Response to Post 2 - Due October 5th
Pick someone's post to respond to from post 2. Watch the ad or speech they fact checked and commented on. Then respond to the following questions:
-Is the ad or speech persuasive to you (independent of the fact checking info)?
-Does the fact checking make the ad/speech more or less persuasive to you?
-What do you think would be the best way to make sure that candidates run truthful advertisements or speeches without infringing on freedom of speech?
Hint: Some of you wrote super short posts for post 2 and should put forth more effort on this one.
posted by Ms. Aby @ 11:27 AM
36 Comments:
In Noah’s post, he deconstructed an extremely misleading ad put forth by a conservative PAC in Florida (1). The ad claims that “Obamacare” will leave the door open for “nonelected bureaucrats” to ration or deny Medicare benefits to seniors. The ad further claims that such a law is the fault of Democratic Senator Bill Nelson, who they claim cast the “deciding vote” to pass the Affordable Health Care Act. This ad’s claims seemed so obviously outlandish and over the top that I didn’t find myself persuaded by it at all. That being said, I’m not really a part of the ad’s target audience and I’m also far better versed in the healthcare legislation than the average American. After reading Noah’s fact check of the ad (and the excellent articles he cited (2)), I’m even less convinced than I was before. The fact that the ad’s information directly contradicts the EXACT WORDING of the law in question definitely made me less trusting of the ad’s claims. (The ad warns seniors that the IPAB can ration or deny coverage, even though both actions are specifically prohibited in the law itself.) Additionally, their incorrect citation of the infamous “$700 billion” figure led me to take their information with a grain of salt.
I really don’t understand how political campaigns can get away with this sort of thing. Why is it that cereal companies have to put disclaimers like “enlarged to show detail” on their boxes to avoid false advertising lawsuits while political campaigns can spew outright lies without fear of consequence? I suppose I can understand why it’s okay for them to stretch the truth or use suggestive wording- after all, isn’t that the basis of all advertising? For instance, I can see why this ad should be allowed to say that the IPAB is unelected- that may be misleading, but it is true. Members of the IPAB are appointed by the President and subject to Senate approval, so the statements can be made that they are unelected. However, I don’t understand why an ad like this can directly lie about what a piece of legislation can do. It harkens back to Palin and the “Death Panels,” though Palin’s statements were made in interviews, not advertisements and could not be subjected to any legal repercussions for being misleading. The fact that there’s less control over political advertising than product advertising is extremely worrisome- after all, deciding who should lead a country is a much more serious choice than deciding what laundry detergent one should use, so why is it that consumers of politics are less protected from misinformation than consumers of products? Perhaps it’s just that PACs and politicians are skilled at avoiding the specific activities prohibited by advertising law, or perhaps its because many existing laws don’t apply to them. Either way, it seems that campaign advertising should be the subject of at least as much scrutiny as campaign finance.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D_NkI6NVxw
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/scary-medicare-claims/
To respond to Josh’s post, I watched Romney delivering a speech in his campaign stop in Nashua, New Hampshire. The speech was not stellar like some of the speeches in the DNC or the RNC of course, but I thought it was a well thought out deliverance to the public. Romney’s wife came out first to the audience and spoke about how her husband was the best candidate to bring about change that America desperately needs (2). Following that, Romney broke his speech into two parts: criticism of Obama, and then the changes he would make and his vision for the country (2). Since Josh focused on the first half, I figured deeper analysis of that part would be more important. Overall, the speech on its surface was convincing. Romney is an eloquent speaker when it comes to numbers. Having worked in the business sector for many years, people believe that he is more knowledgeable about the economy and when he puts out a statistic, people tend to believe him (4). If I did not do any more research, I would have accepted his claims as true since he gave backing for all his reasoning like what goods went up to bring down the median household income (2). The likelihood of Republicans to fact check a speech like this is minimal since Romney did seem very calm, confident, and poised as he delivered his message (2).
As I viewed Josh’s fact check based off of the article in factcheck.org, Romney’s rhetoric persuaded me less and less. When Josh said that Romney told the crowd of Obama’s promise to bring down unemployment to 5.4%, I did my own research, and found that Romney’s and Josh’s analysis of this number were both sort of flawed (1). According to factcheck.org, the number 5.4% came from, “a highly speculative report containing projections — not promises — that relied on prevailing economic models that quickly proved to have underestimated the depths of the recession at that time (1).” So instead of Josh’s claim of personal promise and Romney’s claim of a promise, the main thing to focus on is that the statistic was a projection. Based on Josh’s analysis, Romney also stated that the median household income went down by $5,000 (1). I agree with Josh in that Romney skewed the facts when he stated that the median income went down by that much. Romney failed to take into account the loss of income from the Bush era, and failed to mention that the household income increased from September of 2011 (1). This further decreased my approval of Romney’s speech. There are two other facts the Romney skewed, but Josh did not mention. Romney stated that gasoline prices doubled during the Obama administration, which was not totally true because prices of gasoline, were low when Obama took office (1). Lastly, Romney stated that Obama would, “cut Medicare by $716 billion to pay for Obamacare.” Even thought the number is accurate, cutting Medicare would be beneficial since it would extend the program for many more years to come (1). So overall, taking all these facts in consideration, the credibility of Romney’s speech plummeted and for me, highly decreased my approval of it.
The main political speeches in the RNC, DNC, and the presidential debates are highly viewed, criticized, and analyzed by the media. “The media plays a key role in shaping these preferences and beliefs. It collects, summarizes, and frames the information that voters use in their voting decisions (3).” Due to the effect media has on the average voter, a way to make speeches and ads more truthful is to increase media coverage and analysis of these local and low key ads and speeches and convey an honest fact check to the public. This will not stop the lies and deception, but it will make candidates more cautious about what they put out in terms of messages and rhetoric, and will suppress most preventable lies that the media will immediately attack if given publicity.
