What types of ads are we seeing this
year? Are they more positive or negative in tone, and how do they compare to
ads in previous campaigns? Based on the categories outlined by Trent et al Ch.
5 and Campaigns Ch. 3, offer examples
of at least three different types of ads from the 2016 campaign and compare
them to three similar historical ads that can be found on the website “The
Living Room Candidate.”
Political ads have typically been one of the dirtier aspects of any presidential campaign. They have the potential to reach millions of voters, and in the 21st century, have further evolved to appear in new platforms such as Twitter and Snapchat. While it’s true that political advertisements oftentimes send a positive message, the majority of them are negative, and have the power to engrain a particular sentiment about a candidate that could tip their voting decision come election day.
ReplyDeleteIn Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, chapter author Tad Devine says, “For more than five decades, political advertising has been the most powerful vehicle for a candidate to deliver an unfettered message directly to voters (Devine, e-text 99).” For this reason, campaigns spend millions of dollars to buy prime ad space and hire media specialists to write, produce, and test political advertisements. This election season has seen political ads from both campaigns that fit into all the categories: biographical, issue, agenda, and negative. In my personal research of the categories of ads, I noticed that Clinton has put out far more negative or attack ads than Donald. While her attack ads may be more “softer” in tone (for example her “sees” ad where she features a disabled women watching Trump’s mocking of a New York Times reporter) doesn’t automatically feel like an attack ad, but certainly ends up criticizing Trump’s past statements. Trump has put forth a plethora of material to be picked up by the democrats, so it’s no wonder the Clinton campaign has been taking advantage of this. In Hillary’s “shirts” ad, it initially appears like she’s simply featuring a hardworking American’s clothing factory, but it ends up criticizing Trump for making his apparel in 12 different countries over the years. Hillary does have non-negative ads though (if you dig deep enough). Her “children” ad can be considered an agenda ad because it highlights Hillary’s supposed consistent support for youth causes. The message is that she will continue to fight for children’s rights. It can also be considered biographical because it historically highlights the individual causes Hillary took part in. Clinton has been particularly pouncing on Trump’s character rather than his policy (perhaps because so little of Trump’s policy is actually known).
Donald Trump has actually managed to be a little more diverse in his advertising. In his “Washington is Broken” ad, it features Donald standing in his office complaining about Washington DC corruption, and then promises to end illegal immigration, cut taxes, bring back jobs, build the wall, negotiate trade deals, and knock out ISIS, all in the span of 30 seconds. This particular ad managed to be a negative ad and an agenda ad all in one. Many of Trump’s other attack ads primarily send the message that Hillary is a liar and although she has experience it’s “bad experience." A notable attack ad employed by the Trump camp recently was the debate day snapchat filter. It featured a banner that read “Debate Day: Donald J. Trump v. Crooked Hillary.” This placement went out to all US snapchat users, and likely cost the campaign a lot of money.
Television ads will remain an important part of campaign advertising for the foreseeable future. As the Campaigns on the Cutting Edge text clarifies “This is because the Internet requires motivation by the user to seek out information in a way that television does not (Devine, e-text 135).” For this reason, the television medium will serve as a crucial tool to convince the last segment of undecided voters.
Works Cited
DeleteDevine, Tad. "Paid Media in Campaigns-Now and In the Future." Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. N. pag. Print.
This week our whole discussion is based on ads and the way Clinton and Trump either positively or negatively attack one another through advertisements. The way candidates advertise now is completely different than the way Eisenhower did or any other past candidates. I have only seen advertisements either on YouTube shared through Facebook or on the Television. In fact, Connecticut isn’t a state where candidates usually advertise but I have seen both Trump and Hillary commercials on the television. Most of the commercials I have seen from either candidate have been mostly negative. I feel as though both candidates trash one another repeatedly as so to sway new voters based on what they don’t like about a candidate. According to Trent et al, “contemporary campaigns have used techniques such as personal witness, comparison, negative association or concept, talking head, assaultive or cinema verité” and this campaign is no exception (Trent et al). The 2016 presidential campaign is no exception to the fact that both candidates have been using their ads to condemn, attack and question their opponent. There was one specific example from a campaign from the 1964 political campaign versus the 2016 political campaign. According to Adweek, the original ad featuring, “lifelong moderate Republican Bill Bogert explained why he could not in good conscience vote for an "irresponsible" candidate like 1964 GOP nominee Barry Goldwater, stating, ‘This man scares me’” (Coffee). About 40 years later Hillary Clinton recreated the ad from 1964 this time the commercial being, “newer and far shorter, Bogert again serves as a stand-in for moderate Republicans turned off by their party's nominee for president” (Coffee). Clinton new that recreating an ad that condemned the candidate in 1964 knew that it would help her condemn her opponent now in 2016. In 1996, Republican candidate Dole attacked opponent Bill Clinton and questioning the taxes he may or may not have increased for the middle class. Trump has repeated the same indiscretions that have caused former Republican candidates to lose the fight. A similar commercial was paid for by Donald J. Trump for America, he used Clinton’s “deplorable” comment to attack, condemn, and question her authority and overall likability for presidency. If you take a closer look into the 1996 campaign and the 2016 campaign you can automatically see how similar they really are. Both campaigns and their advertisements are negatively known. There are more negative commercials attacking, condemning, and questioning the candidates then there are supporting and positively reinforcing the candidates. With both candidates negatively attacking one another I do not see how either would be fit for presidency nor does it help their overall run for presidency. If the candidates spent more time on positively reinforcing their campaigns, there would be no need for attacks and condemnations.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Coffee, Patrick. "Clinton Campaign Recreates 1964 'Confessions of a Republican' Ad for the Trump Era." AdWeek. AdWeek, 18 July 2016. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication:8th Revised Edition: Principles and Practices. Lanham, MD: ROWMAN & LITTLEFIELD, 2015. Print.
"2016 Campaign Ad Archive | New Republic." New Republic. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Media has completely altered the course of this campaign season, but so has the way that each candidate chooses to attack his or her opponents. Although many ads and spots have been online, there are plenty of commercials during this campaign that have left their mark on the general public. In Political Campaign Communication, the book discusses ads condemning, attacking, and questioning the opponent; or in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, they are generally negative ads. According to Political Campaign Communication, “these are ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position. They focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate. In the largest sense, the purpose of this kind of ad – no matter the variability of techniques employed – is to increase the opponent’s ‘negatives.’” (121, Trent). One ad that the Clinton campaign has created does exactly what Political Campaign Communication. The ad is titled “Mirrors,” and shows young girls and young women looking at themselves in the mirror while clips of just some of the misogynistic things Donald Trump has said plays in the background. The idea of this ad is to highlight one Donald Trumps biggest shortcomings, which is how he treats women, but also how insulting and demeaning he can be as a person; the ad only highlights his negatives, putting him in an extremely unfavorable light to women watching the ad. This is similar to the Daisy Ad, which was used by the Johnson campaign, intended to leave the “impression that if Johnson’s opponent, senator barry goldwater (R-AZ), was elected president, he might actually lead the United States into a nuclear confrontation with the Soviet Union.” Both ads were extremely “harsh, (but also) subtle,” which is essential to a negative ad. (35, Campaigns)
ReplyDeleteThe next ad that has been prevalent in this campaign season is the issues ad, which highlights that “the issues may be important to a particular place or demographic group…these ads are typically informational, supplying voters with facts and the position of a candidate or the interest group who sponsored the ad on issues that are at the center of the campaign.” (34, Campaigns) Donald Trump’s campaign created the “America Soaring” ad, which discusses how Donald Trump would like to focus on bringing factory jobs back home. This ad should peak the interest of unemployed Americans, as well as blue-collar factory workers. A PAC, Rebuilding America Now, which does represent the groups affected by the “overseas” job market that Donald Trump wants to work against, also sponsors the ad. However, the ad crosses over with another type of ad, the accomplishment/agenda as, as it also “focuses on the accomplishments of candidates and looks ahead to future achievements and the candidate’s vision and agenda” (drops the “Make America Great Again Line” (34, Campaigns). It discusses how Trump has created jobs in America with his large business, but then also discusses how he wants to bring jobs home in the future as president. This ad is similar to the “Determination” ad of the 2012 Obama campaign, as that ad also discussed how Obama wants to create new jobs, bring troops home, and make education and manufacturing a priority. The ad discusses how he has essentially “gotten the ball rolling” on those issues, and the only way to continue to work on those issues is a second Obama term in office.
The third ad we are seeing this year are ads extolling the candidates virtues, which provide “additional and related functions performed by spots that extol the candidates virtues include reinforcing the positive feelings of supporters…redefining the candidate’s image.” (Trent, 121) In the ad “Who We Are” created by the Clinton campaign, the ad shows Hillary Clinton with children, discussing with community members, factory workers, discussing the economy that families deserve and safety families deserve while living up to their potential, etc. this shows a warmer side to Hillary Clinton that the public has been vying for, as so many believe that she is too “cold” and “aloof” to be an effective president. This is similar to the “What We’re Fighting For” ad by the Obama campaign in 2012, which shows Obama with his family, while reinforcing his “hope” theme that his campaign created at the beginning of his campaign before his first term. It shows him with factory workers, other members of the government, discusses how his campaign relies on small donors and grass roots campaigning, shows him with small business owners, those working for his campaign, at local restaurants, etc. Both aim to personify the candidates, giving them some character that the public doesn’t get to see in speeches and debates, as they are more serious.
Delete
DeleteTrent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
2012. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.
The Advertisements of this election cycle definitely lean much more heavily towards the negative end of the spectrum than the positive. For instance, on “The Living Room Candidate” of the sixteen ads that are currently up under the 2016 election cycle only three of the ads are not an ad that directly attacks the campaigners opposition. Trump used two advertisements that depicted positive versions of America under a Trump presidency without mention of Clinton, while Clinton had used one advertisement that was not a direct attack of Donald Trump. Clinton’s campaign seems to be following suite after Lyndon Johnson’s 1964 bid for the presidency, which heavily attacked the character of his opponent, Republican nominee, Barry Goldwater. In the words of Tad Devine, “If television ads are the most powerful force in politics, then negative ads may be a campaign’s most powerful weapon,”(Devine 34) and the Clinton campaign seems to recognize this as its most trusted weapon is attacks on Trump’s character. One ad that strikes this nerve is Clinton’s “Just One” advertisement that uses Trump’s own words in the context of being the words of a man who has the power to launch a nuclear weapon, and it implies that Donald Trump does not have the judgment to have such power. The “Just One” ad is reminiscent of the Johnson’s “Merely Another Weapon” advertisement that uses Goldwater’s own words to also contend that he is unfit to have the power of American Nuclear codes. Another campaign that Clinton seems to be borrowing from is the 1980 Carter campaign as it uses third-party testimony claiming that the candidate’s opponent is not fit for office. Carter’s ad, “Streetgov”, which mocks the concept of a Reagan presidency comes to mind when one views Clinton’s “Unfit “ad as both ads talk about the candidate’s lack of expertise in politics and the dangers that the United States would face under the presidency of their opponent. Although both advertisements I have discussed from the Clinton camp are negative in nature, and could both be categorized as what Trent et al. considers to be “Ads Condemning/Attacking/Questioning the Opponent,” (Trent et al. 121) I would contest that these ads could also be considered “Issue Ads” (Devine 33) because this election is so much more candidate-focused rather than issue-focused than previous elections. One could even argue that the Candidates are the integral issues that are being argued about this election; even more so than ever before. And, the campaign similarities between Trump and Reagan do not end at the Carter-esque attack style that Clinton adopted, but Trump also models aspects of his campaign after that of the Reagan campaign. The most blatant comparison would have to be Trump’s “America Soaring” advertisement (one of 3 positive ads from this election cycle) and President Reagan’s 1984 commercial “Statue of Liberty”. Both commercials depict American people working to “rebuild” physical structures in America, symbolizing a rebuilding of the United States. The two commercials become most uniform in idea at their ends in which Reagan’s concept of “Rebuilding the American dream” and Trump’s call to “Make America Great Again” are nearly one in the same.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Devine, Tad. “Paid Media in Campaigns—Now and in the Future.” In Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3d. ed., Richard J. Semiatin, ed.Los Angeles: Sage. 2017. VitalSource Bookshelf Online.
