow.
Hafsa your blogpost was very well done! I also do question the attacks ad videos and if they are 100% true. Like in the attack ad against Obama, Obama kept saying we have been "lazy." I wonder exactly what he was saying about lazy. I wish the attack showed more of the speech that Obama was giving so that way I could understand more of who exactly he was calling lazy. However I disagree with your choice in Obama. I am not saying your wrong or anything but in that attack ad on Mitt Romney, Romney was just suggesting to borrow money from your parents. It wasn't part of his actual policy on college loans. Plus you should kind of take advice from Mitt Romney because he sure knows how to deal and make money. However I do agree with that Obama did address his idea of how to get college loans better than Romney! Again Hafsa your blog post was well done and I enjoyed reading it!
DeleteOh and by the way hokeymonkey123 is Nick Chaves. I originally created my blogger name as hokeymonkey123 for web 2.0 and Mr.V told me to use fake info, but now I regret using fake info.
DeleteI agree with Bhumi because attack ads do tell something about the person. There wouldn't even be completion if there wasn't anything to get back for and that’s something important because that’s what wins over citizen’s votes. Again, attack ads do cause problems because a person can lose votes that can result in losing the election.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAttack Ad Videos
ReplyDeleteNick Chaves
1B. Even though I don’t support attack ads, I have to say that these attack ads were just good campaigning. The attack ad I first saw was about Mitt Romney and college loans. It made me feel that Mitt Romney is selfish and is for the upper class. Mitt Romney isn’t for the middle class at all. The person who approved of this ad was Obama. I have to say that I liked how the attack ad said what Mitt Romney is doing wrong and what Obama is doing is the right thing. This made me feel that Obama is doing the right thing for us. Basically meaning Obama is here for us and is helping the middle class. The other attack wasn’t approved by any candidate at all. It was approved by the Republican committee. This attack ad made me feel really bad about myself and my country. To hear that the president of the United States say that we have been lazy is really strong for me to hear. Like us Americans have been busting our butts to make sure we don’t go bankrupt in this tough economy. I find that the president kind of offended me by saying that. However when the president was saying lazy, I had no idea what he was saying lazy about. It could have been congress is lazy and the commercial edit it out because after all the commercial was kind of like a remix of the president in interviews. This kind of made me feel that the Republicans were hiding something from that I feel was important. Overall this attack was good but kind of suspicious in my opinion.
2B. I don’t really think that these attack ads are 100% true. Like I mentioned about the attack ad that the Republican committee created about Obama. I don’t feel that that is true because they just had Obama saying we have been lazy. I want to see more of what Obama is saying because I feel that he might have been talking about the government or congress. Not all of America. If the Republicans were able to prove to me that Obama was talking about us Americans in general (as in American citizens) than I totally would have believed what they were saying. However they didn’t and I feel that the Republicans are leaving key information out of commercial. Same with the other attack ad on Mitt Romney that Obama created. It was just a small part of the speech that Mitt Romney was giving that he said “borrow money from your parents if you have to.” Obama criticized him for that however I don’t feel that is right. I want to see what Mitt Romney said after that. Like in SPA for example, Romney in the video they showed him giving the SP_ and no A. I believe that A is key and again I feel that Obama is hiding key information from me. This also applies to when Obama is talking about himself. They are just quotes that some newspaper or TV station that they said about them. I want to hear exactly or see the whole story about what the TV or article said about Obama. In conclusion these ads made me feel that they were lying to me and hiding key information from me.
Note: I have to publish C separate due to the fact that I am limited to minimum amount of words per a post
Attack videos ads continued......