1.http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romneys-stump-speech/
2.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stIHGup2UTs
3.http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~sdellavi/wp/mediabiaswb07-06-25.pdf
4.http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/08/11/677261/paul-ryan-qualified/
In response to Erik’s post when I first saw the video I thought that it was persuasive because I did not follow Romney when he wasn’t running for president. Therefore, what is said in the thirty second commercial seems pretty straight forward and they do it in such a manor that it just directly points the finger at Romney for outsourcing jobs to other countries (1). The ad makes him look very guilty. The fact checking makes the ad way less persuasive because I learned that he himself did not outsource jobs to India but he merely vetoed a bill (2). That is a huge difference because the ad solely blames Romney for outsourcing jobs. The fact checking also clears up the fact that while Romney was the head of Bain Capital he did not outsource jobs and that in fact, that happened after he left (2). The whole ad is about Romney and how he wants to take jobs away and that he is lying about how he wants to create them (1). But when you check the facts, he never tried to take away jobs, himself. Also, it doesn’t mean he is trying to take away jobs, now. Now is the time that matters and running for president I don’t think something in the past, that isn’t even true, should be used against Romney. So, the ad is not persuasive at all after seeing the fact check.
I think advertisements for elections have become too ridiculous. Why can’t they just tell the truth? Are they afraid that the truth is too ugly for the people? Lies are more ugly. Lies are what get candidates in trouble. Lies lose votes. Being truthful shows character and it makes people trust you. I think presidential ads should be checked for truthfulness. I think the best way to do this is to only broadcast ads that have been fact checked. I think the ads should be allowed to stretch the truth, slightly. But, I do not think that any ads that straight up lie or avoid the truth should be run on TV. Why should an untruthful ad be allowed to be shown to the people? Don’t we want Americans to be well informed in order to make the correct choices in picking a candidate? How are we supposed to pick the right president, when we don’t really know what the truth is. Americans can not be well informed if untruthful ads continue to run. That’s how conflict is created because facts are skewed. I think there should be penalties and canceled ads if they are untruthful. That is the best way I can think of stopping untruthful advertisements. Now, it may be difficult. However, it is the only way to keep the election fair and truthful. Presidential elections can be ugly but with the truth we can really see who we need to run our country.
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaw5cTjxmk
2)http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
I chose to watch Marco’s chosen advertisement. After watching this Romney ad, I came to the conclusion that, for me, it was unpersuasive. First, the advertisement’s zealous overuse of gloomy black and white images, grainy footage, and ominous music is melodramatic and ineffective. The use of random media clippings, taken out of context in some manner, is also unimpressive. Furthermore, the advertisement’s portrayal of China as an enemy of America is a dangerous view of a complex and necessary relationship, and a view that any educated individual should reject as socially, geopolitically, and economically dangerous. For me, the views Romney chooses to express in this ad speak more about his competence in foreign policy than Obama’s failure to “stand up” to China. This ad, like many run by both campaigns, is based off of fear-mongering populist appeal and shoddy arguments, and is unpersuasive to say the least.
The fact checking lowers the already low effectiveness of the ad by destabilizing the foundation on which the ad was based: Obama’s record with China. It shows that again and again, Mitt Romney twisted the facts, took quotes out of context, and manipulated subjective events. This highlights the lack of factual accuracy of the ad, and by extension, its lack of persuasiveness.
The presence of factually inaccurate advertisements is a major problem in American politics. Unfortunately, it is one that cannot be remedied without abridging the right to free speech. People, and candidates, have a right to say what they will about their opponents, and as long as they do not break the bounds set by the Supreme Court, they are and should be free to do that. Lying is not illegal. These ads are the price we pay for living in a democracy. Democracy is government by the masses, and the masses respond best to emotional, not factual, appeals. These ads speak to the worst of our political system, yet, they pose no real threat to the stability of the system. From the mudslinging campaign between John Quincy Adams and Andrew Jackson to modern presidential races, politics has never been, and never will be, clean. Trying to regulate factual accuracy in political ads is both unconstitutional and a waste of resources.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
I chose to assess Marco’s evaluation of an ad run by the Romney campaign titled “Stand Up to China.” This commercial claims that President Obama has cost the United States two million jobs during a time of economic turmoil due to his inability to take preventative action against China (1). It also declares that Obama passed up seven opportunities to alter this particular circumstance (1). I found this ad to be relatively persuasive initially. Right after watching it, I thought about the alleged two million people who could be working now but are instead currently unemployed. This left me feeling uneasy about Obama’s handling of economic activity during his term as president.
However, after reading Marco’s fact check, my final reaction has changed. Learning that Obama did not directly lead to this horrible result redirects my anger towards the Romney campaign for misusing facts. Additionally, the ad claims that military blueprints were stolen by China with no reaction from Obama. Marco points out that these claims are completely and utterly untrue. The combination of these two primary falsehoods reduces the persuasiveness of the ad significantly and instead creates feelings of animosity towards those who aired it.
With all credibility destroyed, ads become useless and entirely unpersuasive, no matter whom they are published by. Understandably, politicians do this to generate votes necessary to gain office. However, in a democratic society, it is crucial for the public to be properly informed of facts, events, and opinions before selecting those who will be shaping our nation’s policies. Therefore, these petty ads restrict democracy rather than promote it.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ky45CrITPFc&feature=endscreen
Cousin Roth chose to critique the advertisement titled "Stand up to China"(1). This advertisement implies that China is the enemy and that they are stealing American jobs, ideas, and technology. This advertisement is not very persuasive in itself for it does not state why Obama said NO to "taking action". It also does not state what "taking action" even is. Also, how is China stealing computers or computer ideas? (I find it hilarious that they showed an Apple laptop for Apple has a very well known reputation of "stealing" idea's and "innovating" them to be better, then suing the company that they stole the idea from. Food for thought, Apple has invented little to nothing since Steve Wozniak left the company in 1987(*)).