"The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are." The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S. et al. Political Campaign Communication: Principles & Practices. 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
ReplyDeleteThis election year we’ve seen ads with very different tones. The candidates respectively, have put out numerous attack ads but also their fair share of encouraging ads to show them in a positive light. The article, "Are Presidential Election TV Ads Effective Anymore?” gives three characteristics that make up a successful political ad. “Good political advertising is direct because elections are fundamentally about defining yourself, defining your candidate and defining the stakes of the election (Sciullo 2016).” In past election cycles, we’ve seen plenty of negative ads put out defining the candidates and the stakes, but what is different with the ones this year is that there seems to be more material as the year goes on to create effective attack ads.
It’s hard to watch a YouTube video or primetime television without coming across a Clinton ad. Ad Age’s 2016 Presidential Campaign Scorecard shows that Clinton’s campaign has not only spent an extensive amount of resources on TV and radio but the campaign has spent the most compared to Johnson and Trump. The total amount spent is $149,912,723 and of that total the Clinton campaign makes up $145,299,727. This is evident in the variety of ads, there are constantly new ones being put out.
The text, Political Campaign Communication, explains the purpose of campaign ads, giving insight as to why the Clinton campaign would allocate that significant amount of money. “There are numerous functions of political ads: to create interest in a candidate; to build name recognition; to create, soften, or redefine an image; to stimulate citizen participation; to provide motivation for candidate support; to reinforce support; to influence the undecided; to identify key issues and frame questions for public debate; to demonstrate the talents of the candidate; and to provide entertainment (Trent et al 117).”
Political Campaign Communication describes a type of attack ad that labels a candidate negatively and then focuses on that characteristic. The Clinton campaign constantly puts out ads about Trump that focuses on the unfavorable things that he has said, for instance ones like “My Temperament” and “Role Models.” This technique was also used against John Kerry by President Bush in the “Windsurfing” ad. Which labeled Kerry in a humorous way as someone who constantly changed his mind by showing how he changed his position frequently. This ad, and others put out that year liked it seemed to be notably successful in hammering home that message.
The same text discusses ads that question opponents. An example of this is the “Confessions of A Republican.” Which Lyndon Johnson used to acknowledge the fact that some Republicans found Barry Goldwater to be extreme. The Clinton campaign remade a version of this ad using the same person because like Goldwater, Trump is seen as an extremist by many.
The Trump campaign put out an ad that has Donald Trump Jr. speaking about his father, as a father and how that would translate as President. This ad entitled, “My Dad,” shows Trump with his grandchildren and has his son in an attempt to show him as a businessman. This ad goes under the category mentioned by Trent et al as an ad that praises the candidate and puts them in a positive light. In 1988, George H.W. Bush put an ad called “Family/Children,” where Barbara Bush effectively spoke about the Bush family while family videos played. This is a previous example where a candidate uses their family to portray a sense of family values.
Campaign Ads have been used for decades and for various reasons. What’s interesting is that parallels can be drawn between ones from over thirty years ago and ones that have come out this month. It shows that these techniques and types of ads are constantly used because they have worked in the past.
DeleteWorks Cited
Diaz, Anne Christine. "Chart: Here's Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV and Radio Ad Spending Right Now." Advertising Age Campaign Trail RSS. Ad Age, 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Sciullo, Maria. "Are Presidential Election TV Ads Effective Anymore?" Pittsburgh Post Gazette, 26 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
There is no doubt that political campaign ads are extremely important when it comes to getting the word out about why one candidate is better than the other or why you should vote for me and not the other guy. Especially during this year’s presidential election, where both candidates are so controversial, campaign ads could mean the difference between victory and defeat because they are so crucial in today’s society. Even Richard Semiatin agrees with this when he states in Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful took in modern U.S. politics. That is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than on anything else” (Semiatin et al 28).
ReplyDeleteIt’s evident that the Clinton campaign has spent millions on advertisements this year. I found an ad bank on https://newrepublic.com/political-ad-database and can tell that most of Hillary’s ads are attacking Trump. For example, the ad entitled “My Temperament”, starts off with a clip from the first debate where Trump is talking about his “strongest asset by far” is his temperament and ends by saying in big bold red writing “Unfit to be President”. She likes to stress the fact that Trump is just unfit to be the President of the United States. Donald Trumps paid ads definitely go after Hillary. For example, in Donald Trumps advertisement entitled “Bad Experience”, he attacks Clinton for her mistakes as Secretary of State such as Benghazi, ISIS, and bad relations with Russia. But in another ad called “Two Americas: Immigration”, he goes into how he is better for America and how he wants to “Make America Safe Again”. The difference between the 2016 campaign advertisements and the 2008 campaign advertisements is that in 2008, the advertisements were much more honest. According to Aaron Sharockman from politifact.com, “Obama in 2008 earned more True ratings than Obama in 2012, and so did John McCain in 2008. Hillary Clinton in 2016 is even farther behind. And Donald Trump has been the most inaccurate of them all” (Sharockman).
The type of ads that we have seen the most of during this campaign is “Negative Ads”. According to Richard Semiatin, “If television ads are the most powerful force in politics, then negative ads may be a campaign’s most powerful weapon” (Semiatin et al 34). An example would be “My Temperament”, and an ad from past campaigns that would be similar to this would be from the Kennedy v. Nixon campaign called, “Nixon’s Experience?” This ad from Kennedy’s campaign attacks Nixon just as Clinton’s campaign attacks Trump on how he does not have any experience. Another comparison is Donald Trump’s ad called “The Enemy” to George W. Bush’s ad entitled “Weapons”. Both ads are examples of condemning ads, which are defined by Judith Trent as “ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position” (Trent et al 121). These ads both talk about how the opposing candidate do not support a stronger America, an America that would stop gun violence and support our troops across seas. One final comparison that I’d like to make is with Clinton’s advertisement called “Families Together” and George Bush’s advertisement from 1988 called “Family/Children”. Both ads are examples of Biographical Ads which are defined by Semiatin as ads that, “opens a window into the lives of candidates so that voters can better understand and relate to them on the basis of shared values” (Semiatin et al 33). Both of these ads take a deeper look into the role that family holds in the Clinton and Bush campaigns and are actually very similar in the type of language they use.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
2012. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.
"2016 Campaign Ad Archive | New Republic." New Republic. N.p., n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Sharockman, Aaron. "Post-truth 2016? How 2008, 2012 Campaigns Compare." PolitiFact. N.p., 16 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
It is my personal experience that this year the campaign ads are more negative in tone. All my life I have lived in the battleground state of Pennsylvania, specifically around Allegheny County which Politico has listed as one of the top 25 battleground counties (Samuelsohn et al.). Pittsburgh historically votes Democratic, however, this year in the region Donald Trump is leading in the polls there. This is because he is very appealing to the coal, old, and gas field workers (Delano). That being said, because of the 20 electoral votes, the importance of the area is not lost on Hillary who promised to launch a large ad campaign in the area. In the Trent et al. book it is stated that because of “the number of televised spots used during election campaigns has increased” (117). I feel like I can attest to the truth of this statement. I have seen more political ads this summer that I remember seeing during prior election cycles (Although maybe that has something to do with my age during the last election year).
ReplyDeleteFor me, the ads I experienced at my home this summer seemed much more negative in nature, not to say that ads in the past haven’t been negative, but these ones are negative in a different type of way. The ads this year seem to be more of an attack of character, less of an attack on policy like I remember of past election years. For instance, Hillary Clinton in her ads could have tried to appeal to the blue collar workers by reminding them how Donald Trump has no real idea what working in their field entails and thus really has no idea how to help them. That’s not what she did however, she reminded these people of what “’Donald Trump has done to people who worked for him’” (Delano). That is pretty slanderous in tone and can definitely be seen as more as an attack on Donald Trump as a person than his campaign. As Triblive writer Jason Cato puts it, “Television viewers in the Pittsburgh region have seen plenty of ads featuring Donald Trump in recent weeks, but that’s because he’s been the star of TV spots by Hillary Clinton’s campaign and big-spending super PACs to make him look bad” (Cato). You can see by the language of this article what I mean, Hillary Clinton’s campaign is trying to make Donald Trump look bad, not Donald Trump’s campaign, not Donald Trump’s policies.
Changing the subject, I similarly think I can speak to validate the section of the Campaigns on the Cutting Edge book that talks about phone surveys as I worked for the Quinnipiac polling institute for some time. The book talks a lot about the challenges that cell phones place of phone polling, saying “With landline phones, when a respondent answers a call, the pollster knows the respondent is at his or her residence. A cell phone respondent could be anywhere” (Semiatin 63). On the days we would poll cell phones at the polling institute an extra step had to be added to the call to assure that the person who answered the phone was from the area code that their cell phone seemed to be from. Half the time this wasn’t the case, they had gotten their phone when they lived in Colorado, for example, and now live in Indiana. This meant we couldn’t proceed to poll them because they didn’t live where we needed them to. However, more people are likely to answer a cell phone call than a landline call, many people don’t even have landlines anymore.
Cato, Jason. "Trump to Begin Buying Ads in Swing States, including Pennsylvania."TribLIVE.com. TribLIVE, 17 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Darren Samuelsohn, Kate Glueck, Kyle Cheney, and Daniel Strauss. "25 Battleground Counties to Watch." POLITICO. POLITICO, 08 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Delano, Jon. "Clinton Lays Out Strategy For Winning Western Pennsylvania." CBS Pittsburgh. CBS, 1 Aug. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteBlasting political advertisements is one of the most important parts to any presidential election. Because the 21st century is known as the technology era, these ads have the capability to reach millions of voters through the television, radio, websites, and Social Media. These visual ads can send positive and negative message to the voters. I have seen a good toss up of ads that attack the opponent and highlight the candidate’s strengths. When you watch these ads you feel like the candidate is talking directly to you. That their message is exactly how you feel. If done correctly, advertisements can make voters feel inspired and excited. They can also shock voters swaying their thoughts and making them question the other candidate’s capabilities.