ReplyDeleteNick Chaves
2C. I do believe that one candidate shares the same political beliefs as me and that person is Mitt Romney. I believe that he will be more aggressive and make the United States strong again. For example Obama’s attack on Mitt Romney, Romney says “borrow money from your parents.” At the end of the commercial the commercial says “get real Mitt.” Yes I do understand that a lot of families are struggling out there, and I his suggestion was poor. However “borrow money from your parents.” was only a suggestion, not what he plans to in office. I am just saying this but Romney is loaded with cash and no hows to make money. I would strongly take his advice. However due to fact that the economy is so weak we need someone who knows how to fix it. That person is Romney because Obama has had 4 years to fix this economy and it hasn’t gone so well. Romney has a ton of experience on how to make money and I think he could apply these skills to our economy. I also support Romney because I think the attack that the Republicans committee created was true. When Obama is saying lazy, I think he means lazy as in congress. I am not sure if it is true but if it is, Obama is complete false. Congress hasn’t done anything because the Republicans want a Republican president, not a Democratic one. Therefore the Republicans keep rejecting bills that the Democrats keep trying to pass. So if we elect a Republican president, I hope that Republicans will start to pass bills, because they pretty much have the most seats in congress. This is half the reason why I support Mitt Romney.
Nick Chaves
ReplyDeleteAttack Ads Article
1A. I feel that the attack ads in todays political races are a really bad thing. They are creating lies about others that could effect voters opinions . For example in this years 2012 presidential campaign the Obama administration created an attack ad on his opponent Mitt Romney. The attack ad stated Mitt Romney supported a bill “that outlaws all abortion, even in cases of rape and incest.” Well this attack ad was false because yes Mitt Romney didn’t support abortion, however he did support abortion in cases of rape. Now I am not saying that Obama is a lier or anything, but this little white lie could change my opinion of Romney a ton. What if I was a women who was concerned about abortion? Well I sure wouldn’t vote for Romney after that attack ad. Yes I do understand that you shouldn’t believe everything you here on TV, but lets be honest here. How many people actually go to and look up on the internet if a attack ad is true or not. Well I am pretty sure not to many people do. In conclusion I believe that attacks ads are creating lies about others that are effecting voters opinions.
2A. I believe that attack ads are extremely harmful in campaigns because it makes campaigns less truthful, more hurtful, and it makes campaigns more venerable to change their political views. Like in the example I used in question 1A, Obama’s attack ad on Mitt Romney wasn’t all that true. The result of this false attack ad could have changed the voters views on Mitt Romney and this could made voters not vote for Mitt Romney. This is just because of the fact that this false attack ad made voters think that Mitt Romney doesn’t support abortion. However this isn’t what exactly makes attack ads harmful. What really makes the attack ads is the Super PACs. These attack ads don’t air for free you know and the candidates who are running for office can’t pay for these ads with there own money. The need money from other people and these people are Super PACs. Boy do these Super PAC hurt campaigns and this is because of bribery they offer . If a Super PAC was a oil company for instance and they paid millions of dollars for a candidate’s attack ad to be created. Now that the Super PAC gave all this money to the candidate the candidate will then try to find some way to repay them. The way that these candidates repay them is by having their campaign have ideas that would support the Super PAC and in this case it would have been the oil company. So now if this candidate had this idea that would hurt this Super PAC he probably wouldn’t make this idea in his campaign. This is because the candidate feels that it would be rude and shameful to hurt a Super PAC that has helped them (them as in the candidate) so much. This is a big problem because the Super PAC could have changed a political view of that candidate and this is unfair to the candidate themselves and to us voters. In conclusions I believe attacks ads are really harmful.
Attack Ads in Today's political race
ReplyDelete1.
-In general I think attack ads are overdone and a waste of money. Although they can force people to look at the ideas of candidates from the perspective which they would not have, ads that PROMOTE a candidate's own campaign are more useful in my opinion. Attack ads are also so aggressive , to the point that they're annoying; by this point I'm sure that I am not the only one who mutes them whenever they come on TV.
- I think they could be either harmful or helpful to a candidates campaign depending on the Ad. Generally ads that I see lately seem to be harmful to the candidates' campaigns- They just make the "attacker" come across as angry. In other words to me they backfire. However some attack ads could be helpful to a candidates campaign if they are well done. They can turn around the ideas of the "attackee" and make them sound negative or even compare them to the ideas of the attacker to make the attacker's ideas sound better. Generally I think bad attack ads that seem to be attacking a candidate simply for the sake of doing so backfire on the attacker's campaign, but well-done ads that back up their criticisms and use counter ideas are effective and help the attacker's campaign.
-Unfortunately I do think attack ads have a definite place in today's political race. They have become so common over time that people have come to expect them. If a candidate did not release any attack ads against their opponent then people would be wary of supporting them because they would feel that the candidate was not aggressive enough or did not care about their campaign/ being elected.