After Cousin Roth's fact check this advertisement becomes even less persuasive. Now knowing that many of the facts had been manipulated (2) gives even less credit to this advertisement. While it is true that less Americans are working today than when President Obama took office, this was not caused by Obama saying no to label China as a currency manipulator (what Romney has claimed as not "taking action")(2). Also, the unemployment rate is only .3% higher (8.1%) than it was in January 2009(7.8%) (3). Which is much lower than it was towards the end of 2009 where the unemployment rate was hovering around 10% (3).
I think that the best way to make sure that candidates just tell all the facts, to the average voter these facts will be hard to understand so as long as the main message (Obama refused 7 times to label China as a currency manipulator) voters can still take away the same message without being mislead or lied to.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
3. http://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000000
*. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wFeC25BM9E0
In Mike’s post, he analyzed a video produced by the Obama campaign. The ad accused Romney of not creating jobs but destroying them. It gives an emotional tale about the old employees of a steel mill in Kansas City, where they used to work hard every day for quality pay and lived a decent life (1). Then, Bain Capital, the company that Mitt Romney co-founded, made as high a profit as it could on the mill and then just shut the plant down. This destroyed the lives of numerous employees as many became jobless (1). This ad is very effective in that it attacks the heart of everyday Americans, showing the tragedy that occurred as many normal, middle class Americans were suddenly jobless and potentially on the brink of falling into the lower class ranks. Americans feel for the stories told by old factory workers that suddenly had no job, no income, no health care, and no bright future. This makes viewers question Romney’s truthfulness. He promised to decrease the level of unemployment in the country yet in this ad viewers see that he himself did just the opposite. However, when the claim is fact-checked, it is revealed that there is no evidence that Romney was running Bain at the time in question (2). Thus, there is no decisive proof that he alone is at fault for the closing of the mill and the creation of foreign jobs (2). Once this information is provided, the ad is no longer as effective. The key component of the claim was that it was all Romney’s fault, and because he has done this before, he would not be an effective leader in creating domestic jobs. Once this claim is dissected, viewers can see that all that is left is a story of hardships with no proof that Romney is the reason they happened, resulting in an empty claim. It is no longer persuasive, and it has become just another empty attack.
I believe that in order to make candidates run more truthful campaigns, the media itself must become more involved in the campaign advertisement process. Many blogs (such as http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker) currently fact check certain stories, ads, or speeches, but I believe this effort needs to be expanded to local news stations so as to be accessible to the public. The news stations should consider having a “Fact Check Corner,” in the evening where after the news, but before the weather and sports updates, they analyze one campaign ad a day. If this were to happen, then more viewers would be informed of how candidates falsely advertise during campaigns. Once this happens, politicians would have to release honest statements because they know if they do not, they will most likely lose the election because the average American does not support candidates that knowingly lie to the public. Why would anyone trust someone to lead the country when they cannot even campaign to the public in an honest manner? This media process would provide a new check on the country’s politicians while educating the public of the political policy of the country. It is a win-win situation!
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMndjLIQUFw
2. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/07/bain-still-no-evidence/
My Big Son Cousin Dylan's last blog post was pertaining to a certain video on Youtube.com called "Where is Washington Taking Us?" After watching this political ad for myself, I have to say I'm impressed. The video is well put together with fun graphics and believable facts. I noticed that almost every fact did come with little white text at the bottom stating the source, which increased the credibility of the ad. My only initial complaint was the there was too much information in too short of a time; I barely had time to finish reading one fact before the next one popped up (1). Perhaps this is on purpose so that the watcher only processes part of the fact and doesn't have time to mentally analyze it. Overall however, it is a fairly persuasive advertisement.
After reading Swag Me Out's analysis and fact check, I realize that is this actually one of the better political ads. According to Dylan, several of the facts are close to the truth. However, this is still an ad and my mental alarm went off when the fact that "Gas prices are up 100%" appeared on the screen. As I suspected, this is an exaggeration and sullies the credibility of the ad. The ad also used the broad fact that tuition has risen by 25& (1), which made me skeptical, also.
Overall, I think it was a relatively well done ad, with less lying than you would expect. The creators tried to keep their facts specific and didn't word them in ways that can be thought of just interpretations. To make all ads more credible, they should all have a "viewer discretion" announcement at the end, informing the audience that all fact in the preceding commercial are interpretations for the purpose of the parties responsible.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FO4NlXllAg
In Grant’s post, he critiqued the Stand Up to China ad sponsored by Governor Romney against President Obama. Initially, I found the ad to be very persuasive. The economy is definitely the major factor in this election. This is evident by the time and money both sides have put into promoting their economic plan for America. The American people need to know that their is a light at the end of the tunnel; that their current economic misfortune won’t last forever. China is the worlds only other super power and their is a subtle battle for power that not many americans realize. If President Obama had been outsourcing jobs to China, if he had let China steal current technology and weapons specifications and had not stood up to defend American sovereignty, he would not deserve to be President of the United States of America. However, after reading Grant’s post, I find the ad to be less than persuasive because almost none of the facts used in the ad are true. President Obama has added 400,000 jobs during his presidency. President Obama created the US Cyber Command, a branch of the Defense Department, that deals with computer security threats to protect American technology. This use of misinformation is especially hurtful to the Romney campaign because Romney takes credit for the ad and therefore accepts responsibility for the facts in the ads. I feel that the best way to prevent untruthful advertisements is to require every ad to sponsored by a candidate. As stated above, this will hold the candidate responsible for the ads people post to either support them or smear their opponent. This will prevent super PAC’s from spewing blatantly untrue ads. However, the responsibility still falls to the American voters to stay informed on the of the issues and to search for the truth because political attack ads are not going away.