In Political Campaign and Communication, the book outlines the four phases ads go through. Each political ad serves its own purpose and function. The book says they “… create interest in the candidate; to build name recognition to create, soften, or redefine an image; to stimulate citizen participation; to provide motivation for candidates to support; to influence the undecided; to identify key issues; to demonstrate the talents of the candidate, and for entertainment” (Trent et al 117). For the reasons stated above, that is why campaign managers spend millions on these 30-60 second ad spots on prime television in the hope that they sway a vote or open a persons mind up to something they didn’t realize before.
Both candidates have had ads that communicate various messages to the people in a number of forms, “biographical, issue, accomplishments, vision, and negative ads to name the most prevalent” (Semiatin et al 33).
When doing research, I found that Hillary Clinton has more attack ads on Trump utilizing his words to narrate the commercial. Trump on the other hand, has more positive messages while picking out Clinton’s weak spots. Clinton try’s to take away from her horrific record with negative advertisements. Clinton has two distinctive ads called Role Models and Mirror that use Trump’s own words against him, the ads are soft in tone and this makes her look like a saint. The New York Times said, Role Models is “A series of young children sit cross-legged on the floor, transfixed by glowing television screens featuring Donald J. Trump cursing, heckling and mocking” (Barbaro). It’s a depressing and effective ad. During 1964, President Johnson had an issue ad similar to Clinton that incorporated children called Peace Little Girl (Daisy). This ad was effective because the little girl was happily picking petals off of a flower counting down like the countdown of a nuclear bomb. This made Goldwater look like an extremist (The living Room Candidate). For Mirror, Clinton manipulated different Trump sound bites to make one ad with all is worst thoughts like “She's a slob... She ate like a pig." At the end, an announcer asks, "Do you treat women with respect?" A graphic pops up on the screen: "Is this the president we want for our daughters”( Mazzo). As you can tell Clinton is all about the attack ads and questioning ads. Back in 2004, Bush made an attack ad called Troops that used Kerry’s own words against him as well.
Trump seems to use accomplishment and contrast ads more than anything. In Movement, the ad captures the positive energy Trump portrays, his accomplishments, ending with “Donald will stop at nothing to Make America Great Again.” That reminds me of Jimmy Carter’s 1976 ad called South. The ad was filmed in the country making it feel relatable and homey. He gives us his accomplishments and ends the ad with his slogan “ A leader, for a change” (The living Room Candidate).
Overall, advertisements play a vital role in the candidate’s campaigns.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited:
ReplyDelete- Mazzo, Lauren. "This Powerful Ad for the Hillary Clinton Campaign Puts a Body Image Spin On the Presidential Race." Shape.com. N.p., 23 Sept. 2016. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
-Barbaro, Michael. "The Best (and Worst) Campaign Ads So Far." The New York Times. N.p., 6 Sept. 2016. Web. 2 Oct. 2016.
-Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
- Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE Publications, 2016.
The 2016 election has been one of constant mudslinging since the start of primary season; no candidates have been above employing ad hominem attacks at their opponents, attacks that are the candidates best weapons (Semiatin et al, 32).
ReplyDeleteOne may point to the campaign ads and tactics of the 2012 presidential election between incumbent President Obama and Republican nominee Mitt Romney; in which the incumbent campaign repeatedly asserted that Mr. Romney was not a man of the people, and was using unfair loopholes to avoid paying the tax rate as the inspiration for this election’s vat of back and forth attacks, but the seed was planted far earlier in the 1952 election when Democratic nominee Adlai Stevenson ran an ad against Dwight D. Eisenhower in which a woman sang, “'I’d rather have a man with a hole in his shoe than a hole in everything he says”(Harris and Burns) (www.livingroomcandidate.org).
Television airtime is expensive, and ads are difficult to make, so the televised ads are always short, making one or two persuasive arguments to voters about why they should or should not vote for a particular candidate (Semiatin et al, 31).
The 2016 presidential campaign has seen many negative ads so far, and expects many more. Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton has ran several ads attacking Republican nominee Donald Trump’s character, many being very successful in using his own words against him like in an ad titled “Who We Are” and again in an ad titled “Role Models” both of which assert that Mr. Trump’s past statements are contradictory to American values.
These ads are similar to those of the Obama campaign during the 2012 election, one in particular titled “Understands” in which an individual who lost their job thanks to Mr. Romney speaks of his hardships (www.livingroomcandidate.org).
That is not to say Mr. Trump has not released his fair share of negative ads, including one titled “Dead Broke” which insists that the Clinton family is corrupt and supports chauvinistic regimes (www.livingroomcandidate.org).
While Mrs. Clinton’s ads are almost exclusively on the attack, Mr. Trump has employed some issue ads more focused on policies (Semiatin et al, 33). In an ad titled “Two Americas Immigration” Mr. Trump’s campaign both attacks Mrs. Clinton for her sympathy towards immigrants and addresses Mr. Trump’s position on the issue. The ad is reminiscent of 2008 Republican nominee John McCain’s ad “Education” which attacked the then Democratic nominee Barack Obama accomplished nothing in improving public education, and that Mr. McCain could achieve more (www.livingroomcandidate.org).
Candidates also often release ads in response to attacks made by their opponents in an attempt to make opponents go back on their original statements (Trent et al, 125). In the 2012 election President Obama released an ad titled “Always” in which he asserted that Mr. Romney took his words out of context and was “flat out wrong”. Mrs. Clinton’s ads in 2016 quite often attack the former statements of Mr. Trump, but the Trump campaign has yet to release an ad in response.
Overall campaign ads can be very effective in swaying public opinion in both undecided and decided voters, and this year, ads have the potential to have a bigger effect than ever before.
Works Cited
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
John F. Harris, Alexander Burns. "Verdict: Obama Levels More Attacks." POLITICO. Politico, 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/, n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Now stay with me as I break the figurative “fourth wall” as I feel I must add a disclaimer to this assignment. I only saw two types of ads on The Living Room Candidate website’s section on the 2016 election: Attacks and ads about issues that end in attacks. The commercials in this election remind me of way meaner versions of the attack ads that cellular providers run against each other. That is why you will notice that I only address 2 types of ads ran by Trump and Clinton in this blog post, though I am sure I am wrong or else the assignment would have read differently.
DeleteAs Election Day draws closer and closer the ads of the 2016 campaign have gone from tame in the beginning to more negatively focused. We are now seeing a slew of negative ads from both sides as each candidate is trying to tarnish the image of the other. The use of negative advertisements is a difficult process, due to the fact that they may turn off voters. However “research suggests that negative ads increase cognitive understanding of issues and influence evaluations of opponents” (Trent et al. 136). This is why candidates continue to create negative ads, in order to foster the critical evaluations of the other candidate. For example Clinton released the “role models” advertisement. It was from the point of view of children watching Trump on television and how he was becoming a negative influence on them. This is similar to the famous “Daisy” LBJ used in 1964 in response to the nuclear arms policy of republican candidate Barry Goldwater. This ad’s depiction of a young girl falling victim to a nuclear strike plays to a very similar sentiment. The protection of the nations youth is a cause that everyone can support, so you tap into a universal sentiment of making this world better for their future. Trump’s ad named “movement” has aspects of the candidate virtues type ad. This type of ad helps “form a narrative directed toward an accomplishment, agenda or vision” (Devine 32). It demonstrates how he is an accomplished businessman, who will return business to America and create success for the working people. It plays on his outsider role in politics, similar to what Romney’s “moment” ad did in 2012. Romney states in the ad “I spent most of my life not in politics, but in the private sectors.” Romney like Trump is explaining that he has a comprehension of business through lifelong experience in that sector. This is a biographical ad that builds the economic virtues of each candidate, creating a more positive image in the viewer’s mind. Finally the response ad was seen in this campaign by Trump. Trump created an ad in response to the deplorable comment made by Clinton. The strategy here was to address how out of line Clinton’s commits were. It presented Trump supporters as victims of Clinton’s commits. Being presented as a victim was similar to the strategy of Bush in both his campaigns. We talked in class how Bush’s staff used how “simple” Bush appeared to their advantage. In the ad “Tell the Truth” the Bush campaign used Kerry’s strong words against him, making him appear like a hostile candidate. The Bush campaign took the high road and said that Kerry’s attacks were out of line. This type of reactive campaign strategy can help swing public opinion.
ReplyDeleteWork Cited
Devine, Tad., Semiatin,R. J., Graf, J. “Campaign Press Coverage-Changed Forever.” In Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3d. ed., Richard J. Semiatin, ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. 2016.
Trent, J. S., Friedenberg, R. V., Denton Jr., R. E. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Advertising is a big part of political campaigning. In Connecticut we don’t often see TV and radio advertisements as much as swings states do but every so often one will pop up on the TV randomly. It is very common to see opponents attacking each other in ads. The 2004 presidential campaign featured “some of the most negative ads since the 1962 Daisy Girl ad” (Trent et al, 122). This campaign season the ads that are going around are very negative and attack the opponent. Clinton has spent
ReplyDeleteIn the Trent book they state that these ads are in place to shine a negative light on the opponent and are “most successful when they motivate voters to vote against the opponent” (Trent et al, 121). Hillary Clinton ads (specifically the one featuring children and an elderly veteran watching Donald Trump speak negatively) use Trumps words against him. Clinton showcases some of his worst moments in interviews and on the campaign trail and then showcases how she would be a better role model for children. Donald Trump new TV uses Hillary Clinton speech about Trump supports being in the basket of deplorable against her.
After watching the ‘Daisy Girl’ ad I can see how Clinton might be taking some influence by the powerful message delivered by this ad. Clinton released an ad called “Just One”. The ad starts out with the narrator saying, “In times of crisis, America depends on steady leadership, clear thinking and calm judgment”. The ad continues with example of how Trump is none of those characteristics and ends off with a sound bit of him saying “bomb the shit out of them” in reference to ISIS. Both ads suggest that the opponent if elected might lead the US into a nuclear war (Semiatin, 35).
An example of a biographical ad and accomplishment ad for this campaign year is Clintons ‘Family Strong’ ad that features Clinton speaking directly about the lessons she learned from her mother. The narrator talks about her advocacy for children as well as how she stepped up and became secretary of state for the “man that defeated her because when your president calls you serve”. The ad finishes off with a photo of Bill and her holding their grandchild. Just like in Bush’s 1988 ad it humanizes the candidate and give the public a different image of the candidate. Donald Trump also released an ad showcasing how he is a successful businessman. He has 3 women talk about how great of a boss he is and how he is often misunderstood in the media. This showcases a softer image of the candidate because it is coming from people who know him personally and possible work for him (they did not specify who they were).
Clinton recreated Johnson’s 1962 “Confession of A Republican” ad. Clintons “campaign has effectively remade the same ad in its latest broadside against Trump on the eve of this years GOP convention” (Coffee). It is an effective ad because it shows that even prominent figures in the GOP don’t support Trump. I think it’s also significant that Bill Bogert was featured in both ads; it gives a nostalgic feel to some voters who saw the ad during the 60’s.