You made a good point about attack ads being annoying and a waste of money. I agree that every time a political ad comes on, I try to ignore it or just zone it out because most of the time it is the same thing over and over again. whether it be an attack ad on Obama, Romney, or even Brown or Warren, i'll just focus on something else because it would be better to form my opinion on something more accurate to the candidates actual opinion. It would be better to focus on the debates and other events, rather than the ads designed to make me hate the perso it's attacking.
Delete
ReplyDeleteSamantha Graham Continued
2.
-They made me feel a little but sorry for the candidates being attacked, I guess... because everything they say is being turned around and made to sound bad. I think it would be discouraging to have someone bash your every idea. On the other hand I think that they are probably used to it... Both have been in politics for a while and have campaigned before. They are used to hearing these and other things said negatively about them. I think politicians probably learn to ignore their opponents criticisms and stay true to their ideas. Ads are more for the voters.
-I question what is being said. Attack ads have always exaggerated and blown out of proportion each tiny comment a person makes and dissected their every idea. For example I do not feel that Obama was blaming the people when he said "America has been lazy," as the ad said; In fact it seems to me he was more blaming the republicans who have been in office. This is an example of the whole psychology of attack ads though: Taking an opponent's comment and twisting it to make yourself sound better. The ad twisted this comment to make it sound as though Obama was blaming the people because the ad was made by republicans and they don't want to look bad. (Which goes both ways.)
-I do think that I believe the candidate whom I support (Obama) more than the one I do not. I think most people, unless they are VERY open minded and good at being empathetic, would do this even if it is subconscious. You (any average person including me) chooses the person they support and wants to like and agree with them.
As for why I believe Obama more: Mitt Romney has made some mistakes and had to correct himself so I tend to question what he says. Also, although I think people should have the right to change their mind, at this point it really seems to me as though Romney changes his mind based on who he needs the support of, not his own ideas. I also believe what Obama says more because he gives specifics about his plans unlike his opponent. For example I thought the Anti- Romney ad was an example of what I said earlier was a well done ad: Obama's campaign backed up their criticisms of Romney with examples of what Obama will do instead while the Anti Obama ad (which I noticed was not approved by him) did not give specifics about how Romney will do something better than what he says Obama did wrong. Maybe I am just biased because I support Obama which comes back to what I said earlier about automatically believing the candidate I support but I still think it is true.
I agree with your point that ads are not an especially accurate way to get information. They can, like you also said, take an idea out of context. For example an ad could take a comment a candidate made and make it look like the comment was directed at a totally different person or group than it originally was.
ReplyDeleteThis was directed to Julia Frias but showed up in the wrong place.
DeleteArticle
ReplyDelete• I think that these attack ads are very effective in order to come out on top as president, but they seem to be too aggressive and unnecessary if they are not used properly and accurately. The viewers do not know if these ads are true or not so therefore they may be making choices based on false facts. But I do have to say that they are very useful in stating the true facts and pointing out flaws that each candidate possesses and what they have failed to do in the past, but mainly how they can mess up in the future.
• I think that these attack ads are more harmful than anything else. They can affect both candidates in different ways. If one party makes a false accusation, they could affect themselves and their political race by losing their trust from their viewers and followers. I believe that they change the minds of many in how they view both presidents and will most definitely affect the outcome of the race.
• These ads certainly play a big role in today’s political race. Most, if not all, political races have these attack ads to “spice” up their campaign. They can use them to make the other candidate look much worse than them and boost up their own image if the information provided is accurate.
Videos
• Both ads make me feel less enthusiastic about the candidate that was targeted. They made both candidates look extremely bad and unpromising. So it made me feel like the other candidate was the right way to go. But once the ad aimed towards Obama ended, I noticed that Mitt Romney did not approve the message. Therefore Obama’s seemed more effective and aimed more towards the actual campaign.
• For the most part I believed what was being said even though I know that all attack ads are not always true. Although, I did question the ad aimed towards Obama because it was not an official commercial. It seems like someone who was bored at home one day wanted to make Obama look bad so they decided to make their own attack ad and post it on the internet. If it was approved by Romney then maybe I would believe it more.