1. http://youtu.be/TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Storm's Ad:
No this Ad is not persuasive in getting its message across. It is too vague and really doesn’t provide any numbers other than the 700 billion cut in Medicare. It also keeps bringing up the point about how there was a vote taken by an unelected board, however, that is too general as it doesn’t really explain why there was an unelected board taking a vote and it certainly has no explanation to how the opposing candidate affects all these decisions. I checked the fact and Senator Nelson did vote for the bill that allowed the 700 billion dollar cut but it doesn’t make its other accusations any more true. It’s main flaw is the fact that it doesn’t provide any numbers or facts regardless if they are skewed or not, it just states things and uses more imagery in the ad than facts. I believe that by giving more people a way to find unbiased information through the media or online will make readers more informed. You cannot limit what the candidates say because you know that they will always skew or bend the facts to make them look better or their opponents worse. So to balance that out I feel that people need more sources of information in which they can obtain true facts about what is being said. Educating people how to find truthful information is the best way to counteract the lies being told, because if over time people become more informed they will see which candidates are liars. This means that the candidates will be forced to tell less lies or risk the public singling them out as liars and ruining any chance which they have in gaining voters. So in the end if people become more educated the result will mean less lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D_NkI6NVxw&feature=youtu.be
Melayna has done a good job of picking apart the rather alarming new ad about standing up to China. Before reading her fact checking though I watched the thirty second clip for myself. I was appalled. Any ad that attacks a President for not doing something is in my book a sham. The Chief Executive is saddled with many issues and the hard decisions that he (or she) must make are not made lightly. Though I am no expert on Mr. Obama's policies towards China I do understand that what he can do in response to this overstated issue is limited(2). It downright irks me that both sides of the political spectrum can get away with mudflinging half lies and nonfacts(2). Everyone is guilty, but they don't have the will to fight it.
Since my opinion of this advertisement is already abysmally low, Melayna's critique could not have made it less persuasive. However she did a good job of bringing up many of the incorrect 'facts' put forth. In particular I admire how she picked apart the "seven chances to say no to China" statement (1). Quite frankly to me that is just a hollow statement, a number without meaning.
As for running truthful adds without infringing on the Right to speech, my view is a pessimistic one. As Americans we tend to be trapped by the will of the most sensitive person. One man's protected speech is another's vitriolic slander, and this objective opinion will impede the truth nine times out of ten.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs&feature=player_embedded
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
With all of the campaigning it is difficult to tell which ads contain lies and stretch the truth. Most, if not all, of the presidential ads contain some sort of mistruth. I examined Megan’s post from last week and watched the ad she chose. I also fact checked the information presented in the video and found the same results as Megan.
The ad begins with a clip of Obama, however, the clip is clearly just a fragment of Obama’s view (1). The ad argues that Obama “gutted” the existing welfare system. Like Megan noticed in her blog post, this is not true. Obama changed the requirements for obtaining welfare but he changed the requirements in a more conservative way (2). He actually gave the states more power, which is commonly a republican view (2). I agree with Megan that this claim is ironic.
The second claim in the ad, that “Obama dropped the work requirement,” is true but misused. The states have the power to decide the requirements for obtaining welfare (2).
Checking over the facts in the ads that both Megan and I found I realized that there are very few truths to be found in the presidential campaign ads. Before fact checking the two ads I watched both ads were persuasive. However, after fact checking they lost their persuasive qualities. They were not credible and stretched the truth or completely changed it. I think that the media should fact check the ads because voters should be provided with credible information. Voters should educate themselves and make informed decisions however, it is not likely that voters will fact check everything they hear. The media should be more involved in checking over the credibility of ads.
(1) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j79YA1rRiWM (2) http://www.factcheck.org/2012/08/does-obamas-plan-gut-welfare-reform/
I decided to watch Sam L's ad. In watching the ad, I found it extremely unconvincing. Although I don't know all of the facts surrounding this candidate, running for reelection, there were many things that just didn't sit right with me. The first of these was the fact that there was no corroborated data anywhere in the ad. After reading Sam's fact checking info, I'm even more annoyed that the PAC felt they could just blatantly lie like that. Therefore, this ad went from unpersuasive to plain out wrong and annoying.
I am honestly quite confused, on how this libelous statement could have ever been played on television. I feel like the best way to stop this libelous advertising is to after the election to take some of the outrageously libelous laws to court. Common Law explicitly prohibits libel, and this ad fits that prohibition, therefore it can be persecuted. The PAC says that they stand by this information that is implied as fact. Maybe suing these campaigns is the only way to get the message out that the American People aren't going to be lied to any longer and it is time to give actual facts. It may be that the PAC's are adept at getting around these rules, but it may be time to strengthen common law to protect politicians. They are people too, and with all of the problems with celebrities being dogged by reporters, it may be time to put more things in place to protect people. The campaigns have to know that people mean business because this has just gotten out of hand, America needs to be able to trust their politicians not to lie that blatantly.
In response to Ryan’s post and ad:
Off the bat I found the ad relatively persuasive; I still harbored skepticism however. Run by the Obama campaign, the ad attacked Romney’s attack on the president on Medicare (1). The reason it seemed persuasive was because it did not reiterate useless talking points. Instead, it used quotes from the AARP, said to be nonpartisan (1). It also mentioned the Ryan “voucher” system that would make seniors foot $6,400 of their own for health care (1). After fact-checking however, I was far less persuaded. The $6,400 stat is outdated and misused (2). Obama’s plan for Medicare is not the golden alternative to Ryan’s (2). Both sides are not close to a solution to Medicare’s increasing costs (2). Obama went on the offensive with this ad but is just as guilty as the other guy when it comes to bettering Medicare.
There can be no law made to better the truthfulness of candidates. While food-suppliers are required to provide nutrition factoids, candidates cannot be legislated to tell the truth without speech infringement. You’re spending money and making health-related decisions with that box if Riceroni. Candidates want votes and support. Consumers are unable to educate themselves on facts unrepresented to the people, so they need provided nutrition facts. With elections, counterarguments and the facts are out there to be absorbed. Also, candidates are pitching us a project just like, for example, an investment firm. In order to obtain the necessary money and approval for the project, the project-pitcher must make the plan the most attractive it can be. The numbers can be “ball parked” to make it sound better and positive projections can be made, ignoring negative consequences. It’s a competition, and you want to sound better than the other guy.
