When signing up for this class I was a little worried. I thought it had the capability to be boring or irrelevant to me. I now realize that I was wrong. Although I have never invested myself too much into the political world, I found this class to be very interesting.
I especially enjoyed the beginning of the semester when we talked about going public. I liked learning about image ads versus issue ads as well as performance messages and policy messages. This combined my emphasis, mass media communications, with political communications. The lessons about JFK and Nixon were interesting also. It was cool to look back and see how campaigns ran at the time when television was brand new. I comparing Nixon’s 1960 campaign with his 1968 campaign. He was becoming a celebrity as well as a president. Television had started packaging the candidates and they continue to do it today.
One of the things I did not like about the class was the blogs. Sometimes I did not feel like they were relevant to the class. I felt like they were always a burden. Instead I would have rather expressed my thoughts and views in class. It was annoying to have to blog and then tag it to my twitter account.Rather than doing blogs I would have liked to have longer class discussions or even class debates. I think a couple of class debates about the blog topics would have been fun. I think it would allow us to be more engaged in the topics. One of the topics that we blogged about was bias in the media. For some reason I found this very boring. I still do not understand media bias. I feel like instead of blogging about it we should have talked about it more in the classroom. I know the media can be biased but I feel like we kind of went in circles when talking about it.
Overall I enjoyed the class a great deal. I learned a ton of information that I did not know before. It definitely got me more interested and involed in politics. I was glad I was in the class when the senate race was going on. I kept up with the race and with each candiate. Since I was learing more about the political world and how politics worked I was able to make a better educated vote when I voted.
In the world we live in today the internet is a huge part of our lives. Most people use the internet multiple times a day. We use it for work, for entertainment, for socialization, and many other reasons. People can get online at home, work, and school. They can use their phones to get online at anytime in any place. I would say that the internet is most definitely “real life.” Any way that people are learning about politics is being involved in politics. Online politics gives people a chance to let their voice be heard. They can vote in polls and respond to blogs. They can learn about candidates through websites and read stories about what is going on in the political world. The great thing about online politics is that they can do it from the comfort of their own home. It makes politics more appealing to people. It makes them feel like they have power and yet it does not overwhelm them. I think online politics makes it easier for people to participate. This is a good thing.
During the past presidential election I noticed online politics. I found an article, http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/04/iran-politics-blogging-internet that talked about how Obama successfully used social networking sites to get the word out about his campaign. It did say however that overdoing politics online can make people feel like shoppers rather than voters. There is a fine line between getting the word out and by making the word seem like a product that someone can buy. People need to be aware of what they are reading and where it is coming from online. Just like in “real life” people need to do some research on what they hear and read. They need to be aware of what website they are on when they read stories. They should look at who is sponsoring the website or paying for it.
This past week I noticed online politics when it came to the 2010 senate race. Social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook tried to get the word out to their users to get out and vote. On Facebook users were able to click an icon saying that they had voted that day. The icon would let their Facebook friends know that they had voted. After I voted I was proud to let people know that I had done so. I hoped that it made other people get out and vote.
The rise in online politics goes to show that our democracy is adapting to online users. Candidates and political parties are realizing how big of a role the internet plays in people’s lives. It is important that politics adapts and changes just as much as the people in our country do. I believe they will continue to change and adapt. Online politics will only grow.
The Roy Blunt and Robin Carnahan campaign ads this election year have been anything but tame. Both candidates have sunk to spearing each others past actions and persuading voters with facts that may or may not be completely true. It is refreshing to see an ad that does not mainly focus on the other candidate, and instead focuses on the merits of the one doing the advertising.
can best be described as an image ad. This ad is appealing to the every day American person. Blue collar workers are without a doubt being targeted, and this is the vast majority of people living in the state of Missouri. The main message is clear. Roy Blunt is a normal, down to earth guy that went on to do extraordinary things. I believe this message is most likely effective in what it intends to accomplish. It relays Roy Blunt’s past to the viewer and makes it’s point crystal clear. This ad definitely takes on a different style than the ad I had analyzed for blog two. This ad, also from Roy Blunt, viciously attacks Robin Carnahan. Both ad’s support Roy Blunt, however, they both take on different roles, image and issue. Even though both of these ads are different, they both sent a definite, clear message to the voting public.
This advertisement caught my attention because of the way it is formatted. The audio and graphics make it sounds like comedy act of some kind. Blunt’s campaign is trying to portray Carnahan as a joke but they are doing so in a creative way. When you see this ad, it doesn’t immediately come across as an attack ad, but it certainly is. It focuses on missteps in the Carnahan campaign and in some ways portrays Robin Carnahan as a clown.
This is a different approach than the first ad I analyzed for the Blunt campaign. In the first ad, Roy Blunt was portrayed as a regular Missourian who cared about his community. It highlighted Blunt’s life and career in a positive way. This ad, however, does not highlight what Roy Blunt’s positive qualities are. It simply attacks Robin Carnahan.
Rubberstamp Robin and Obama the Riddler
- Summary: This ad is the same message that Roy Blunt has been pushing since the beginning of his campaign saying that Obama and Carnahan are in ‘cahoots’. This particular ad shows how Carnahan will support Obama because he helped her raise money. In the ad, Obama says that Carnahan owes him and she can repay him by supporting cap and trade.
