This section of the book discusses the ways in which voters learn information about political campaigns. Considering both the reading and the election this past November, where do you think voters obtain the most information about candidates (i.e., newspapers, debates, televised news, or televised ads)? Please provide an example.
The book also mentions the argument that “negative ads attract more attention and whatever issue information is contained in them may be better remembered” (p. 462). Do you find this to be true? What do you think about negative campaigns?
::Because NDSU canceled two weeks of classes, responses to these DQs will now be due at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, April 7. Students are welcome to post their responses any time before the new deadline.::
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
On page 157, it states “television commercials remain clearly the dominant form of controlled political media.” In a 2008 Nielsen Media Research report it states, “as of third quarter 2008 the average person in the U.S watched approximately 142 hours of TV in one month.”
ReplyDeleteI believe that voters obtain the majority of their candidate information from television. During election season, political ads dominant the television screen. Whether you watch alot or alittle TV, you will see at least one political ad.
Ads seen on TV are hard to avoid or tune out because they are shown constantly and often are catchy. During the election I think I saw the negative ad about Al Franken the most. It was hard to avoid, unless I completely avoided TV, which is impossible for me. This ad also attracted the most attention from me because it was so negative. It claimed Al Franken didn’t pay taxes, had video clips of him swearing, raising gas taxes and his past articles on porn. These are very negative issues and opinions about Al Franken, but they got the message across and made people stop and listen.
Although, you are taught to always look for the best in people, it’s almost easier to judge and decide on people by their negative aspects. Political campaigns use these negative aspects to sway the voters’ opinions. Whether they are morally correct, I think it is what sells the election. Therefore, I believe that it is true that negative ads attract more attention and are better remembered.
Many different statistics from multiple polls show that television use is very high compared to those to read the newspaper. Therefore, I believe most voters obtained information from candidates from television. I think voters receive more information about candidates through ads on television than televised debates. One statistic showed 52.4 million people watch McCain and Obama’s first debate in 2008 which was a lower amount than people who watched the first debate between Kerry and Bush in 2004. Other estimates of households who saw Obama’s or McCain’s ads were much higher than the amount of people who watched the debates.
ReplyDeleteAnother reason I think more people view the election ads more than the debates is due to the fact that advertisements occur on most channels throughout all time periods of the day. Debates, on the other hand, are only televised during a certain time period on a particular day. One must plan to watch a debate while an ad can be seen any time throughout the day on almost any channel.
Page 461 of our textbook states that even though some campaign ads may be negative, viewers tend to learn more about the candidates’ positions on issues compared to other ads and other types of media. I think this is true. As I recall negative campaign ads from the presidential election in 2008, I can picture some of those negative ads. When I think about ads that are not negative towards the other candidate, I can’t seem to remember any.
I think one reason may be that if were hear something negative about a candidate we tend to want to remember it so we know not to vote for that candidate. If someone agrees with what we personally think about an issue, then we won’t think anything special about that person. But if someone were to completely stand against our own opinion, we will want to remember that person and make a cognitive note that the person does not have the same view on the issue. Having different stances on an issue will stand out more than if someone has the same stance as you. This is why I agree with our textbook stating that more people learn about campaign issues through negative ads than positive ads.
I believe that voters do obtain most of their information from television overall, whether it be a televised political debate or a 30-second television commercial. However, I also believe that in our technically changing world, a lot more voters are obtaining their information about candidates on the Internet.
ReplyDeleteOur text mentions this gradual shift to obtaining political information from the Internet briefly, however does not go into much detail. Being that our book was published in 2004, it does predict this change to using the Internet more on page 453, as it states, "The Internet began playing a significant role in election campaigns in 2000, and there is every indication that that trend will increase as we witness the buildup to the 2004 presidential campaign..." Therefore, I believe the Internet played a large part as an informational source in this 2008 presidential election. An example of a resourceful website voters may turn to www.votesmart.org, which is a professional website to help voters learn about their candidates.
I understand the books point-of-view in stating that negative ads attract more attention and are better remembered because, in general, negative thoughts tend to be better remembered in different scenarios. However, I often wonder as much attention as they receive, how much do they affect the voter in wanting to vote for the candidate that is pointing fingers. I know that it is many times the negative ads that turn me away from a candidate, however every candidate partakes in these. This effect has now, in turn, caused me to dislike politics and make my "want" to vote somewhat slip away. Therefore, I believe that these negative ads are better remembered, but in my opinion, not highly looked upon.
I agree with what the authors say on page 464 of our book, the authors write, “The problem is in separating the possible influences of commercials from those of speeches or debates and those of news coverage and other avenues. Recalling where we heard overlapping bits of information is difficult enough for most of us, let alone recalling who out of a heady mix of sources may have affect or influenced us. News events, commercials, key speeches, debates, and other stimuli likely reach voters in different ways at different times.”