To fix the lying issue without impeding on free speech, voters must demand of candidates the truth. No more crowd-roaring and bandwagoning. Voters, supporters, and the press alike must hold their candidates accountable and send the message that lies will not be tolerated. Only under these informal means can lies be vanquished and freedom of speech upheld.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJb6tA1cXT0
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/
I watched Maddie’s ad which is titled “Romney is the problem not the solution.” The ad seemed to be rather persuasive considering the limited knowledge I have of Mitt Romney. The ad claims that Romney shipped jobs overseas, has millions in Swiss bank accounts, and in tax havens (1). Based on knowledge I have acquired overtime hearing about the super wealthy, the ad made sense to me. However, upon reading Maddie’s fact check information I have learned that not all of the information is true. The ad mentions that Bain Capital, the company Romney founded, shipped jobs over seas (1). While this is true the fact check showed that this occurred after Romney left (3). The Obama campaign has stretched any truth there is about jobs being shipped overseas (2). After watching the ad and reading what Maddie found I am saddened to learn that both sides over stretch the truth. Politicians wonder why the public distrusts the government. Another good point Maddie found was that Romney only released two years of tax returns. After researching these ads I feel that to get any semblance of the truth voters need to research facts. Watching the debates is another good way to receive information straight from the candidates. No matter what voters need to take what is said in ads with a grain of salt and do some independent research. Maddie did a fantastic job and I learned more about Romney.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/
3. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
In Erik M’s post, he responded to a blatantly misleading ad aimed at the Romney campaign. It specifically targets Mitt Romney and his economic stance. This is such an important issue, especially during this election with unemployment remaining high. The ad’s principle claims run along the lines of “{Romney} a corporate raider” who “shipped jobs to China and Mexico” (1) . It also makes a claim that he outsourced jobs to India. This ad was never appealing or convincing to me. As part of another blog I have written for this class, I researched similar attacks related to his time at Bain Capital. As Erik correctly points out, many of these accusations occurred at Bain Capital after Mitt Romney had left the company (2) . Any other accusations stemmed from a law that Romney vetoed that would have prohibited a state contractor who was outsourcing jobs from being contracted for state jobs (2). Clearly, whoever researched this attack ad for President Obama decided to leave out key details in an attempt to smear Mitt Romney.
In regards to trying to keep political campaigns from distorting the facts or outright lying, I am somewhat skeptical that a good solution can be reached. Due to freedom of speech, it can be had to try to limit what people say, even if the truth is being twisted in their statements. The fact that this happens on both sides of the isle makes this difficult issue even more complex. Those pointing the finger at the other side can sometimes be just as guilty as the person they are accusing. Even more disturbing, this grossly misleading ad was approved by President Obama. While I’m not sure he knew exactly what he was approving in this case, it is still troubling. President Obama seems to be becoming even more desperate to try to catch Mitt Romney lately. This is likely because he was soundly thrashed by Mitt Romney during the debate that occurred yesterday. In conclusion, it will be very difficult to keep both sides from airing misleading ads, especially as the race becomes closer.
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaw5cTjxmk
2)http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
In Grant’s post he responded to the “Stand Up to China” ad. Upon viewing this ad my jaw dropped at the outrageous ideas presented in this ad. China stealing ideas and technology from the US? Well maybe some individuals in China, but not China itself. Obama hasn’t taken a stand against China and because of this we’re loosing our jobs? Ummmmmmmm, no. We’re loosing our jobs because businesses, not Obama, are outsourcing. Obama has taken as much of a stand as he is able to against China without them closing their doors to American trade, which is something they had done for a long time. Once I read Grant’s fact checking, I was even more surprised. I had not known about the copyright cases against China, but knowing this doesn’t change my thinking. The cyber command department Obama put up in response to the cyber attacks is in direct contradiction to the ad’s statement that Obama hasn’t done anything. The 7 chances Obama had to stand up against China? Well as Grant pointed out, labeling China as a currency manipulator would start a major trade dispute and devastate our economy. Hey wait, isn’t the cornerstone of Romney’s campaign his economic plans? Huh, makes you think. The best way to prevent this televised slander from happening further is not a law (mainly because it will never get passed), but instead the complaints from the people. We need to call our candidates out on their lies. How are we supposed to trust them if they aren’t willing to let their policies stand for themselves? Are we really resorting to “Who is the lesser of two evils?” If every time Obama puts out an ad, there is immediately an outcry on the internet about every little thing that is wrong, then eventually, someone’s going to take notice and try to make things better.
Then again…that’s never going to happen.
Why bother when the majority of people are so blindly following their candidate that they would believe them if they said “Unicorns are real and my opponent’s killing them”?
Why bother when people who aren’t associated with a party will just do whatever the tv tells them?
Who are we trying to convince when everyone who reads this already knows that candidates lie and we need to be open to ideas?
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/09/romney-ad-on-china-mangles-facts/
I’m responding to Sara’s post on Obama’s forward campaign commercial. Watching the Forward video, Obama made it a huge point on the economic crisis and debt he was greeted with when he took office. Throughout the ad it showed a graph that’s line was slowing rising up from the Bush years towards recent years with job increases and reforms (1). Watching the ad without the facts checked I was completely sold on that slowly rising line and I was sure I wanted four more years of Obama. After reading Sara’s reaction to the false facts I agree with her. Although Obama tweaked the facts I’m still persuaded by the ad. I have to admit that I’m probably biased to believing what Obama says over anything Mitt Romney says. But Obama wasn’t completely false in his statements. He brought home 36,000 troops when he said 40,000 (2). Sara said he twisted the facts on health insurance a “little” which I agree that he has done amazing things for healthcare and helps those who previous conditions still receive treatment, but he should be more truthful. After getting the facts checked I was slightly less persuaded by the commercial but it still wouldn’t derail me from supporting Obama. I agree with Sara that Obama’s seven minuet ad was twisting the facts but not to the extent that my opinion on Obama would change. Certain topics I will be more careful on believing what the president says but I believe the ad was mostly truthful.