- Cap and Trade is an environmental policy that puts a cap on emissions to improve air quality. According to Blunt, this act will take some MO jobs away but he doesn’t say how and the ad doesn’t mention what cap and trade actually does. The message sent in this aspect is: Carnahan does whatever Obama wants her to even if it kills MO jobs (the jobs of her constituents). Unfortunately, the ad doesn’t say anything about the possible benefits of Cap and Trade and makes it seem as though it is all negative because it is connected with Obama
- This ad is aimed at the young republicans and/or more internet-based constituents. The people who are bored by Blunt’s everyday repetitive ads might be intrigued by this cartoonistic approach. It is also aimed at those who are not Obama fans. It criticizes his interest in golfing over political matters. It quite literally puts Obama in the position of a villain while Carnahan is given the role of the sidekick which is a very strong message to send.
- The ad is effective initially in making it look like she is supporting him because of the money he raised, but not effective at all when the topics discussed are researched even on a base level. Making light of political situations is not a good strategy on Blunt’s part. Which is probably why this is a youtube ad and not a national spot.
- This ad proves to have no new message to offer the MO voters from my initial ad in Blog 2, only a new angle in which to judge: through a cartoon aimed at a younger more tech-friendly audience.
For this blog I chose an advertisement that talked about Robin Carnahan. It was approved by Roy Blunt and did not talk well about Carnahan. The ad calls her actions phony and misleading. It talks about how she will say anything. The advertisement says she rubber stamps the Obama Agenda. I was not familiar with the term rubber stamping but according to Websters New World Dictionary, it means to approve or endorse in a routine manner, without thought – *rubber stamp – 2. [Colloq.] a) a person, bureau, legislature, etc., that approves or endorses something in a routine manner, without thought, b) any routine approval.” In this context it is saying that Robin Carnahan rubber stamps Obama’s policies and bills. She might not have much power but she wants to make the current president happy so she endorses what he endorses. The ad mentions the “disastrous stimulus plan,” government-run health care, and new energy tax. It shows all three of these things in a negative light. It shows Obama in a negative light because these are things being done while he is in office. The ad makes a correlation with Obama’s bad decisions as a democrat and the fact that Carnahan is too a democrat. The ad is getting viewers to compare Obama’s negative choices with Carnahan’s future choices.
The main message given by this advertisement is that Carnahan has not made good decisions in the past and will not in the future. The current administration is not acting appropriately and instead they are making negative decisions. If Carnahan gets elected into office these negative decisions and outcomes will continue. Since the advertisement is approved by Blunt there is an underlying message that he will do better if he were in office and that people should consider him instead.
The intended audience is voters and people who pay attention to politics. It also might appeal to republicans because it is bashing Carnahan, a democrat.
I believe that this commercial is effective. People are worried about the current administration and that shows because Obama’s approval rate has dropped since he’s been in office. This happens for a number of different reasons as we talked about in class but it still shows that many people are not happy with the way things are going. Even if people do not pay attention to the current administration it is still effective. It puts the notion in their mind that things are not going well and there needs to be a change. A change meaning there needs to be a republican elected as the Missouri Senator. The ad does a good job at making negative correlations between Obama and Carnahan without looking like a low, mud-slinging commercial.
The commercial I used for blog #2 was an advertisement for Carnahan talking poorly about Roy Blunt. The ads both talked about negative previous decisions. In blog #2 the commercial does not make correlations between the current political administration because there is not a republican in office. It also talks about different issues than the ad I used in this blog. The ad bashing Carnahan talks about issues such as the health care plan, the stimulus plan and energy tax. The ad bashing Blunt talks about big oil companies, clean energy and new jobs. The ads differ because it talks about Blunt saying no to things and Carnahan saying yes to things. The Blunt ad that Carnahan approved starts out happy and it looks like it is going to praise a certain candidate. Instead it takes a turn and starts attacking Blunt. In the Carnahan ad that Blunt approved, the ad starts attacking Carnahan right away.
Overall this ad differs from the ad I used in blog #2. They are alike in the fact that they both attack an opposing candidate but they attack in different ways. I believe the ad is effective in many ways.
This political ad came from the Roy Blunt campaign and plays on the “Rubber Stamp Robin” name that has become so common throughout this campaign. The ad portrays Carnahan as na Obama puppet. He knows that she will “rubber stamp” his agenda. The final word you are left with is a quote:
“Roy Blunt, he’ll work for Missouri. Not Barack Obama”
The intended audience here I think is anti Blunt person. He is trying to get as many people on his side as he can and with the slew of attack ads she is running on him I would say that the fight for votes is pretty much even. The main goal of the message is to convince the viewers that Robin Carnahan’s agenda lies with President Obama and his agenda, not what is truly right for Missouri. She is shown as supporting big government and a new energy tax as well as not doing much to improve unemployment. If I were to base my opinion of the candidates based solely on this ad I would defiantly vote for Roy Blunt. I think that the ad was very well done and did its job well.
This ad was different from my first ad mainly because this was an attack on Carnahan by Blunt and the ad for Blog 2 was an attack on Blunt by Carnahan. I do however feel like this ad was much better done than the first ad I looked at and really conveyed its message well.