• Even though I am not into politics, I tend to believe the candidate I enjoy the most. It is like my friends and family, I usually believe everything they tell me because I feel that I can trust them. But if someone I do not like came up to me and told me something, I would most likely not believe them because I feel that there is no need to trust them even though they may be telling the truth.
I totally agree with you, the person seeing the ad doesn't know if the information being conveyed is true or not. This could definitely
Deletehelp the viewer make choices on false facts if they don't know it.
I agree with the video ads making the candidate it targets seem the wrong choice. I also know that all attack ads are not true.
Delete1.
ReplyDelete~ In general, I think attack ads are bad for both sides of the race and harm the authenticity of the race because of the misinformation it spreads. The article gave examples of both parties spreading flat out lies about the other candidate. Telling the public that Romney didn't support abortion under any circumstances or that Obama needed to "learn how to be an American" could swing how people vote, without giving them actual information on what will happen if the other candidate wins. I don’t see how anyone could even get an ad that tells blatant lies to the public without someone in the process stopping it. If attack ads have to be put out, at least have what they're saying be remotely truthful.
~ I think attack ads are extremely harmful to political campaigns of any size or importance. They don’t help paint a good picture for either of the candidates and can sometimes give voters complete lies, like in the question above. Not only do attack ads directly taint the image of the candidate it's attacking, it also might worsen someone's view o the candidate who approved the attack add. Attack ads only add to the conflict of a campaign, and don’t do anyone any good. However, I don't think they'll be going away anytime soon because unfortunately, they are very effective at turning a voters opinion.
~ Attack ads could be used in political campaigns today, if they actually helped voters make an educated decision on who to put in office, but today's attack ads only spread information edited or even completely made up by the other party to slander their opponent
2.
~I couldn't help but be a little biased with these ads. From all information I have gathered so far, I would vote for Obama if I was given the chance. This made my first impression of both ads negative towards Romney and positive towards Obama. Obama's ad focused more on the comparison between Romney's plan for college students and Obama's plan, while Romney's seemed to stretch facts and didn't actually tell us anything about Romney's campaign.
~ I felt that what was being said in both ads were true, but both in a different sense. I believed that Obama's ad truthfully portrayed Romney's plan for college students, and I found it ironic that Romney insulted Obama for calling America lazy and unambitious, then gave no help towards making it easier for students to graduate college. I also agree with Obama that America has been losing ambition, NASA's budget is a clear sign of that. Also, the ad against Obama made up a new word, which had no relevant reason to be in the ad, and was just silly.
~ I think I've clearly shown above that I did agree with the candidate that shared my beliefs, and I think it is just part of human nature to somewhat ignore the bad things said about someone you like and agree with, and to find anything to attack someone you don't like or agree with.
I completely agree with what you said about the anti-obama ad not making any points about Romney's own campaign, while Obama's did. I noticed that as well.
ReplyDeleteThis is a reply to cjleblanc2016 directly above
DeleteArticle
ReplyDelete• In general, I think attack ads can be deceitful but in some ways can be helpful. The ads can demoralize the opposing candidate. The vicious so called facts about a candidate can be misleading. Such statements can be exaggerated. Attack ads can also be beneficial. They are a way for voters to find out new information about the candidates. Voters can also learn about the history and background of the opponents.
• I believe that attack ads are harmful yet necessary. They can expose secrets about the opposing candidate. The ads persuade voter’s opinions. Some negative statements can be irrelevant to the debate and can damage one’s campaign. Attack ads are also necessary because voters need reasons to vote against a certain candidate.
• Attack ads have a place in today’s political race. Making attack ads are a traditional way to bash an opponent and change the minds of voters. The ads can change the outlook on the race. Undecided voters are persuaded to go one way or the other.
Video
• Both ads made me feel like the candidate it was attacking was not qualified for the job as President. The ads also made me feel like the candidate who approved the message was a better choice. They persuaded me and my thoughts. They show that the opposing candidate made mistakes or said misleading sentences that would not allow them to be a better President.
• My instinct is to accept what I see on ads but I know that I must question the statements. I do not know for a fact that what is being said is true. I also do not have any evidence that supports the negative messages.