ReplyDeleteI think that it is difficult for people to separate where they get political information about candidates. Each person receives the information in different ways. For me, most of my information came from a various news sources on television or written, as well as conversations with friends. For my mom, however, the information she received was from television commercials. My dad received most of his political information from more conservative radio and television news sources. And my younger brother received his information from his college instructors and television commercials.
As for negative advertising in a political campaign, I also believe that affects people in different ways, but I do agree that information is remembered. From what I’ve seen, my parents are more likely to remember the information that was in the ad. For me, however, I am more likely to remember who sponsored the negative ad and hold it against that candidate, even if it was just an organization doing it in support of the candidate. I see negative advertising as a low means of trying to make yourself look good. Everyone has character flaws.
Voters obtain much information about candidates in many different ways. On page 464 the author states "An individual's level of involvement in a particular election is likely an important indicator of how the person's decision will be reached and of the kinds of information that will be more influential in that choice." I agree with this statement because if an individual is not very involved in the election, they will most likely obtain their information from easier sources such as television commercials and ads. While individuals involved in the election may watch more debates, read more articles and there for do more researching for information.
ReplyDeleteI think that many people do get their information from television and newspapers because it is right in front of them. The cold, hard facts are easier to obtain this way also.
I did watch the debates and read articles online and in the newspaper, but I also paid attention to the ads and commercials that I saw.
I agree that negative ads are better remembered and obtain more attention. When watching the negative ads I remembered a lot of the comments each candidate was making about the other one. I think I remembered them more because it made me think about the issues the other candidate was for and I was against.
I do not agree with negative ads, however, because I think it is a waste of time and money. Candidates should worry about themselves and their issues, rather than showing the other candidate's flaws.
I think that the way voters find out the most information about a candidate depends greatly a lot of them and how big the political campaign is. Personally, I feel that voters learn a lot about candidates and issues through television. The presidential campaign was huge this year and Obama and McCain commercials could be seen all over television, across newspaper headlines, and seen on the internet, to name a few. The big area where I feel people obtain their information about politicians is, is through television commercials. I can recall countless times seeing a cheesy commercial across my TV, or experiencing an attack advertisement.
ReplyDeleteOur textbook states that TV commercials are clearly the dominant form of controlled political media, found on page 157. To add to that statement, I believe that negative advertisements attract more attention than other advertisements because many individuals aren’t expecting to see them while watching TV. We know they are out there, though we don’t expect to see them when we do. Negative ads are much more shocking and memorable versus a regular advertisement. Also, the lower the blow, the more memorable the commercial will be. I recall seeing ridiculous ads about Al Franken and Norm Coleman during their battle and how-out-of-hand and far-fetched certain statements got.
People will always watch television and continue to do so. Commercials are a great way to attract attention and controversy (if that is what you are going for). I believe that attack ads are the most effective because they create such a stir of feelings and emotions in individuals. It is hard to ignore negative ads because they come off as so real, when sometimes they are based on false pretenses.
The book said that traditionally, television news was the most common way voters obtained information about the election although that was not without exception. I tend to agree with the book on this point. As American's we are usually skeptical about anything a politician says, especially when they are talking about the issues, themselves or their opponent. On the other hand, when we see something on the news, we tend to believe it to be factual and true.
ReplyDeleteI was pleasantly surprised in this most recent election with the number of people who tuned into the debates and talked about them with their peers. I never thought of debates as a place where people changed their minds about the issues, but at the very least it gave people more fire power to back their arguments for or against a certain candidate.
When it comes to the idea of negative ads and smear campaigning, I get frustrated. I find it maddening when all the politicians can say is what the other guy did wrong instead of what they are going to do right. I do believe that the book is right though when it said that they are effective at grabbing more attention. The key is that the viewer not only sees a good thing candidate a is going to do for our country, but something bad candidate b has done in his past. I tend to believe that these smear campaigns will become less effective as more people get the ability to pause live television and fast forward during the boring parts. We get sick of all the campaigning so we will simply skip the political ads.
I believe that because television is so easily accessible, people tend to get their information in that manner. It seems our text would agree that many people tune into television for information about political campaigns. Not only is television an easy way of receiving information, but people can also feel that the news will have less bias than just listening to a candidate's speeches and advertisements. I know several people who made a point to watch the televised debates in the last election.
ReplyDeleteAs for me personally, I tend to utilize the internet for finding information about candidates. I read the candidates' websites as well as critics of both sides in order to make my decision.
There is a saying that says, "You can't tell people what to think, but you can tell them what to think about. "People like controversy and like to talk about it, so it would make sense that negative ads would get people talking. As for me, I would rather hear what a candidate has to say about the issues he/she is passionate about rather than how terrible he/she finds the other candidate. I don't believe that negative ads really change voters' minds from one candidate to the other, but I believe the undecideds may be influenced by them.