Overall this election is one for the books. It is incredibly clear that Clinton put a lot of effort into hiring a team of people to create effective and memorable ads to play.
Semiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Delete"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/, n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Ever since the 1980 election cycle, it has become increasingly prevalent that television is a dominant media source Americans use each day. Each decade that passes, it becomes more, “… apparent that political advertising on television is a central communication strategy for a growing number of those who seek to[sic] vote” (Trent et al. 111). “After decades of continuity, advertising is changing in terms of its content and especially its delivery” (Semiatin 27). Television is not the dominant media of youths. Young people do not watch television often and most do not have their own cable subscriptions for their residences [aside from their parent’s home]. Even when present, young individuals tend to prefer web and online-based media and entertainment for mobile devices. Hillary thus far seems to prefer using some televised commercials, continuing email solicitations, and Facebook statues [which have a reputation for being multiple paragraphs and avoided while scrolling]. Trump seems to prefer spending less money by implementing 30 or 60 second videos as opposed to televised commercials as well as extensively using Twitter [which is well-known for being brash and argumentative many times].
ReplyDeleteHistorically, ever since when John Adams ran for office, presidential campaigning has been a mudslinging contest enjoyed by all. This year is a highlighted version of what happens every time – except this time, both candidates being significantly less liked and less preferred. Both of their campaigns have been overwhelmingly negative as well. Hillary tends to compulsively point out how experienced and prepared she is to be the president. She goes on to call out Trump for being inappropriate, for offending others, or when he speaks with no specific knowledge on a subject. Trump tends to remind people how bad the establishment is, play into people’s dissatisfaction with our current failure of a president, and explain that he can bring about change. When bashing Clinton, he reminds the public how long she has been into power and what little, if any, positives she has to show for it.
When comparing the two to historic races, an easy comparison may be drawn between Donald Trump/Hillary Clinton with Ronald Reagan/Jimmy Carter in 1980, respectively. Although a little unfair to draw deep comparisons between Reagan and Trump, there are similarities between the two and definitely with their campaigns. Make America Great Again is a spinoff from Reaganomics and campaign focuses on distancing from the status quo of what has not been working [Carter]. Reagan was of course much more likable. Carter and Hillary both represented the status quo of what angers people, come off as weak in presidential acting, and were less trusted for change than their competitors. Again conversely, everyone says Carter was a really, really nice guy meanwhile I don’t think anyone has ever said she is super friendly.
Our two works from class, Trent and Semiatin, highlight many similarities between past campaigns with those occurring now. Semiatin on page 35 shows an advertisement run by Seth Magaziner stating how insider politics are ruining Rhode Island. This reminds me of today when Trump reminds the public that Hillary is the definition of status quo and what does not work. An advertisement for Joe Kennedy showcasing a fair tax code from Campaigns reminds me of how Trump describes his tax plan as a fair plan for all unlike Clinton’s, which shows favoritism (30). In 1972, Nixon showed the faults of Johnson’s plan and [like RR] stated there will be, “… peace through strength” (Trent et al 114). This reminds me of Hillary’s campaign videos showing bits and pieces of Trump stating controversial things in a damming sequence.
Works Cited
DeleteSemiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
Media has been one of the key components to this years Presidential election do to the ability to reach voters so easily. This week in our discussions we will focus in on the way Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton use ads to gain a jump in voters. Its not just the television anymore, it is all over social media, which allows Clinton and Trump to reach a larger audience in a shorter amount of time.
ReplyDeleteThe ads used in the respected campaign for the 2016 elections are just about all negative. After viewing “The Living Room Candidate,” I have realized that majority of the ads are targeted toward the opposition. Clinton appears to be doing it more then Trump mainly because of how easy Trump has made it for her. The Democratic Party is going back on videos of Trump when he was younger and using the words he used to say. We mostly see this in her “Mirrors” ad, where girls are looking into a mirror and Trump’s voice is in the background, making it seem as if he is directing it toward the girls. This strategy is called “Negative” advertising. According to Political Campaign Communication, by Judith S. Trent, “negative ads are specifically designed to attack the opponent. They may focus on the personal weakness, voting record, or prior public behavior of the candidate.” Clinton is focusing more on the “prior to public behavior,” because Trump has been known to dehumanize women in a sense. Never before have we seen a candidate such as Donald Trump, which makes it really difficult to compare to past elections. However, we did see this type of negative campaigning in Obama’s two elections. In 2008, 66 percent of Obamas general election ads were negative compared to 55 percent for McCain. “In 2012, on the Republican side, 92 percent of all republican ads included some sort of attack. "(Trent et al, 123). This method that Romney and Obama use is called an issues campaign. It seems as though our method of campaigning has become all about attacking each other rather then focusing on the virtues of their campaign plan. Another form of campaigning we see in this years ad planning is “Extolling the Candidates Virtue.” According to Political Campaigning, it is to provide information on her background, accomplishments, positions on issues, strengths of character and personality, family and associates define her. Hillary has focused more on targeting and attacking Trump, where as Trump has tried to do more of why he is a better fit to be President. We saw this in a sense with Michael Dukakis, he failed to act fast enough to explain why he would be the better fit over Bush and people ultimately believe it cost him the election. All of these key strategies benefit the candidates if followed properly and utilized to their full extent. Many experts believe it could win or lose an election by simply using media advertising to gain voters and to target a certain demographic by doing so.
Works Cited
Delete"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
"2016 Campaign Ad Archive | New Republic." New Republic. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
In an age where the Internet dominates and social media permeates households, political ads are still relevant as ever. However, new platforms of communication are available to exploit them. In this election, advertisements are disseminated on sites like Facebook, Twitter and even news media outlets. Television ads are still prevalent and resourceful in shaping the direction of the campaign. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge asserts that, “paid ads will likely remain the dominant communications media in campaigns through this next decade [and] alternative media will enhance the power of television advertising, but has not yet replaced it,” (Semiatin 28). This is especially true in our current election cycle where both candidates are so controversial. Advertisements can go a long way in changing the course of the election.
ReplyDeleteFrom what I have seen this year, the ads have been generally negative in tone. This may be a strategy utilized by both candidates to play upon the fact that neither one of them is well liked among the American people. The ad put out by the Clinton camp titled ‘Low Opinion’ is an excellent example of a negative ad. It is according to Political Campaign Communication by Trent et al, a “direct and personal attack meant to reduce the credibility of the opposing candidate while creating doubt, stir fear, exploit anxiety or motivate ridicule,” (Trent et al 117). Clinton attacks Trump using video clips of his own words to exploit his controversial comments on race and gender. It highlights only the negative aspects of Trump and draws no mention of Clinton besides her endorsement at the start. In comparison, in the 2004 election, Swift Boat Veterans for Truth released an attack ad against John Kerry. The ad depicts several veterans who served with Kerry making statements against his credibility and asserting he betrayed his country and fellow soldiers in war. This ad effectively stirred doubt and deteriorated his credibility as a veteran and on military issues as well.
It can also be said that this election cycle is extremely candidate-focused rather than issue-oriented; therefore, not many ads are targeted at specific issues. The comparative messages that Trent et al describes as “designed to attack the opponent but tend to focus on issue positions,” are utilized; however, with the candidate’s virtues as the issue focus. In Clinton’s ad “Mirrors” vulnerable images of young girls looking in the mirror overlapped with Trump’s own sexist comments played in the background made for an issue ad focused on his misogynistic mindset as a major problem. The powerful ad was able to subtly compare herself to Trump by asking ‘is this the president we want for our daughters?’. Attacking the candidate’s personality and virtues was also utilized in comparison ads in the 1988 election between President H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis. In the ad “Credibility” by the Bush camp, the central issues were also ignored and instead, Bush attacked his credibility and track record. In a sense, both of these ads took qualities of the candidates and made them into potential, major issues if they were elected – all while subtly implying they are the better candidates.
Villareal Continued.
DeleteWhile there are an overwhelming amount of negative ads this cycle, there are still some positive ads in order to make each candidate more relatable. Trump’s ad “Movement” clearly promotes his positive attributes and visions for America’s future. Political Campaign Communication claims that feel-good or positive advertisements “evoked feelings or experience, relied heavily on visual and aural effects, developed messages in which the candidate and a single issue were blended, and frequently attempted to associate a candidate with an affect-laden symbol that already had meaning for us,” (Trent et al 116). Trump did so by using a simple, inspirational and patriotic message with his aims to ‘Make America Great Again’. This type of ad is similar to President Regan’s ad in 1984 “Prouder, Stronger, Better” or better known as “It’s morning in again in America”. This ad is highly effective in invoking emotions and projecting an image of a restored and flourishing America. The pictures, music and description definitely contributed to a feel-good ad where it paints Reagan as the man behind the thriving country.
Through using these three types of ads as a vehicle for conveying the ideas and images of candidates, it is clear that the messages communicated can influence or alter the public’s perception. It is interesting to note that campaigns today are still utilizing and benefitting from the tactics of past candidates despite the significant shift in media.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
DeleteSemiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
2012. Accessed 3 Oct. 2016.
Advertising has been important in campaigns because they are an expensive, but simple way to craft a message. When describing why these ads are so important Tad Devine says, “Television is primarily a visual medium, and television ad makers look for strong visuals and credible sources of authority to make their cases,“ (27). These ads can be placed anytime and to direct audience to get a point across. There are different types of messages that each ad may have.
ReplyDeleteIn this year’s election there are mostly negative ads coming from both campaigns. Both candidates want to prove that their opponent is unfit for the job as President of the United States. According to Trent, “they focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate,” (Trent et al. 121). For both Trump and Clinton they are trying to prove that their opponent’s past actions disqualify them from being president. For Clinton, her ads highlight what Trump has said in the past, using his audio as his words against him. For Trump, the NRA made an ad that features a soldier who fought in Benghazi and he talks about how Clinton handles makes her unfit for the Presidency. You can compare these to Jimmy Carter’s negative ad from 1980 where he has people from California talk about when they don’t want Reagan to be president. It is more impactful to have people from Reagan’s home state that he governs say that they don’t think he can handle the job of President.
Neither Trump nor Clinton have ads that tell the story of why they should be president. Trump’s “Movement” ad may come across as telling the story of why he should be president, but I think it is just a bunch of buzzwords with no really clear message. It just talks about his success with the campaign, but doesn’t go into real detail. If you compare that with Kerry’s 2004 ad “Strength” it talks about how his prior experience leading this country in war will help him battle war and terrorism if he becomes president. The DNC talked a lot about Hillary’s experience making her fit for president but there aren’t any ads that are running proving that.
As for ads responding to attacks both candidates are using those. Trump immediately jumped out with an ad called “Deplorables” that calls out Clinton for insulting half of his supporters. Clinton also has an ad out called “Mirrors” responding to the attacks Trump has made on women in the past. He pokes fun of their looks using insulting and inappropriate language. In 1980, Jimmy Carter used this tactic to show the context of Reagan talking about nuclear proliferation which he denied saying in a debate. These ads are affective at responding to a comment and making it easy to respond to allegations immediately.