I think that it would be near to impossible to make all political campaigns completely truthful. One idea could be that after an ad a disclaimer could have the correct facts or a website that has all the facts. There could be consequences, but realistically I can’t think of anything that would stop candidates from running untruthful ads because well they work.
I’m responding to Sara’s post on Obama’s forward campaign commercial. Watching the Forward video, Obama made it a huge point on the economic crisis and debt he was greeted with when he took office. Throughout the ad it showed a graph that’s line was slowing rising up from the Bush years towards recent years with job increases and reforms (1). Watching the ad without the facts checked I was completely sold on that slowly rising line and I was sure I wanted four more years of Obama. After reading Sara’s reaction to the false facts I agree with her. Although Obama tweaked the facts I’m still persuaded by the ad. I have to admit that I’m probably biased to believing what Obama says over anything Mitt Romney says. But Obama wasn’t completely false in his statements. He brought home 36,000 troops when he said 40,000 (2). Sara said he twisted the facts on health insurance a “little” which I agree that he has done amazing things for healthcare and helps those who previous conditions still receive treatment, but he should be more truthful. After getting the facts checked I was slightly less persuaded by the commercial but it still wouldn’t derail me from supporting Obama. I agree with Sara that Obama’s seven minuet ad was twisting the facts but not to the extent that my opinion on Obama would change. Certain topics I will be more careful on believing what the president says but I believe the ad was mostly truthful.
I think that it would be near to impossible to make all political campaigns completely truthful. One idea could be that after an ad a disclaimer could have the correct facts or a website that has all the facts. There could be consequences, but realistically I can’t think of anything that would stop candidates from running untruthful ads because well they work.
I viewed the advertisement that Melayna had chosen to write her blog post about. This particular ad was put forth by the Romney/Ryan campaign team and criticized President Obama's policies with China. As KangQiao said in his comment (possibly addressing the same video), I too found the video overly gloomy and melodramatic (1). I can see what the Romney team was going for-trying to paint Obama's policies with China as ominous and ineffective. I will even go so far to say that the advertisement did a good job of contrasting the images of Obama with the bright and fresh picture of Mitt at the end. However, I did not find the ad to be persuasive as a whole due to the use of megamelodramatacism (someone inform Merriam-Webster, please). After I visited the fact checking website's post on the video, the situation became even worse (2). It became apparent that every fact used in the advertisement had been skewed. The facts posted on factcheck.org made it very clear that Obama had won significant victories in patent battles with China, while the ad attempted to make it seem as though he had lost "American jobs" in the fight. This "job loss" was hardly related to the main content and focus of the advertisement. There would be a better way, in my opinion, to hold politicians accountable for what they say in advertisements. It might be possible to, at the end of the ad, have a short message involving the fact checking. If either campaign were to say, "check (insert nonpartisan fact checking website here) so you are sure you are getting the facts straight", I feel the American people could be more confident about what the information they are getting.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record/
I am responding to Sydney’s post on the ad run by the Romney campaign discussing Obama’s lack of pressure placed on China. The ad did seem persuasive when I watched it from the link (1). When they included the fact that China was stealing our ideas like computers and other technologies, this seemed like a plausible slight against Obama (1). When facts are displayed to you, what other choice do you have than to figure they are true? When the facts have been checked and put back into context, they seem much more realistic and a lot less alarming. I would generally agree with the fact checking that you did (2). Negative ads are always a lot less reliable in my opinion because they seem to exaggerate or take statistics or even facts out of context to make them more detrimental to the other campaign. A way for ads to be more truthful would be if politicians had to have clearer citations in their ads. For example, in the ad shown by Romney, he states that the U.S. International Trade Commission said that Obama’s policies cost us two million jobs (2). It is doubtful that a government agency would directly name Obama as the cause of the job loss. Because of the unclear citation, we have no idea what part of the claim is backed up by an objective source. This would not infringe upon freedom of speech and it would give citizens a more reliable way to know that the ads are true.
1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TRViUQntMfs
2.http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/political-adtracker/video/847565/mitt-romney-stand-up-to-china
In watching the ad “Strange” (2) against Chip Cravaack (which was checked by Sam L) I am initially slightly persuaded for the cause of those who made the ad. It seems to me, at least on the surface, that the things the ad claims would be bad in an incumbent who I should re-elect. However, when I say “on the surface” I mean without an ounce of thought into the broader arguments and implications and the proof of evidence. The ad claims that he had meetings where you had to pay to enter instead of town hall meetings open to anyone, and that he voted to put higher costs of Medicare on seniors, while giving tax breaks to the wealthy. Perhaps the first time I saw this advertisement, I found it persuasive, as time has progressed and we have gotten farther and farther into the political season I have begun to be more discerning when watching or listening any ad, and so my belief in this ad, and therefore the amount it has persuaded me, has decreased with every day that passes. The thing is, anyone could go through any Congressman’s voting record, pull out selected excerpts, and make that Congressman look really, really bad. It’s not that hard, seeing as the 112th House, in their first session alone, voted on 1549 bills. (1) There is no possible way, without abstaining from 90% of the bills, for a Congressperson to never vote for any bill that contains any provision that hurts anyone. In fact, it is vital to recognize that every bill is a compilation of compromises between groups that includes both benefits and costs. To isolate any one element from the larger bill is to remove all frame of reference, rendering the selected provision entirely meaningless. Yes, Cravaack may have raised the cost of Medicare on Seniors, but he could have done it by voting on a bill that gave that very money to their Social Security account for accounting purposes, where nothing would have actually changed, or he could have voted on it in a bill that eliminated all taxes for people receiving Medicare, we don’t know, and without this context the meaning of this provision which increased costs on seniors is meaningless. There are so many bills, with so many elements, all of which have to be taken together, that I wouldn’t place any faith in these statements as representing the actual actions and intentions of Chip Cravaack.
