Attack Ads Response

Attack Ads and Video

• In general, I think that attack ads are annoying, untrue and unpleasant to come across when watching television. They remind me of rumors spread in middle school and high school.  However I understand that the reason candidates try to belittle their opponents and ruin their reputations is so that they can succeed in gaining a majority of the votes. I think that the world might even be a better place if America elected a president that did not have to resort to attack ads. It makes me think that the candidates who create them are sneaky and untrustworthy.

•   I think that attack ads are only necessary for something as serious  as the Presidential Election. When students at are school run for Community Council or some sort of Class Officer position they do not resort to attack ads- they just try to advertise how they can make a difference at Hudson High. I believe attack ads are morally wrong. When one candidate plants false information about another candidate and millions of people hear about it, regardless of whether or not the rumor is true many people believe it to a certain extent. Even when the rumor/misunderstanding is cleared up, most people still have lingering thoughts about it, which could potentially influence their vote.  It is harmful to the other candidate that is being exploited. The other candidate has the power to create a false statement about the other, which often triggers a vicious cycle. Attack ads become much less harmful after they become repetitive and eventually lose their impact on people's votes.

• Presently, I believe attack ads do have a place in today’s political race.  It is extremely rare when one does not come across an attack ad on television as Election Day approaches. Their existence is seldom questioned and often reluctantly accepted by the people of the United States. I think that they really are a part of presidential campaigns and candidates spend more time bringing their antagonists down rather than bringing their reputation up, which should change in the future.

2.

• The first ad about Mitt Romney’s thoughts on college made me a little bit angry at him for saying that parents should pay for their children’s college. I do not agree with this because some parents cannot afford large college tuition. I think that he should actually try to improve the situation of college instead of putting it behind him. This ad made me feel more inclined toward Obama’s ideas, and made me feel that Obama was completely right, even if he was slightly rude about it in the ad.  The other ad did not provoke any negative emotions from me towards Obama; I am assuming that when he said Americans were lazy he had a reason for it or it was appropriate in the context of the situation. It made me feel like Romney was trying too hard and confused as to why two different presidents were being compared. I do not like Romney or Obama.
• I accepted a large majority of what was in the attack ads because there was clear proof that the candidates said what they were accused of. The attack ads simply made their views more dramatic and negative. For example, if the ad claimed to say that President Obama called America lazy, I would question it. However, the ad actually showed Obama at a conference calling America lazy and saying that America has “gotten soft.” Whether or not it was exaggerated is not the point; the fact that there was legitimate proof made me believe the ads to some extent.
• I definitely do believe the candidate whose political views I share more than the other political candidate because I know that they are trying to do what I think is best for America and I trust them more. The attack ad  about the candidate whose political views I do not agree with makes me dislike them and question their motives. If I do not agree with what they have to say, of course I will agree with the ad that has a similar opinion to mine.