References:
DeleteSemiatin, Richard J., ed. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, 3rd ed. Los Angeles: Sage, 2016.
John F. Harris, Alexander Burns. "Verdict: Obama Levels More Attacks." POLITICO. Politico, 6 Sept. 2012. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Http://www.livingroomcandidate.org/, n.d. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Presidential candidates use political advertisements as positive outlets to easily reach viewers and to inform the public of their message. However political ads are also used on the contrary to publicly attack their opponent. “There are numerous functions of political ads: to create interest in a candidate; to build name recognition; to create, soften, or redefine an image; to stimulate citizen participation; to provide motivation for candidate support; to reinforce support; to influence the undecided; to identify key issues and frame questions for public debate; to demonstrate the talents of the candidate; and to provide entertainment (Trent 117).”This election season the presence of various tones is apparent with an increase of dirty ads hitting the airways. These ads tend to overshadow the advantageous ads broadcasting a candidate’s positive attributes. TV ads of Clinton and Trump are even being shown in Connecticut, a state that doesn’t necessarily show ads considering it’s a predictably blue state.
ReplyDeleteTV ads tend to strike a cord with voters, especially during this election, and we have seen this way more from the Clinton campaign than Trump’s, “These are ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position. They focus on the shortcomings (real or imagined) of the opponent rather than the attributes of the candidate. In the largest sense, the purpose of this kind of ad – no matter the variability of techniques employed – is to increase the opponent’s ‘negatives (Trent 121).” There are similarities between Clinton’s campaign and Ronald Reagan’s 1984 campaign. These two candidates wisely decided to play on the heartstrings of millions of Americans by using the innocence of children. Reagan uses the ad titled “Peace” with images of cute toddlers and a voice over conveying his message that under his presidency, our children and their future children will be safe with no mention of Mondale’s name. While Clinton on the other hand, put out an ad titled “Role Models” which included sound bites of scandalous things Trump has said throughout his campaign while children fearfully watched along on TV. She used Trump’s own words to attack him. These ads will resonate with its viewers and especially parents who now have to question, “Is this who we want to be the president of our children?” (The living Room Candidate).
Trump has used his ads to showcase his plan when he becomes president and how Clinton is the wrong option has shown in “Two Americas: Economy.” George W. Bush’s 2000 election broadcasted a similar ad titled “Priorities.” Disclosing their mission for the future. We also see similarities between Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Peace Little Girl (Daisy)” ad in 1964, showing a little girl counting petals off a flower and then when she says 10 a bomb blows us. At the end it says the stakes are too high for you to stay home, portraying Barry Goldwater as an extremist who will resort to using bombs when he feels need be. We see a similarity with Clinton’s ad “Unfit” showing footage of republicans saying that Trump is unfit to be in charge of nuclear missiles.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. N.p., n.d. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeletePaid political advertising has been the centerpiece of campaign communication in the United States for decades (Semiatin 27). Though we are seeing more and more web based advertising, television advertising is still the most powerful way to persuade large numbers of voters (Semiatin 28). Over the course of this election, we have seen numerous attack ads from both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. In many of her advertisements found on The Living Room Candidates website, Clinton is attacking Trump for “pitting people against each other,” for disrespecting veterans, and for having a low opinion of this country’s citizens. Trump’s advertisements have attacked Clinton for rigging the system against Americans, causing jobs to disappear and calling Trump supporters “deplorables.” I have also seen some cinema verité ads in which Clinton and Trump are filmed in real-life settings interacting with people. We are also seeing some independent ads for both Clinton and Trump. The National Rifle Association Political Victory Fund/political action committee has paid for some of Trump’s ads and Priorities USA Action, the largest democratic party superPAC has paid for some of Clinton’s ads.
ReplyDeleteThe ads in this election cycle are definitely in more of a negative tone. Negative messages are specifically designed to attack the opponent and focus on personal weaknesses, voting record, or prior public behavior of the candidate (Trent et al. 118). These extremely negative ads compare to what we saw in the 2004 election between Bush and Kerry, in what many scholars and journalists thought had been the worst the country had seen in terms of harshness, lying, fear appeals, and distortion (Trent et al. 123).The 2016 election is similar to the 2004 election because the candidates spent more time and money on commercials criticizing rather than talking about their virtues (Trent et al. 123).
There are several 2016 campaign ads that are similar to historical ads. One of the most recent ads in support of Trump is reminiscent of the infamous “Willie Horton” ad in the 1988 presidential race between Bush and Dukakis (Kamisar). The ad stated that Dukakis opposed the death penalty and allowed for murderers to have weekend passes. The new ad against Tim Kaine similarly criticizes him of defending “murderers” and “consistently protected the worst kinds of people” (Kamisar). A second example is how Hillary Clinton’s campaign recreated a 1964 “Confessions of a Republican” ad (Coffee). The original ad was created by Lyndon B. Johnson’s campaign in an effort to prevent Barry Goldwater from getting elected (Coffee). Clinton’s campaign took a very similar approach and used a lifelong republican saying he would not be voting for Donald Trump since he “scares” him. Another 1964 ad which compares to a 2016 ad the infamous Daisy ad. The ad, which features an innocent young girl picking petals off a daisy, suggests Johnson’s opponent, Barry Goldwater is too dangerous to run for president. This is similar to Clinton’s 2016 ad which states, “in times of crisis, America depends on steady leadership, clear thinking and calm judgment…all it takes is one wrong move.” Johnson’s ad states “the stakes are too high for you to stay at home.” Both of these ads suggest the opposite opponent cannot be trusted to be president because of how they will react in times of crises.
Works Cited:
ReplyDelete"The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are." The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016. .
Coffee, Patrick. "Clinton Campaign Recreates 1964 'Confessions of a Republican' Ad for the Trump Era." AdWeek. N.p., 18 July 2016. Web. 04 Oct. 2016. .
Kamisar, Ben. "RNC Hits Kaine for Defending Murderers." The Hill. N.p., 03 Oct. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. Print.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print.
For over five decades, political advertising has allowed candidates to communicate with voters unlike any other way (Devine 27). It is a successful way to capture the voter’s attention, especially closer to Election Day. Although political advertising is still prevalent, it has changed over time due to the advancement of technology. Overall, the advertisements during this particular election are quite negative and snarky in tone. It has been said that this election is all about picking the lesser of the two evils; Trump and Clinton are doing all that they can to prove that their opponent is the more evil candidate.
ReplyDeleteClinton aired an advertisement, “My Temperament” on September 27, which bashes Trump and informs the public on how unfit she believes he is. It begins with a clip from the debates of Trump explaining how his “strongest asset” is his temperament. The ad continues to play clips of Trump that show his claim could be incorrect. It is brilliantly manipulative. At the end, the text, “Donald Trump unfit to be president” was dramatic and bold; unfit was written in red, which enhanced the negative and serious tone. This is similar to Obama’s ad, “Fundamentals.” In it, there were examples written in bold letters showing how weak the economy was at the time. Following that was a clip of McCain saying the “fundamentals of our economy are strong.” Both advertisement are similar because they both display bold words on the screen proposing questions that leads viewers to thinking negatively about their opponent. These two advertisements demonstrate the use of dramatic music, bold text and repetitive clips to further enhance what the candidate is attempting to get across.
Additionally, Clinton’s advertisement “Watch” featured Michelle Obama, who is a very well respected and likeable woman. Michelle spoke about the impact that president’s make on children and that Hillary is the right choice. Having Michelle speak adds credibility and enhances Clinton’s image. In 2012 when Obama was running for reelection, Bill Clinton did the same in the ad, “the Clear Choice.” He spoke about how Obama is needed and the future impact he will make. Both Michelle and Bill looked at the camera and made it a very personal ad. It is evident how the Clinton and Obama campaigns had similar advertising strategies.
Furthermore, Clinton recreated an old and famous advertisement from 1964, “Confessions of a Republican.” Bill Bogert spoke on how he believes Republican Barry Goldwater to be dangerous (Coffee). At the end of the ad, he encouraged people to vote because the “stakes are too high” (Coffee). 52 years later, Bogert recreated the same ad and spoke out against Trump. This was also a brilliantly manipulative ad; Clinton transformed a notable ad and added credibility showing how even a well-known Republican believes that Trump is unfit. At the end of the most recent ad, Bogert expressed his concerns for the GOP and said he is “going to have to vote against this mistake on the 8th of November,” which is similar to the ad in 1964 encouraging people to vote for the candidate, instead of just the party (Coffee).
Most of Clinton and Trump’s advertisements this year exemplify how negative advertisements do indeed grab the attention of voters. According to research, attack advertisements are effective, despite how people may believe they will “turn voters off” (Trent et al 135). Clinton utilizes commercials more than Trump, especially when it comes to attacking him. Although it could make her look bad for talking negatively about her opponent, she is pointing his flaws to prove to the undecided voters that she is the better choice. On the contrary, Trump is doing the same by pointing out why Hillary is unfit and “crooked,” but utilizes social media more.
Continued:
DeleteWorks Cited:
Devine, Tad. “Paid Media in Campaigns- Now and in the Future.” Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2016 Print.
“Chart: Here's Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV and Radio Ad Spending Right Now.” Advertising Age. 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Coffee, Patrick. “Clinton Campaign Recreates 1964 ‘Confessions of a Republican’ Ad for the Trump Era.” AdWeek. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
“Presidential Campaign Commercial 1952-2016” The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Sciullo, Maria. “Are Presidential Election TV Ads Effective Anymore?” Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. 25 Sept. 2016. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
“2016 Campaign Ad Archive.” New Republic. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
James Conway
ReplyDeletePO348 Blog
10/02/2016
It’s pretty crazy to see, over the last thirty or forty years, just how prevalent televised political advertisements have become. Today, whether someone is running “for a seat in the United States Senate or for a char on the Cincinnati city council, it seemed that every candidate was using television spot advertising.” (Trent, 111) Over the last few months, this Presidential Election’s candidates have been taking advantage of a specific kind of ad: the ones condemning/attacking/questioning their opponent. It seems as if literally every single week, the Clinton campaign is releasing ads that are focusing on the temperament of Donald Trump, the hateful and racist things he has said in the past or his lack of experience in foreign relations. Though it is repetitive, it has consistently helped Clinton expose Trump for things he has either denied, lied about or tried to cover up. This constant attack on his trustworthiness is important for many reasons, but maybe the most important reason is, that Trump is attacking Hillary Clinton for many of the same things. Trump’s advertisements on television this campaign season have attempted to make Hillary look like nothing more than “just another crooked politician”. These ads attack her trustworthiness as well by focusing on the Benghazi situation and the emails scandal, hoping to completely counter any progress made in convincing voters Trump could not be trusted.