(continued in next post)
(continued from previous post)
After reading Sam L’s fact-checking of the video I surprisingly find that he and I agree fundamentally on the nature of the advertisement—deceptive. While he found sources for each statistic cited and then used them to argue (rather effectively) why the ad is false, I simply state that there is just way too much possible skew that opponents can introduce to accept anything that is said in this way in a political advertisement as true (I also am not required to provide counter-points for the ad as part of my post). Therefore, Sam’s analysis of the ad reinforces my position and provides a little weight to my argument that the ad is largely baseless in its attacks.
Finally, we face the issue of creating a way of preventing deception in political ads. I think that one of the best ways to prevent deception in a political ad would be to make a campaign requirement that any statistic cited in an ad must be cited in text large enough that it uses some percentage of the screen (like 15%). If we wanted to be real jerks, we could make the requirement that they use MLA, with all of it’s superfluous syntax & useless detail (hem hem), instead of just the necessary information to find the article. Another thing that could be done would be to require at the end of the ad (or beginning, since it’s just an arbitrary decision anyways) a statement of every piece of evidence they cited in their ad which must just be the text of the citations and/or a voice-over of those citations (ex. “Sources include Washington Post, August 13, 2012. Time Magazine, August 29, 2012. NBC Evening News, September 23, 2012”). This would a) provide time after (or before) every ad where people can find the resources to investigate, and b) shorten the amount of time that the groups get to make their pitch, decreasing the cost-effectiveness of an ad and therefore (hopefully, according to the laws of economics) decrease the number of political ads we see. Furthermore, the prevention of any other background overtones would make this segment of the ad totally free from any connotation or persuasion, and would allow viewers to objectively analyze what they see for a brief moment.
1. http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/112/house/
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W8pvtt6lEHQ
This comment has been removed by the author.
In response to Melayna's post..
I viewed the ad from Melayna's post and found it to be somewhat interesting. In my opinion, if somebody who was not very politically informed were to watch it, they would be completely convinced that it was Obama's fault that China was essentially "ruining" the United States. The ad itself was very dramatically portrayed, however the facts were also very wrong. Upon closer inspection of the ad, Melayna's post, and after fact checking myself, I found that I did agree with everything Melayna said about ad. The main, and perhaps most appalling, inaccuracy that stood out to me was that the advertisement made it out to to be that Obama had cost 2 million jobs to be taken from the U.S., by China. As proved by fact checking and background knowledge I have in this specific area, Obama had actually won patent deals with China. I feel that this ad was a waste of money to produce, as it is hardly accurate about many other things mentioned in it. I think that it is unfair that so many people will see these ads and be convinced of falsehoods. This ad shows that it is smart to question the media and that people should fact-check whenever possible.
1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bguruRep8MM
2. http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obama-twists-romneys-economic-record
In the video that Erik fact-checked, the Obama campaign accused Mitt Romney of consistently outsourcing jobs and planning to do so again as president. For me, the ad was not very persuasive for two main reasons: the fact that an unnamed number of jobs were outsourced is not mutually exclusive with a net job creation, and the ad also fails to connect these past acts with any current plans to outsource more jobs if Mitt Romney is elected president. Besides, as the CEO of a company, Mitt’s goal was profit, not national wellbeing; outsourcing jobs as a business man can be a smart decision and pay dividends for both the company and shareholders. After the facts are checked, the ad becomes even more successful in its goal because of its untruthfulness. Neither of the examples of Mitt’s supposed outsourcing are attributable to the candidate’s actions, and even the description of Mitt as a “corporate raider” seems to be stretching the truth. I’m not sure about the guidelines or moderations, if any are in place at all, in regards to political ads, but if this ad can pass through them, they certainly need to be made more stringent. In order for the American people to make the best choices possible, and indeed the one that is in their own interests, they must be presented with, at the very least, factual information, if not unbiased. Government agencies already in place can take the responsibility of vetting television and print ads, or it could be handed off to third party groups that would be private run in order to ensure a lack of bias from the party in power at the time.
1)http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bVaw5cTjxmk
2)http://factcheck.org/2012/06/obamas-outsourcer-overreach/
As I viewed the “Stand Up to China” video that was posted by the Romney campaign and commented by RFricke, I did not think that the ad was very persuasive. First of all, the link between Obama and China stealing American jobs and technology was tenuous. The only evidence for a link was the denial of Obama seven times to enforcing stricter regulations upon China. This evidence is extremely weak because the viewer does not know the circumstances surrounding the denials. In fact, as I looked into the reasons for Obama’s denial of enforcing regulations on China, I found that the seven denials were the times that the “Obama administration had to apply the currency manipulator label to China through the Treasury Department’s Semiannual Report on International Economic and Exchange Rate Policy to Congress(1).” Although this still does not shed President Obama in a positive light, it removes the misconception that Obama refused to act on limiting technological theft. When further fact-checking is taken into consideration, this ad becomes even less persuasive. Although the Romney camp claims that Obama has allowed China to syphon jobs away from America, this is not true. In fact, in the December US.-China Joint Commission on Commerce and Trade (JCCT), President Obama and Chinese leaders were able to reach an agreement on enforcing stricter sanctions on Chinese businesses to prevent further information theft (1). When taking these misconceptions and fact stretches into account, I find that this ad is not persuasive because there is evidence that directly refute the claim that Obama has refused to protect American technology and jobs from China.
As shown from the article reviewed earlier, the issue of misconstruing facts has become a problem in todays world. One way in which this problem can be fixed is by forcing television stations to check the sources that the candidates provide in support of the arguments in their ad, a method which is already being used in regulating third party ads (2). By allowing the media to check political ads, freedom of speech is not being limited because a campaign can simply go to another station to broadcast their ad if they are denied by one station. Also broadcasting stations would be forced to thoroughly research each ads because if a flawed ad is broadcasted, the station risks damaging its reputation. With the adoption of this policy, voters will become more informed and more active in the political sphere as a result of this knowledge.
