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.
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.
In this ad, Roy Blunt is talking about Border Patrol. I thought it was particularly interesting considering Missouri is not even a state that lies on the US boarder with Mexico. Regardless, Blunt, who’s campaign is based largely on restoring the Missouri’s economy by creating new jobs, is making the point that 45, 000 Missouri jobs are lost because of illegal immigration and he is leading the fight against this. He also points out that Robin Carnahan and President Obama oppose measures to secure the boarder, in particular the Arizona Immigration Law. His main points include:
- Securing the Boarder
- Finishing the Fence
- Enforcing/Respecting the Law
The intended audience is the conservative voters who oppose illegal immigration and support security measures such as the Arizona Immigration Act. The ad is also targeting the 45,000 Missouri voters who have lost their job due to illegal immigration. I think it is effective. For those individuals who feel strongly about cracking down on immigration issues, this ad would hit home. At the same time, the portion of the audience who sees this message and already opposes the immigration laws would probably not be persuaded to join the bandwagon just because this can be such a touchy topic for so many voters.
This ad is not terribly different from the first ad I used. It was also with Roy Blunt and it focused on him restoring jobs and supporting small businesses. So, although Blunt is not talking about about particular Missouri businesses, he is focusing on the job security in this state.
In this video of Mr. Blunt you can see how Roy Blunt hates clean energy, or so it seems.
This ad is trying to get the audience to understand that Roy Blunt is against clean energy. It shows how he voted against spending money to have a more green country. This reminds me of anti-abortion ads, because some ads try to make some politicians look like they are for abortion. We all know people are not for abortion just like we know there aren’t people in this world for destroying our earth.
The intended audience I would say are younger voters who care more about a more green environment.
I believe the ad is very effective because it shows us (the audience that Blunt doesn’t feel clean energy is important).
In this recently released television ad by the Robin Carnahan Campaign, Robin Carnahan. The backdrop for the ad is just the peaceful Missouri countryside. The ad doesn’t show any other video clips of Robin Carnahan or her opponent, Congressman Roy Blunt.
The audience that this ad tries to attract are independent voters or voters that are still undecided who they are going to vote for. Robin Carnahan isn’t going to get the vote of the hard-core republicans and she doesn’t have to worry about those who are already going to vote in her favor, so this ad tries to give reasons why she is the better candidate over he opponent.
The main message in this political ad is how Robin claims that she has worked in Missouri for the citizens of Missouri while Congressman Roy Blunt has been working for himself in Washington D.C.
Robins tells the audience that she has witnessed first had how families of Missouri are struggling as she has traveled around the state.
This ad is effective in creating a transparent message that explicitly state why Robin Carnahan makes a better candidate for United States Senate.
This ad differs from the first ad from blog 2 in one main way: Robin Carnahan directly attacks Congressman Roy Blunt by verbally using his name.
- This Ad is mainly aimed to attack Robin Carnahan’s policies by telling the public about her position on proposition C- to cut $500 million from the medicare program in order to pay for government-run health care effectively hurting senior citizens and creating bigger government.
- It’s also very interesting to hear the ad talk about the fact that Carnahan “doesn’t want Missourians to know” about the Healthcare facts previously stated in an attempt to create an image of Carnahan that is corrupt and secretive. In trying to foment this image of Robin Carnahan I think team Blunt is trying to disenchant the democrats of Missouri in doing so they will not vote at all-a common strategy Lyengar and McGrady discuss.
- The ad is targeting senior citizens with the first line of dialog ending with “hurting seniors most” then discussing Carnahan’s previous policy moves relating to Medicare and Healthcare. The ad also targets the unemployed attempting to appeals towards any person frustrated with Obama’s “job-killing agenda.”
- There isn’t any other messages to analyze from the advertisement. Despite the shot on Carnahan’s character as a corrupt politician the messages stays true to talking about Medicare cuts and jobs.
- Because the ad is extremely focused and detailed lightly, only highlighting very telling statistics such as $500 million dollars and repetition of these two messages I think the ad creates a very clear image for Missourians to see what the Blunt campaign is trying to accomplish in this ad- a small shot on Carnahan’s political methods (keeping information from the public), disregarding jobs and hurting seniors.
As the November 2nd election rapidly approaches, much attention is being paid to the Missouri Senate candidates, Roy Blunt (R) and Robin Carnahan (D). Advertisements are flooding the media, supporting and degrading these potential Senators left and right. I decided to take a different route this time when analyzing one of these said candidates. Unlike Blog 2, where I chose an ad that challenged Roy Blunt’s political platforms, I decided this time to look at an advertisement supporting the Republican candidate.
This advertisement, sponsored by the NRA, praises Blunt for his patriotism and commitment to the constitution. The ad opens with the picture of the American flag, that during the duration of the first half of the ad is ripped apart, piece by piece. This imagery is a metaphor for the breakdown of the foundation of democracy — the American flag being the symbol of what our Founding Fathers stood for. This stance is a very conservative view, and I believe the intended audience are republicans who agree with these ideals. The National Rifle Association, a typically and unabashingly supporter of conservatives created and sponsored this advertisement, which continues my argument that this ad was formatted with the republican view-point in mind.
I believe the imagery of the American flag being ripped apart is very effective, using the communication technique of pathos. The United States flag is a symbol that every American, no matter the party, identifies with and to see it being torn apart immediately creates an emotional response and grabs the attention of the viewer. Overall, I believe this ad was very effective.