In addition, with Hillary Clinton once again being part of the Presidential race, we are starting to see the media focus on things that no male candidate would ever have analyzed. The clothes she wears, the amount of make-up she has on, the style her hair is in are all things that are thoroughly examined this election and yet, were never talked about or judged during Obama vs. Romney or Bush vs. Gore. When the media focuses so much of their time on this “gender bias”, it can really hurt a candidate depending on what it being written about them. In 2008, it could be argued that it really hurt Clinton and I am really hoping that is not again the case in 2016. These advertisements are having such major impacts because, as Semiatin states on page 28 of “Campaigns On the Cutting Edge”,
“Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern U.S. politics. That is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than on anything else.” (Semaitin, 28)
The Semiatin books also discusses maintaining the message of the campaign through all advertisements and this is something that I believe Clinton has done better than Trump. While yes, Trump does pitch making America great again at the end of nearly all of his ads, the non-specificity of policies or plans during this pitch make it irrelevant. Clinton will have stories of Trump personally taking advantage of regular people in her ads and then pitch a policy or plan that will help make America “Stronger Together”. In a way, the advertisement strategy of both candidates somewhat sums up their campaigns as a whole: Trump’s are angry and unorganized whereas Clinton’s are methodical and responsive. Trump seems to use advertisements that do one thing: attack people. Clinton initiated her campaign with some biographical advertisements that show her rise through politics from an early age and show just how dedicated she was to fighting for women and children as a young woman. This was very smart as she was at first campaigning against Senator Bernie Sanders, a man who has become beloved by America’s youth for his service to them both in the past and in the present. Now, when going up against Trump, Clinton’s ads are beginning to look a lot like the later ads of Obama’s 2012 campaign. The advertisements where the states something along the lines of “There is one clear choice”, as a way to further cement themselves as the right candidate while at the same time, subtly attacking the opponent. In 2004, Bush released an ad titled “Tell the truth” which attacked John Kerry for lying about releasing hateful advertisements. While not quite the same context, they are easily comparable to Trump ads in this campaign as it shows a clip of the Democratic candidate lying and then follows up with proof they were not telling the truth. Clinton has done this to Trump as well but it has seemed to be more effective against Hillary as she has lied about more controversial topics. Finally, in both 2000 and 2004, Bush focused on the dangers of the world we live in in ads. He discussed terrorists in the Middle East as well as other foreign threats and one can clearly see why. Clinton and Trump have done the same thing and that is because the President is supposed to not only lead the people, but protect them. Trump’s followers believe it really is that easy to just “carpet bomb the shit out of the Middle East” and have all our problems solved. Clinton supporters are excited for her to “finish off ISIS” but whichever way people lean, they are super focused on protecting themselves, their children and their homes from foreign enemies. If Trump or Clinton cannot convince the nation they will keep us safe, both will lose numbers by election day.
DeleteIn the end, it is clear just how much of an impact televised political advertisements can have on a modern Presidential campaign. With still about a month or so to go, I would expect the ads to do nothing but continue and would not be surprised if both candidates were saving their best televised ads for just before election day.
Delete"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
In this year’s presidential campaigning process, we’ve seen both candidates use advertising as direct attacks on each other, mainly trying to demean their opponent. In Political Campaign Communication, the authors note of four phases that political advertising goes through and it would appear that this election has focused on mainly one phase, Phase 3. “Phase 3 is the time for Attack Spots (ads that are direct and personal attacks meant to reduce the credibility of the opposing candidate- create doubt, stir fear, exploit anxiety, or motivate ridicule) (152). While their ads have had mixtures of the other phases within them (argumentative spots,ID spots and visionary spots), it’s been a very attack focused election so far. In looking at the majority of Hillary Clinton’s ads, she uses Trump’s words against him by playing audio of his voice in the background and tries to convey him overall as an awful human being in comparison. For example, in one of Hillary’s ads titled “Role Models”, they play some of Trump’s more controversial speeches and statements while keeps the visuals of children watching and listening to convey him as a bad role model future generations. It seems the majority of Clinton’s ads could be categorized definitely as assault ads due to the way they assault “the character, motivations, associates or actions of an opponent.” (153) But this type of attack ad isn’t anything brand new. Back in the 2004 election, we saw John Kerry produce several ads (such as in “Old Tricks”) in which he used recordings of their opponent in a negative manner to put them down. As well as attack ads, they’re also comparative in the way she’s always focusing on Trump’s controversial stances on certain subjects to then make her own views more clear and seem better by comparison. In looking at Trump’s ads, we don’t see much of an overall difference compared to Clinton. In his ad titled, “Dead Broke”, Trump not only attacks Hillary, but her husband Bill as well, as he tries to promote them as being corrupt and challenges their ethics. In turn, he uses the comparative method to promote himself and his overall slogan of “Making America Great Again”. In looking at this type of comparative based advertising, one could compare it to Ronald Reagan’s campaign back in the 1980 election. In it, Reagan used ads attacking Jimmy Carter’s presidency, specifically using the rate of inflation that occurred during his first years and then promoted his success as governor to further this form of comparative type of advertising. Unfortunately for Clinton, her ads have been very assault focused, while Trump has produced some ads where Clinton isn’t even mentioned which are more slogan based. Throughout his campaign, Trump has pressed his slogan to “Make America Great Again” and he tries to push this visually through some of his ads (ex. “America Soaring”). In this more type of accomplishments and agenda’s ad, Trump heavily promotes your everyday hard-working American as well as give a sense of patriotism in saying by saying such lines as “It’ll be American steel, that rebuilds our inner cities. It’ll be American steel that sends our skyscrapers soaring.” Trying to give off this sense of patriotism isn’t something new either for political ads. Right back in 2008, when Obama was first running, he released such ads like “Country I Love” where he promoted his previous agenda’s and promoted the sense of change he wanted to bring to a country he grew up in and loved. Similarly, we see Trump try to create this same sense for rebuilding America and bringing change.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
Delete"The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are." The Living Room Candidate - Commercials - 2016 - Who We Are. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016. .
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. Print.
Political advertisements are crucial to a candidates campaign. During this election, I have noticed more dirty, negative, “ hitting below the belt advertisements. Journalist’s Recourse states: “A September 2016 report from the Wesleyan Media Project shows that 53 percent of ads that aired over the previous month were negative — compared to 48 percent of ads that ran during a comparable period of the 2012 campaign. The report notes that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump have taken different approaches with their advertising: “Just over 60 percent of Clinton’s ads have attacked Trump while 31 percent have been positive, focusing on Clinton. Trump, on the other hand, has by and large used contrast ads, which both promote himself and attack Clinton. He has aired no positive ads” (Wihbey, John). Negative advertisements have been proven successful in previous years. President Lyndon Johnson released one of the most famous, controversial, emotional campaign advertisement in history. “Daisy Girl”, a video depicting an innocent girl counting the petals off of a daisy, and then viewers witness a horrendous explosion, was emphasizing to viewers that Johnson’s opponent threatened the future of children and the country. Johnson won by a landslide in that election. Political Campaign Communication explains that “ these (negative) advertisements are designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position” (Trent et al, 121) The use of news footage and documentary clips can help the candidate portray an image of authenticity. For example, Clinton’s latest campaign advertisement portrayed video clips from her entire career about her efforts in helping children. On the other hand, the candidates words have been used against them, just like in Trump’s advertisement “Deplorable” based off of what Clinton compared over half of Trump supporters as “deplorables”.
ReplyDelete(Continued):
ReplyDeleteWith that being said, the negative advertisements this campaign season have been noticeably in favor of the words and phrases that the candidates have said. Clinton’s campaign created a powerful advertisement showing young girls staring in the mirror and the voice of Trump speaking poorly of women played in the background. The Living Room Candidate says that these types of commercials and advertisements are effective because of self-incrimination. The Obama campaign used the words of John McCain a day after the 500 point drop in the Dow-Jones average, when McCain stated that “Our economy is strong”. Obama used that line in his next advertisement to self incriminate McCain over his own words. From what I have seen, there have been no positive political advertisements supporting the opposite candidate. This years election absolutely has no positive advertisements. Trump and Clinton are playing a game that children would play, who could say more mean things about one another. Words that candidates say and phrases they say during the campaign is so crucial to their overall image. A final example is when George W. Bush used the words of Al Gore in a 2000 election advertisement, portraying Gore’s sarcasm, and “flip-flop” phrases and antics.
Previous elections and especially this years campaign have proved how far candidates will go in order to expose the opposing candidate. Whether with the words or actions they have previously done, or highlighting flawed characteristics, advertisements spare no feelings.
Work Cited
ReplyDeleteTrent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Wihbey, John. "Negative Political Ads and Their Effect on Voters: Updated Collection of Research - Journalist's Resource." Journalists Resource. N.p., 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate - Type of Commercial - Backfire." The Living Room Candidate - Type of Commercial - Backfire. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
This year’s presidential election is without a doubt the most extraordinary one for several reasons. Clinton and Trump are the most disliked candidates to ever run for president, and that means that they are both really fighting to get more votes. While there are various ways to reach out to a candidate’s target demographic such as rallies, emails, surrogates; one way that has proven efficient over the decades is political advertising. Presidential candidates have utilized television to broadcast political ads that will help their campaign for decades, starting in 1952 with the Eisenhower vs. Stevenson elections. But although political advertising has remained to be a powerful tool for candidates, the way it has been used has rapidly changed throughout the years.
ReplyDeleteIn this year’s campaign, negative ads have definitely taken over the TV screens, with candidates attacking each other’s stands on issues as well as on more personal levels. Looking at the political ad types laid out on our textbooks, one ad type that constantly displays is attack ads that condemn and question the opponent. As Trent et al states in our textbook, “attack advertising has been a prominent strategy for all manner of political candidates from 1952 to the present” (Trent et al. 126) and this is certainly for the reason that this method achieves the goal. An attack ad that the Clinton campaign put out this year called “Unfit” compiles comments made by political commentators orienting on the idea that Trump doesn’t have what it takes to be president. It also shows footage of Trump himself making comments that proves this point. Compared to the attack ad “Ice Cream” from the Johnson campaign in 1964, this ad is much more fast-paced, more graphic and contains less information. If the Ice Cream ad was launched today, it would virtually be a failure because audience would lose interest. I think that the pace in an ad is a major chance that can be observed through the history of political advertising. As Tad Devine suggests, “It’s simply a faster world…TV advertising will have to adjust to a more rapid pace of delivery” (Semiatin, 38) and the biggest reason for this is that now, TV is competing with other forms of communication such as the Internet, smart phones and social media. Ads are more graphic to capture the voters’ attention that is shorter than ever today.
When it comes to issue ads, the Trump campaign’s newly released ad called “Motherhood” features Ivanka Trump talking about Trump’s policy on maternity leave for women. Compared to the issue ad by Clinton campaign in 1996 named “Surgeon”, which features children and then explains Clinton’s stand in college education fees. These ads both manage to reach an emotional level because the subject is not as rigid as taxes for instance.
Another type that could be seen in this year’s elections is virtue ads. The Clinton campaign’s ad called “Watch” features Michelle Obama talking about why she supports Clinton and focuses on her characteristics that would make her a good president. The Kerry campaign’s ad in 2004 “Three Minutes” similarly features a supporting political figure, John Edwards, emphasizing that Kerry is the best fit for president and praising his qualities. Both ads also employ images of the candidates interacting with the public, and The Kerry ad also features pictures of Kerry’s friends from the military, which adds a humanizing effect, much like the images showing Clinton interacting with children in her ad.