Television requires less work so people tend to get their information in that way because people don’t want to question their way of getting the news. The text agrees that people opt to use television for information about political campaigns. People who get their information from TV believe the new stations are being unbiased or at least some are and refuse to think they’re maybe being lied to.
ReplyDeleteI think of a certain saying when I think of this and it is that your worst defeats usually tend to stay with you longer then the best triumphs.
I believe that people just like to measure people up by the least amount of failures instead of the number of achievements because its hard to decide which positives are better then others.
I look on the internet because there are so many sources available quick so you can check the legitimacy of information quickly without relying heavily on just one.
I want to hear what each candidate has to say about the issues not just how bad the other candidate reputation is. Unfortunately I believe people make decisions on these political ads because that is how Bush got elected two terms.
I think that voters obtain the most information about a candidate from sources that support their views. As we have discussed in earlier chapters, the media outlet we chose is directly inline with our beliefs. As far as a type of media, we have seen an evolution over the years. It used to be radio, then we saw a transition to papers and tv and now we see the internet playing a large role in the development of our ideas and arguments. Take for instance Obama's campaign. From the beginning he used non-conventional ways to reach his market and potential voters. As this example illustrates the candidate has learned where the voters get their information and adapted their campaign accordingly.
ReplyDeleteAs far as negative issues i believe to a certain extent people believe and remember the information in them like the book said. But it all goes back to what we want to hear. I think people believe the negative ads against their candidates opponent and not about their candidate. I personally think we will slowly start to see a pull away from negative ads after the recent election was won with little to know negative ads being used.
It is all a pick and chose game when it comes to elections and the ads and media re no exception.
I think voters obtain the most information about candidates from televised ads. Page 457 reiterates this: “No other medium can bring to a given message millions of viewers nationally or even tens of thousands statewide or locally, often in a single showing.” I think that voters obtain most of their information from television because it is such a dominant part of our culture. It doesn’t really matter the amount of TV a person watches because they will more than likely still see political ads either way—they are almost unavoidable. This past election is the one that I have paid most attention to and I saw so many ads that it almost started to get irritating.
ReplyDeleteI find the statement “negative ads attract more attention and whatever issue information is contained in them may be better remembered” to be true. I believe this because it definitely rings true to me. For whatever reason, our society is interested in flaws/negativity about people in the public eye and so I think negative ads catch the eye of more people because they may be more interested in what this person has done wrong. Even though I find these ads to get old after a while, I definitely remember them more clearly. Even though the election is over, there are still some ads that I distinctly remember—and they are all negative ads. Overall, I don’t think pointing out someone else’s flaws is a good way to win, but I don’t think candidates will stop doing it anytime soon and I definitely think that they are more effectively remembered by viewers.
In the 2008 political election I obtained most of my information from my Time magazine that I was subscribed too, I watched political debates, I learned a lot through class discussions and listen a lot to my politically savvy friends in the Student Government office.
ReplyDeleteFunny I did my opinion poll on this topic as well. What I learned from my 57 people that completed my survey is that they received their information mostly from websites. I don't know i these include news sites, candidates sites, or other. Second was TV news stations with 56%. A close third with 54% was newspaper. Then again I'm not sure if this is an actual newspaper or an online newspaper that would technically count as a website as well.
The only negative ads that make me upset is the onces that target the person in a personal way. Not by professional decision they have made in the past. Like McCains commercial with Obama being seen with Paris Hilton and Briteny Spears. He is a celebrity like them. Or when they question your military services or go after family problems you may have had.
Most of the time though around election season there are so many of them on TV that I don't even watch them. In a way they get tuned out to me when they flash across the screen.
According to the textbook, political TV ads are the dominant form of media. It would stand to reason then that most people get their information from them. I would argue that people also get a lot of information from the people they interact with. Personally, I try not to pay too much attention to political commercials because they are so boring, but during this past campaign I spent a lot of time discussing the candidates with my roommate and family. While I held some information from various sources (i.e. TV, websites, newspaper), they also had read different articles, etc. which gave me a lot of different information.
ReplyDeleteI agree with the textbook in that negative ads are more easily remembered. The one that sticks out in my mind is a commercial Norm Coleman ran this past election season. The ad used a past quote from Al Franken in which Franken said that if even 50 people voted for him, it would be a disgrace to the political system. This information definitely stuck with me during the entire election and still today. To say that it was the deciding factor in how I chose to vote would be false, but it was definitely there in my mind. I mean, who would want to vote for someone that basically called their supporters a disgrace?
In the wake of what has happened in the Coleman/Franken controversy, it's hard to say whether or not ads like this one truly are more effective. I would say that the messages they send are more easily remembered by voters but that voters are not necessarily swayed more by these commercials.