1.http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/post/another-misleading-china-ad-from-mitt-romney/2012/10/01/1ec03102-0bcc-11e2-bd1a-b868e65d57eb_blog.html
2.http://www.lwv.org/content/problem-and-project
I elected to watch the ad that Sara commented on, “Forward,” put out by Barack Obama’s campaign. On the whole, prior to any fact checking, the ad seems quite convincing—it makes terrific use of issues that he solved or helped resolve over the last four years, which are pertinent to many Americans across the board. The longer ad—clearly intended for internet use, not television—allows ample time to cover everything from health care reform to the repealing of “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell,” from the killing of Osama bin Laden to the auto industry bailout, from the improved affordability of Pell grants to students to elimination of unfair and harmful credit card fees (1). It certainly does a good job of convincing a fairly informed viewer that Obama has done a pretty good job of fixing a number of problems, even if these are only a fraction of those we face currently. However, when watching political ads, you have to take everything with a grain of salt: campaigns and candidates love nothing better than to spin an impactful message into one or two statistics, almost always helping their cause and often containing some slander.
Sara’s fact-checking certainly does shed some light that makes the ad slightly less convincing; as she said, it seems fairly truthful, but turns a few statistics and facts to the campaign’s advantage. One such tweak in perspective is shared by the fact-checker Sara used, which states that Obama passed his plan for health care in Illinois by “bringing Democrats and Republicans together (2).” Well, we know for sure that’s not true—it’s hard to think of a time when politics have been more partisan. The bill, in fact, shows not even the faintest mirage that the two parties were cooperating, being voted in with a 60-39 vote in the state Senate (with no Republicans for it) and with a 219-212 vote in the Illinois House. So while on the whole, the video seems positive and inspiring, it achieves this by twisting a few numbers into something more than they truly are.
Is there a truly realistic and effectual way to ensure entirely truthful ads? Likely not. Even those that are truthful can, as proved here, turn things to shine positively on them, which detracts from the credibility of their accuracy. However, one such option may be to have such ads be run through unaligned groups before being released to be fact-checked, and if any errors or disturbingly misleading information are found, such groups could require the ad designers to edit that before release or add a disclaimer, or perhaps even just a citation so that those who want to check it can.
1.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1WbQe-wVK9E&feature=relmfu&noredirect=1
2. http://www.factcheck.org/2012/01/promises-promises/
In response to Jessica’s post about the two conflicting ads centered on the medicare debate, I agree that the Romney ad is more incorrect that the Obama. However, one interesting claim made by Romney in “Paid In,” is that seniors have been paying into Medicare their whole lives and deserve its benefits. This is interesting because the Obama camp has said the exact same thing. In reality, both camps are wrong. The amount of money paid by workers into Medicare is actually less than what is required by every citizen that uses it. The rest of the burden falls to taxpayers, and that is what the Romney campaign should be focusing on if it wants to gain ground. In truth, the Obama camp could use it for its own advantage as well, but the anti-tax message sits especially well with the right.
To me, Obama’s ad is more persuasive, but only because it doesn’t rely on the scare tactics that the Romney ad does. Fact checking ads like Obama’s resonate well with the American people, while scary ads only fan the flames already burning within the conservative right. In order to induce truthful advertising, I would suggest we use an approach that one of the Shermans (I forgot which sorry guys) mentioned in their response to post two: Make the candidates personally endorse each add, thus holding them accountable for their claims. As a side note I must commend Jessica for her unbiasedness, if I may be allowed to create a word.
[1] http://factcheck.org/2012/08/a-campaign-full-of-mediscare/
[2.]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH5dEPbB5yQ
[3]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l4gPvToKTWU
I completely agree with melayna! Mitts ads are so rude and inaccurate. Politicians always try to blame china for so many problems that arent even related. The jobs issue should be dealt with at home with maturity and not blame it on unrealted problems. They need to take action instead trying to make it someone elses problem. Mitt shouldn't have taken that approach because it hints that he qould be thebkind of president not to take action but to avoid it.
If romney were to be elected and continued to blame things on foreign countries the united states would lose the trust we've gained around the world. Melaynas post was pursuasive becausev she was able to say what she believed of romneys speech and she was able to show she understood why romneys speexh was inaccurate. She gave very good examples of how it was inaccurate and told the true facts.
In response to Sam W's post, I think the Too Many Americans ad is persuasive. It's gets straight to the point. He looks pretty serious and that is a serious topic. It makes me want to vote for Romney so people won't be under the poverty line. It makes it less persuasive, but not by much. Most of what he said can't be determined because they aren't specific enough. The biggest part that speaks to me is that Sam says, " 'Mitt's final claim that his plan will create 12 million new jobs over the next four years.' (1) When the general job market is looked at now, many predictions estimate that, no matter who is president, 12 million new jobs will have been created as a natural result of the expanding economy, so while the number is correct, Mitt's claim that it is HIS plan that will do the job creating is a little deceiving." That makes me feel that no matter who the president is, there will be jobs that are created. I honestly don't think there is a way to make sure that candidates tell the truth without infringing on freedom of speech.
If romney were to be elected and continued to blame things on foreign countries the united states would lose the trust we've gained around the world. Melaynas post was pursuasive becausev she was able to say what she believed of romneys speech and she was able to show she understood why romneys speexh was inaccurate. She gave very good examples of how it was inaccurate and told the true facts.
jake the snake:
I am responding to Kangqiaos post about the ad "Dangerous" regarding Rick Nolan. I would agree with most of what he said about the ad. It was not outright lying or even being that bad by todays standards, it just left out most of what Rick Nolan did do or proposed to do in his healthcare bill. I also think that this ad specifically targeted senior citizens because of the way it said the way he would do away with medicare. Especially in light of the debate from last night, where both candidates tryed to make it clear that they were not going to change medicare for those over 55, I think this was meant to destablize Nolans senior base. The other thing i would agree with is his analysis of the health care bill Nolan wanted to pass. Canada and Europe generally have more comprehensive health care plans then does the U.S. so I don't know where people would get the impression that they wouldn't be covered. Quite the opposite actually, they would probably be covered better.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home