Works Cited
Delete"2016 Campaign Ad Archive | New Republic." New Republic. N.p., n.d. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
2012. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.
Similar to ads in the past, there is a negative tone to most, basically calling into question the other candidate’s ability and past dealings. Trump boasts about his past business dealings while Clinton hits closer to home with more of an emotional appeal. In terms of where each candidate stands, Clinton has spent significantly more than Trump (Wheaton). However, Johnson’s expenses are also quite high even though most people are still talking about the other two candidates.
ReplyDeleteJohnson’s 1964 “Daisy Girl” advertisement has gone down, “without question, [as] the best known of the negative concept ads aired only once, and it never even mentioned the opponent’s name” (Trent et al 113). Children are often used to highlight the future of the country, while also pulling on voters’ heartstrings. Johnson’s 1964 campaign also advertised children in two ads entitled “Poverty” and “Ice Cream.” Although Clinton’s “Role Model” advertisement does not come close the magnitude of Johnson’s, it is still impactful. Clinton’s team chose to highlight some of Trump’s worst moments and puts children at the center, as if they were watching this instead of adult voters. Overall, using children is effective, but also a bit of a low blow at times because it is quite easy to take things out of context to fit the desired narrative.
Trump’s “Movement” ad calls him a “builder, businessman, and success,” and this seems to be one of the one with the least negative message when looking at his whole barrage of other ads. In comparison, in the 1980 campaign, Reagan ran an ad, “Reagan’s Records” which detailed his dealings in office. Reagan’s was much more detailed than Trump’s, which boasted more buzzwords and images. Although both are about the candidates’ records, they do end up telling very different stories to different audiences. Due to our present accessibility to a great deal of content, everything must be that much more eye catching and impactful. However, in the past, as with the 1980 campaign, Reagan’s team went for a more detailed and explanatory story. Two different approaches, but both aim to better provide a resume of sorts rather than a more traditional “everyman” working appeal that is often used.
Candidates seem to often use the appeal of family. Clinton ran an ad, “Dorothy,” in 2015 where she talks about her mother Dorothy, which helps voters relate to her. Similarly, Trump’s daughter ran an ad titled “Motherhood” where she makes Trump seem more appealing to mothers and women in general. Past candidates have also used this tactic to seem more relatable. Nancy Reagan was in an ad in 1980 where she defends her husband against Carter’s accusations that he was a warmonger. Similarly, in Nixon’s 1972 campaign, Mamie Eisenhower is used. There is an appeal to using female figures to present the traditional male candidate in a better light. However, Clinton seems to throw a wrench in this idea because she uses the appeal of her own experiences as a mother instead of looking to someone else. Overall, I think it is interesting to track the gender roles throughout campaign history and perhaps how that might change now and in future elections.
Works Cited:
“Chart: Here's Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV and Radio Ad Spending Right Now.” Advertising Age. 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
“Presidential Campaign Commercial 1952-2016” The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
“2016 Campaign Ad Archive.” New Republic. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th edition. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman and Littlefield, 2016. Print.
Although there are new mediums for advertising, “Campaign television ads are the most powerful tool in modern U.S. politics. That is why major statewide and national campaigns spend more on paid media than on anything else.” (Devine 28) Political ads are one way that a candidate can “sling some mud” at their opponent without actually saying it outright. Although often voiced over by the candidate themselves, the statements in the advertisement are being made in a setting that is not a rally with a podium, and there are often different on screen graphics which depict the opponent more than the candidate who is running the ad. Visual effects are used to alter the images or video, further adding to the tone of the message.
ReplyDeleteAfter looking at some of this year’s ads online, I began to notice that some of the harsher comments in this election have come from advertisements on various mediums, versus at rallies and in speeches. Especially in this 2016 election, there has been a heavy emphasis on advertisements on Twitter, Snapchat, Facebook, YouTube, etc. I believe this social media transition is a positive emphasis, as states such as Connecticut, which is not a swing state, will not see many ads on television.
Even though as I aforementioned some of the messages in these ads are negative, this transition (more of an expansion) to advertising on more than just television is a positive one, as media consultant agencies are forced to grow and expand their offerings. “Media consultants no longer make ads for just television and radio; they also make them for a new screen—the internet.” (Devine 36) These media consultants write, direct, produce, and deliver the advertisement. They connect with producers, editors, and other crews, further expanding the impact of the changing times.
Devine lists different categories of advertisements that political candidates can use, and one of those categories I believe can categorize almost every ad we’ve seen this election year. The biographical ads category, according to Devine, contain a window in to the candidates lives so that they can become more relatable and understandable, assist in creating the framework of the campaign, strike a personal cord with viewers, and show a vision that is personal to the candidate. Due to the personality of both candidates, I think that this year they’ve really tried to bring personality and attitude faults to light, over bringing faults in policy to light. The ad “Role Models” released by Clinton for this 2016 election features children sitting in front of a television screen, in their natural habitat, watching Donald Trump talk. Of course, instead of making it about policy, Clinton and her team picks different sound bytes from Trump that are of him saying things that confuse children in his typical Trump vocal manner.
Devine, Tad. "Paid Media in Campaigns" Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. E-book. 04 Oct. 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Web. 04 Oct. 2016.
With new media and technology there are so many platforms that the candidates can reach out to. Yet they still continue to put most of their campaign money towards advertising. Semiatin states, “But until statewide and national campaigns start spending up to half or more of their resources in areas other than television advertising, it is difficult to dispute that paid ads are viewed by most consultants and candidates as being more powerful than any other tool in a campaign’s arsenal”(28). This year there is one candidate that has barely spent anything on advertising. Donald Trump has different techniques to gaining popularity in the polls and advertising is definitely not the main focus. Trumps campaign is unorthodox and most normal politicians would need advertising. As his infamous controversial impact died down he eventually resorted to advertising. Journalists believed that the 2004 election was the dirtiest one yet because of the “harshness, fear appeals, lying, and distortion in the attack spots sponsored by many of the 527 organizations” (Trent 159). This election may surpass that with mostly all of the campaign ads being negative attacks on opponents. It is difficult to find an advertisement in Hillary Clinton’s campaign where Donald Trump isn’t mentioned or featured. Trump is definitely fighting back with advertisements focusing on her lies and corruption.
ReplyDeleteWhen comparing to historical ads Clinton’s are very similar to Johnson’s in 1964. They both focus on using children to touch the heart strings of the American people. Johnson’s infamous “Daisy Girl” ad will forever disturb the nation because of its realness. Majority of the voters had children then and the advertisement really hit home. Clinton’s “mirrors” commercial will have a similar affect in that it uses children, specifically young girls, and touches upon their future challenges to concern the American people. Clinton channels Johnson in other advertisements like “Confessions of a Republican”. She uses the same republican, Bill Bogert, to explain why he could not vote for a candidate who is that irresponsible. He repeats the same lines from 1964, “this man scares me”. This advertisement is definitely trying to pursue republican voters showing them it’s okay to vote for the other side (Coffee).
Trump’s advertisements are very similar to Mitt Romney’s from 2012. They are similar in format and content. Using interviews and statements made by Clinton with overlaying negative words and phrases. Specifically focusing on her lies and her foundation he tries to show the American people she cannot be trusted. Like most historical advertisements the current campaign focuses more on qualifications than actual policy. This will be common with every political campaign, “From the surfacing through the general election stage, the focus was the character and image of the candidates rather than the identification and discussion of “burning issues” facing the electorate” (Trent 151). Both candidates are trying to paint an image of the other. Trump as the scary, low temperament, bigot and Clinton as the lying, corrupt, politician. Politician in this case Trump is using as a negative term claiming that people are tired of politicians. It will be interesting to see what comes out of each respecting offices next. Will the campaign stay negative or will they focus more on their own candidate’s positive qualities getting closer to the election?
Trent, Judith S.; Friedenberg, Robert V.; Denton, Robert E., Jr. (2011-08-16). Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices (Communication, Media, and Politics) (p. 151-159). Rowman & Littlefield Publishers. Kindle Edition.
DeleteSemiatin, Richard J.; Semiatin, Richard J. (2016-01-29). Campaigns on the Cutting Edge (p. 28). SAGE Publications. Kindle Edition.
“Presidential Campaign Commercial 1952-2016” The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016
Coffee, Patrick. “Clinton Campaign Recreates 1964 ‘Confessions of a Republican’ Ad for the Trump Era.” AdWeek. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
This political season has been home to an unparalleled amount of negative advertisements directed at both candidates. Both candidates are viewed as widely unfavorable, within their own parties and across the nation. Anybody who has been in a swing state in the past few months will have experienced a bombardment of ads, it is clear that “if television ads are the most powerful force in politics, then negative ads may be a campaign’s most powerful weapon” (34 Devine). There is nothing soft or subtle about these ads either, neither candidate is pulling their punches. In many cases these attack ads are put out by PACs and are not connected directly to the campaigns. Many of Clinton’s ads are directed towards moderate and right leaning voters. In these ads she refrains from discussing her own policy and ideals and instead attacks Trump on his extreme views. These ads aim to paint Trump as dangerous or inappropriate and pull Republican voters away from Trump, stealing their vote. This strategy is similar to that used by Lyndon Johnson in his ad Confessions of a Republican, where he depicted his opponent Barry Goldwater as an extremist and a danger to America. This was a common narrative used against Goldwater and was also seen in his infamous “Daisy” ad, which hinted at a Goldwater presidency causing nuclear annihilation. Both of these ads can be seen on the website “The Living Room Candidate”. Trump has preyed on Clinton’s lies, her history of legal problems, and her shortcomings as Secretary of State. He also uses traditional republican rhetoric such as the “take your guns” line that was so often used against Obama. Clinton meanwhile attacks Trump for his vulgarity, his temperament, his inexperience, and his presumed inability to safely lead the United States. Both candidates have used a “backfire” type ad, in which they use their opponent’s words against them. Trump ads have featured Hillary testifying about Benghazi, Hillary talking about her emails, and various other negative talking points. Pro Clinton ads have used clips of Trump acting disrespectful, such as when he mocked a disabled reporter. These types of ads were first seen in the 1956 election being used against General Eisenhower. The Clinton campaign has released sever ads with children, however they use them in two different ways. Some ads show Hillary’s history working as an advocate for children and paint her in a positive light. However, Clinton has also used children in attack ads, showing children watching Trump’s vulgar remarks on television and asking parents to consider if their children should look up to Trump. It is ironic that this campaign is so focused on attack ads considering that the 1996 Clinton campaign was considered until now to be “the most negative campaign in the history of presidential elections” (Trent et al 122). However not all of Clinton’s ads are negative; more so then her opponent, she seems to focus on her strengths and her strong resume in an attempt to leave Americans believing that she has what it takes to be Commander in Chief.
ReplyDeleteWorks Cited
DeleteTrent, Judith, S, et al. Political Campaign Communication. 8th ed., New York, Rowman and Littlefield, 2016.
Semiatin, Richard, J, editor. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. 3rd ed., Thousand Oaks, SAGE
Publications, 2016.
