Political Advertising: The Pros And Cons

This past week we spent a considerable amount of time discussing political advertising campaigns, and even had the pleasure of watching a considerable number of presidential campaign ads in class. We learned about negative ads and content free ads, among others. Since then I've been wondering, why do we bother to watch them? Before anyone who reads this starts criticizing me (perhaps as a result of the reflexive emotional response such a strong statement is capable of eliciting, the type of reaction political ads tend seek), I will admit that campaign ads do have legitimate purposes. However, after our recent lectures and readings on the subject I don't believe that those purposes are beneficial to the viewer (theoretically the average American).

Political ads are usually intended to spread publicity about a specific candidate, policy, issue, or party and/or to swing public opinion in favor of said candidate, policy, issue, or party. This objective is usually of no help to the viewer. For example, what do ads showing candidates kissing babies, standing with the American flag, shaking hands, and so forth truly reveal about that candidate? Since the first campaign ads were introduced they have informed the viewer about very few facts, instead publicizing the candidate's name and describing (what some would say are) irrelevant moral and familial values. Negative ads do tend to provide more information, though they are equally as harmful.

Negative ads have the potential to spread not only harmful, but false information as well, leaving the viewer misinformed and voting for the wrong reasons. On the other hand, content free ads are next to useless in their lack of relevant information. I suppose what I'm asking is: What's the point? Personally, I don't pay too much attention to political advertisements. When I do, I often review what the ad said or was about and question its' honesty. Maybe I'm over thinking this, but I believe that we should try to analyze what ads don't say and question what they do.

Media Bias?

We recently discussed media bias in class. In particular we discussed the Grosclose & Milyo article and what they observed about media bias. In their article they looked at scores given to Congress members by the ADA. The scores were also based on which sources (or rather think tanks) the congressional representatives used. They basically concluded that bias equals preference, and that there is a (mostly) liberal preference in the media.

There is an article by William Eveland and Dhavan Shah which also analyzes the existence of media bias. Within their article they include statistics, experiments, and meta-analyses on the subject. They come to slightly different conclusions that Grosclose & Milyo. Eveland and Shah essentially conclude that bias does exist, though to a minimal extent, and that it is the result of many factors, from social communications networks to ideological inclinations. However, they believe that there is actually a conservative bias in the media.

What I think we can all draw from this is that in a way, both articles are right. While a significant amount of media bias may be an exaggeration of the situation, there is indisputably a slight amount. This minimal bias is quite possible the result of preference (also known as ideological inclination) on the part of the individual as well as members of his/her social communications network.

Solutions such as the nationalization of the media or the establishment of a government run media outlet is extreme and not viable. Until the day that everyone realizes that they should try to be more partial and objective, I think that at least a minimal level of bias should be expected by viewers/consumers who should compensate for it.

PR Strategy

This week we discussed in class the Obama healthcare plan, compared it to the Clinton plan, and attempted to determine why the Obama plan worked and the Clinton plan did not. Many plausible reasons were suggested as to why Obama was able to get his plan passed and Clinton wasn't. Suggestions included differences between the two plans: Clinton's was intended for all Americans versus Obama's being intended for uninsured Americans, and Clinton's having significantly more effects on the insurance companies as a whole than Obama's, among other differences. Another aspect to the comparison that was one of the primary topics during the lecture was the Republican Party's strategy during both health care plan events.

The strategy used by Republicans during the Clinton health care plan situation was suggested by Republican strategist Frank Luntz. Luntz's advice called for Republicans to denounce the Clinton health care plan for the overbroad expansion of bureaucracy it would necessitate and its' growth of "big government". The chart showing in graphic terms this governmental expansion through committees and other means was used effectively by Republicans to prevent the Clinton plan from even coming up for a vote. Unfortunately for Republicans, similar tactics were of no use in preventing the passing of the Obama health care plan. We came up with many reasons in class, but I have considered a few other explanations.

The Republicans once again tried to deride the proposed health care plan for being a step toward big government. However, this time they went a step further and labeled the plan "socialist" and claimed that it would create "death panels". I suggest that one of the reasons that this strategy didn't work a second time is that it came across as being somewhat ridiculous, particularly the use of the term "death panels", which was an obvious exaggeration. It is my opinion that the use of such inflammatory vocabulary was unnecessary, and alienated many who therefore saw the attack on the plan as blatantly partisan and elitist in nature. Sarah Palin's involvement in the debate certainly didn't help, and might have reinforced the perception that the Republican attack was ridiculous and incorrect. I further suggest that the Republican strategy didn't work the second time because the American people and legislators were fed up with the previous policy and were willing to try something new, perhaps a sign of a short attention span amongst Americans when it comes to politics.

The Clinton-Lewinsky Scandal & Other Political Gossip

By now I realize the truth to the principle that "It's all about the cover-up". Many polticians involved in scandals wouldn't be news-worthy if they hadn't tried to cover up their actions, since many of those actions involve minimal (if any) possibility of criminal charges. Had Clinton not tried to cover up his affair, if he hadn't stated publicly that "I did not have sex with that woman", and if he hadn't tried to discourage Lewinsky and others from revealing the truth then it's very likely that the media coverage of that story wouldn't have lasted nearly as long as it did, and Clinton wouldn't have been in as much trouble toward the end of his final term. It seems to me as though politicians should realize that if they simply acknowledge what they did, apologize, and get on with their careers, then they have a chance of avoiding bad press and significant consequences. This conclusion is based on the growing trend over the last couple of decades among the media to report (perhaps over-report) scandals and similar political gossip much in the same manner that they report on celebrities. Take for example the recent Charlie Sheen situation. It began about a week or two ago, and it's only now starting to regress from front-page news status. The John Edwards scandal was in the headlines for at least that length of time. What has the media become, where scandals and similar stories receive more attention than news that's actually important such as, I don't know, maybe the collapse of Middle-Eastern governments? Rising food and fuel prices? Actual governmental business and legislation?

Embedded Journalism & War

I think that I speak for many of us when I say that the clip we watched last class with a British journalist was at certain points both amusing and surprising. The practice of embedding journalists among troops appears to have mixed results. On the one hand, it does provide an on-the-ground perspective on a war which makes the events being reported more dramatic, attention-grabbing, and likely to inspire empathy along with other emotions among viewers, all of which increases the likelihood of maintaining viewer interest (and network profits). The downside is that wars usually consist of more than just the few events and viewpoints that embedded journalism can provide, an example being the exaggerated effectiveness of the anti-scud missile STARS system which we learned in class can be attributed to not only the trend among CNN during the course of the war but to the limited perspective and information available to the journalists on site. In addition, the idiosyncratic reporting methods of journalists results in the surprising and occasionally amusing random transition between topics (as seen in the in-class video) which can be confusing. I suppose what I'm getting at is: How can viewers get a better picture of the full scope of a war than this somewhat inconclusive and unreliable (not to mention dangerous for reporters) method, and how should viewers perceive what they learn from embedded journalism?