• I believe the candidate who shares my political views. He appears to be sincere and honest. I like his ideas and policies. He seems to have the necessary experience to run our country.
I toatlly agree on the video and how it persuaded you and your thoughts! I also thought that the candidates really looked for the mistakes that their opponenet made and made it seem misleading. I found it interseting that your first instinct was to accept what you saw in the ad but then changed your idea and began to questions it. My first thought was to immediately disregaurd what the person was saying because I felt that I had already made up a strong opinion on which candidate I like.
DeleteThalita Campelo
ReplyDeleteAttack Ads in Today’s Political Race
The Lowest Common Denominator and the 2012 Race for President (Article)
1. I personally don’t agree or disagree with attack ads. I believe that although they can be made up and are mostly negative about the candidates, they still are somewhat key to political things such as presidential elections. They really help with advertising competition between candidates and provide voters with information they would want to hear about these men that aren’t really mentioned when they are campaigning.
2. Attack ads are completely necessary with campaigns, but that also does not mean that they aren’t harmful. They are necessary to show the voters who they believe they are voting on and provides them with information on things they might not of heard from their favorite candidate yet. These ads mention things about the candidates that they themselves leave out when campaigning directly. They can be harmful only by giving their opponents bad names, but most attack ads aren’t taken too seriously because everyone knows their true purpose is only to get their rival’s voters on their side.
3. These ads play a major part in today’s political race. The 2012 election is costing the most money and surprisingly, a great amount of the money is being used on these attack ads. They give us, the people and voters, different views and perspectives on the candidates who are running. They basically can change the voter’s minds and even the future of the candidates running in the elections.
“Get Real” and Anti Obama Attacks Ads (Videos
1. I felt that the candidate being attacked was somewhat being as if “put on the spot”. I think the videos took what the candidates said and changed them around to get the voters to change their mind and opinions about each of them. The candidate that approved the ad was somewhat selfish I think, even though that is all part of attack ads. The “attacker” was directly using the bad things about their opponents to make sure the viewer had a different opinion about them by the end of the video.
2. I questioned what was being said in the videos. This is mainly because I know that they were attack ads and because of that, candidates said anything they could in order to make their opponent seem bad for the job. I know that to win over the votes of the people, the candidates will use their opponent’s weak spots to persuade people to view their good qualities and vote for them instead.
3. I believe in Obama’s political views more than Romney’s because I think that Obama serves as a more powerful and competent presidential candidate. I found it harder to believe in Romney’s political views because I am not in favor of his running for office and I do not support of his opinions and ideas.
ReplyDeleteArticle
What do you think of attack ads in general?
I personally think attack ads are good. They give information that helps shape voters ideas about the candidate. Some ads share information not known about candidates or tell about the candidate that might make someone not want to vote for them. Competitors can use them so get an edge over their competitors; using them to get more votes.
Are they harmful or necessary to candidates’ campaigns? Why do you think so?
I think attack ads are both harmful and necessary in a candidate's campaign. The information presented can really hurt a candidates reputation. The Attack ads are necessary because the things said can about the competition can interest voters and get them really involved in a candidate adding to the number of votes each candidate gets.
Do they have a place in today’s political race? Why or why not?
Attacks ads do have a place in today's political election because without them, nobody we would be interested if the candidates only said nice things about each other. The candidates spend most of their money on Attack ads for television, radio, and the internet. Most young voters get their information from these sources, the ads get them interested in the election and the candidates.
Video
How did each one make you feel about the candidate it was attacking? How did they make you feel about the candidate who approved the ad?
I feel bad for the candidates because the makers of the ads are probably changing their words around to fit the ad. I felt like both the candidates who approved the ads were using them for the same reason, to get an edge over their competition.
Did you accept what is being said as true or do you question it? Why?
I think some of the things said about each candidate are true but others are false. There words were probably changed to fit the ad. The candidates might have said everything in the video but most likely things have been changed around.
Did you believe the candidate who shares your political beliefs more than the one who doesn’t? Why or why not?
I did believe more in the candidate who I share views with. Because I like one better than the other I will usually agree with him. My views are biased because I want one to win more than the other so I would most likely agree with what they say.