"The Living Room Candidate." Museum of the Moving Image, www.livingroomcandidate.org/commercials/
2012. Accessed 2 Oct. 2016.
ReplyDeleteThe Framework of political T.V ads have changed a lot since the first ones in the 1952 presidential election. In election cycles over the last couple of decades, attack ads have become more frequent and more vicious than ever. In many cases, candidates campaign leaders have favored attack ads over any other kind. For example, Hillary Clinton’s current campaign has run more ads condemning and attacking Donald Trump than she has talking about her own ideals and virtues. And Donald Trump is not far behind in the number of attack ads he has had on Secretary Clinton. Overall the tone of ads in this election cycle has been incredibly negative. This election is certainly one of the most unique elections in American history, but it is no surprise that the theme of political ads is recurring. In 2004, both John Kerry and George W. Bush ran an onslaught of attack ads that was nearly unprecedented. Neither of them ran very many ads that didn’t mention the other candidate. They both also used quite a bit of fear as a strategy in their political ads. Kerry wanted to frighten American voters about Bush when it came to the decline of manufacturing jobs in the U.S and low salaries for American workers during Bush’s first term (Trent el at 123). The fear tactic can be seen in the 2016 election cycle in the Clinton campaign. In many of her attack ads on Donald Trump like the ad “Sacrifice”, she uses a lot of scary music and sound bites of Trump saying shocking things about American veterans or shooting people. Another type of ad that we see come up are ads of important demographics of voters talking to the camera about the candidates. In Kerry’s 2004 ad “Real People” a woman from Louisiana how is a baptist was interviewed talking about why she changed her party affiliation to Democrat. Most southern baptists vote republican so it was a shot for Kerry’s campaign to try and get more to vote democrat. In a Trump ad by the NRA called “Mark Oz Geist,” a man who was in Benghazi also talks directly to the camera about what a poor decision it would be to vote for Hillary Clinton. This ad is supposed to help earn the vote of veteran and current members of the military with a first hand reminder of the Benghazi scandal. The Trump campaign also has an ad similar to Reagan’s most famous ad “Prouder, Better, Stronger.” Reagan’s ad displayed happy American’s working and going about their daily lives while being smoothly narrated. Trumps ad “America Soaring” has some of the same themes. Images and clips of American’s working and raising a flag. These ads have overarching messages and are often meant to appeal to heart of Americans watching them.
Work Cited
"The Living Room Candidate." The Living Room Candidate. Web. 02 Oct. 2016.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton, Jr. Political Campaign Communication, 8th ed. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2015.
This year, there are a lot of advertisements that have little positive context. Many are seen attacking Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump in each other’s ads. Granted, we have been seeing more and more negative ads since 2000 and fewer positive ads (Journalist’s Resource). A large factor in this year’s political advertising is the money spent on advertising from the presidential candidates. Hillary has spent around $145 million on advertisements, while Donald Trump has only spent around $4 million on advertisements (Diaz). My assumption as to why Donald Trump is spending less is because of his use of social media to convey his message to his support base.
ReplyDeleteWhat poses as a challenge to Hillary Clinton this presidential election is being able to convey herself positively through her advertisements with gendered-bias. According to Trent et. al., women face language differences that could be consequential for the female candidate but not for her male counterpart. She has been showcasing cinema verité ads (mostly web) that display her character beyond her aesthetics. Showcasing her experience as a lawyer, senator of New York and first lady beside Bill Clinton in order to try to dispel initial gender bias. Additionally, Hillary Clinton has taken advantage of the words used by Donald Trump to launch attack ads and comparison ads. The Role Models and Mirror’s advertisements best display Hillary’s choice of attack ads against Donald Trump. In particular, the Mirrors ad best attacks the gender bias found in political campaigning. By showing young women looking at themselves in front of a mirror whilst playing audio of Donald Trump criticizing women and making sexually suggestive comments created a lot of media traction.
However, it’s not like Donald Trump has used Hillary Clinton’s words against her as well. Donald Trump has been using Comparison ads to pit Hillary Clinton’s words against her. Trump would often show positive affirmations of his supporters and him on the campaign with a voice over (often times not his voice) in these comparison ads as well. The interesting thing about Trumps advertisements is that he did not really begin producing advertisements or endorsing advertisements for his campaign until after the republican national convention. Prior to the convention, Political Action Campaigns that supported Donald Trumps campaign had created the ads.
Compared to previous campaigns, Hillary Clintons Mirrors and Role Models ad are similar to Bill Clintons Surgeon political Ad. All three advertisements include children trying to seek positive affirmations of themselves. Bill Clinton’s ad focused on education, while Hillary Clinton’s focused on ad focused on the words influencing the future of our children. On the other hand, Donald Trump, rather the GOP, has recently taken inspiration from the infamous Willie Horton/Revolving Door advertisement. Yesterday, the Republican National Committee released a (very) negative advertisement against Tim Kaine prior to the vice presidential debate that airs tonight (Tesfaye). It’s too early to tell if there will be an impact on Hillary Clinton’s campaign or the debate.
With only 34 days left in the election, the political advertisements are only beginning to get nasty. Will Hillary Clinton release a negative ad similar to the 3am Call advertisement against Donald Trump? Will Trump spend more on advertisement prior to the election? Could the Democratic National committee pull a similar move creating a negative ad against either Donald Trump or Mike Pence? We can only wait and see.
Works Cited
DeleteDiaz, Ann-Christine. "Chart: Here's Where Trump, Clinton and Johnson Stand on TV and
Radio Ad Spending Right Now." Advertising Age. AdAge, 16 Sept. 2016. Web. 03 Oct. 2016.
"Negative Political Ads and Their Effect on Voters." Journalists Resource. Journalists
Resource, 30 Sept. 2016. Web. 3 Oct. 2016.
Tesfaye, Sophia. "RNC Goes Alt-right: GOP’s Chief Strategist Promotes New “Willie
Horton-style” Attack against Tim Kaine." Salon.com. Salon, 3 Oct. 2016. Web.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign
Communication: Principles and Practices. 8th ed. New York: Praeger, 2016. Print
Political advertising has become one of the most important, and most expensive, aspects of campaigns over the years as new media has emerged. In chapter 3, “Paid Media in Campaigns – Now and in the Future,” of Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, Tad Devine explains the importance of political ads, “For more than five decades, political advertising has been the most powerful vehicle for a candidate to deliver an unfettered message directly to voters (Devine, 27).” Ads have the power to reach millions of voters; candidates can ‘speak’ to them through their ads in a matter of minutes. With technology where it is today, ads have begun to see new platforms such as twitter, Instagram, and other social media outlets. The expanded platform of ads has created even more importance.
ReplyDeleteIn Political Campaign Communication, Trent et al explains the functions of political ads, “There are numerous functions of political ads: to create interest in a candidate; to build name recognition; to create, soften, or redefine an image; to stimulate citizen participation; to provide motivation for candidate support; to reinforce support; to influence the undecided; to identify key issues and frame questions for public debate; to demonstrate the talents of the candidate; and to provide entertainment (Trent et al 117).” Throughout this campaign we have seen a variety of ads by each candidate. The majority seems to be the type to put the opposing candidate in a negative light. In Campaigns on the Cutting Edge, Devine explains the most prevalent forms of ads to be, “biographical, issue, accomplishment/vision, and negative,” (Devine, 33). Negative ads seem to have a bigger effect on voters than any other type. For example, in 1964, Johnson put up a negative ad about Goldwater that only ran once, but is said to have played a huge impact on voting.
Political ads have always been important in campaigns and have always had similar themes and forms. However, today, with the expansion of media, ads, no matter the type have become vital. We’ve talked about the importance of social media in this election, and when it comes to ads, it is even more important.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print
Semiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. Print.
The presidential race this year has become the least presidential debate we might have ever seen. The candidates focus less on policy and more on the opponents personal qualities or personal life. This has resulted in political ads that are more negative in tone. They are a lot of attacks ads and less biographical, issue, or accomplishment ads. Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton are basically going at each other.
ReplyDeleteAttacks ads are pretty easy when both candidates are arguably the least liked candidates of all time. In Political Campaign Communication it is said that, “These are ads designed to place the opponent in an unfavorable light or in an uncomfortable position” (Trent et al. 121). Hillary Clinton released an “Unfit” ad this year, which basically attacked Trump’s temperament. The video has talking heads asking how we could give the nuclear codes to a man like him. They literally have a clip of Trump waving his arms and shouting looking like a complete looney-bin. This is very similar to “Riady” ad by Dole in 1996 attacking Bill Clinton. The ad shows clips of Bill Clinton saying one thing, then it freeze frames and the narrator reads a fact saying the opposite of Bill. The ad focused on questioning Clinton’s character and portrayed him as untruthworthy – very similarly to Trump. Both ads attack personal aspects of the candidate, Trump’s temperament and Clinton’s trustworthiness.
Another ad type that’s been used quite a lot, naturally so, are issue ads. These ads, as Campaigns on the Cutting Edge says, “Issue ads tend to be more focused on policies. The issues may be important to a particular place or demographic group” (Semiatin 34). An ad released this year by Hillary Clinton called “My Mom” is about the daughter of the Sandy Hook Elementary School principal who was shot and killed. The video is a narration by the daughter showing clips of Sandy Hook and her mother. This as was similar to Mondale’s “Arms Control 5” ad in 1984. The ad contained clips of children watching and looking and they would cut to a bomb, probably nuclear, taking off. Both ads pushed issues. Mondale tapped into the nation’s fear of nuclear weapons and Hillary’s ad taps into the current issue of gun control. Both focus on a story line while subtly pushing an issue.
Another ad that predictably is being used is ads responding to attacks or innuendos. With all of the attack ads both candidates are making for each other, it is likely that they’ll create a response ad. Donald Trump did this with his “Motherhood” ad. Ivanka, his daughter, speaks during the ad talking about Trump’s plan to help women and mothers in the work force. This comes after many attacks on Trump’s comments about women. Clearly, a response to sexist claims. Another historical response ad was McGovern’s “Defense Spending” ad in 1972. He speaks to workers about how cutting defense spending could help our country rather than relying on war to keep us afloat. This ad seems to be a response to Nixon’s ad that same year attacking McGovern’s vision to reduce defense spending. McGovern’s ad was basically a justification ad for his idea.
The ads this year lack policy. Even Clinton’s ads, which tend to focus more on issues lack policy because it seems as though this race isn’t about that. People aren’t biting their nails over this race because of policy, they like watching two kids kick sand at each other in the sandbox. It’s quite ridiculous, I think. Negative ads are impactful. They say when people go to a restaurant and have a good meal they’ll tell a few friends but when they have a bad one they tell significantly more. Negative has impact but if the candidates can push their agendas through the negative ads they’ll get the edge up.
Trent, Judith S., Robert V. Friedenberg, and Robert E. Denton. Political Campaign Communication: Principles and Practices. Lanham, Maryland: Rowman & Littlefield, 2016. Print
DeleteSemiatin, Richard J. Campaigns on the Cutting Edge. Washington, D.C.: CQ, 2017. Print.