Ad Season Ramping Up

Two of my favorite ads so far in the 2012 election cycle have been these:

In this ad, Republican presidential candidate Ron Paul takes a much smarter approach than I have seen throughout most of the primary. Instead of trying to differentiate himself from Barack Obama, he shows how each of his relevant opponents have sided with Obama or with liberal politics and ideas. I think is a much smarter game plan - instead of slamming into the juggernaut that is the Obama politcal machine, Paul saves his early game for taking hits on the Mitt Romneys and Rick Perrys of the world. Now, while this is probably a logistical thing (Paul likely has much less in the war chest than his opponents, and therefore has to keep doing well in the primary to stay afloat), it's smart to save your big hits on Obama for when he is actually your main opponent and to make yourself look different from the sea of other (with apologies to Bachmann and Cain) white guys in suits that are running against you.

I also like this ad:

I'm a fan of this one because it's an incumbent behaving like an incumbent should. Not gloating about achievement, not complaining about what he would do better, and no mudslinging at any of his opponents. Now, I'm not exclusively against mudslinging per se - it's a very useful tactic. Though, Obama has the opportunity of being ahead of every possible contender and having a lot of chances for them to shoot themselves in the foot. This is clear with this ad, which is very calm and relaxed. It focuses on Obama has a candidate and a leader, not on tearing down any opponents.

I chose to analyze Gov. Rick Perry's calling of Herman Cain "brother" during a recent debate. These three articles had a couple big differences that I thought were critical.

http://theweek.com/article/index/220489/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother

http://articles.nydailynews.com/2011-10-19/news/30318205_1_herman-cain-brother-debate

http://news.yahoo.com/why-did-rick-perry-call-herman-cain-brother-095000099.html

What I found most interesting is that one of the articles, the one from the New York Daily News, didn't refer at all to the fact that Rick Perry also called Gov. Mitt Romney "Sir". I felt like this was an important idea, and lent very much to the fact that Rick Perry was sarcastically urbanizing his speech towards Cain while making Romney seem stuffy. He was lampooning his candidates in a way to make them less appealing to the voters.

I also found it interesting that the New York Daily News was the only publication to not rely on its own conjecture - instead going to experts in the subject of race relations. This allows them to tell a fairly straight inverted pyramid style story while everyone else relied on the instant analysis type of story.

I think it's interesting that the Washington Post, a paper seen as "liberal" analyzed every possible angle and reason the Perry could have used the term. It seems like they would have instantly gone with "racism" if they were marking for Obama.

Ads Ads Ads

Of the three ads presented (I'm not sure what happened with the Obama Ad, but it's pretty clearly not an Obama Ad, as stated in the video's description), I think Rick Perry's was the least effective. While Perry was clearly swinging for the fences in his ad, I think he hits a little too negative. Though we've been all to familiar through our reading of Game Change how bloody primaries can get, I don't think this one will carry hostility that is so present and divisive in Perry's ad. It's a little uncomfortable to watch it.

I actually liked Michelle Bachman's ad, but it was a little simple. It didn't wow me the way I feel like a presidential ad should. It felt more like she was running for reelection in the House or for a smaller office than president. It fairly clearly showcased her ideas and what some of her big griefs are with Obama, but it didn't do enough to make it seem like she was ready for the biggest office in the country.

I feel like Mitt Romney's ad was the most effective. Though it's more lengthy than you'd see on a T.V. spot (which goes into my idea that candidates should be focusing on the internet for ads, which I'll get into later in the post), it has a great focus and paints a tough picture while not being the gloom and doom that Perry's ad exudes. It also shows great poise and understanding of the issues at hand.

It seems almost a forgone conclusion that social media will play just as big, if not a bigger role in the 2012 election as it did in 2008. If this is the case, Twitter is incredibly savvy to begin selling out some advertising space, and how candidates use social media to connect with voters is going to be pivotal. I feel like younger voters and senior voters are already solid in their respective camps, and that the candidate that can best connect with voters aged 30-45, since these are the voters with the largest stock in the economy's success.

While T.V. advertising is still probably going to get the bulk of ad spending, it seems to be much more of a push strategy instead of a pull. When an ad is thrust at me as I am watching an episode of How I Met Your Mother, I am much less likely to be drawn to its message than if it gets shot at me from a Twitter account I follow and I have the option of clicking forward or ignoring it.

It will be exceptionally effective if a candidate can get their message to viral, somewhat like the way Obama did in 2008. We are much more likely to be interested in something if our friends are sharing it on a social media site. Obama already has a headstart with this, having his Obama for America canvassing team spread the word through Facebook through it's "I'm in" campaign. Though Obama may be hard to take down in this environment that seems so liberal friendly, the eventual GOP nominee would be making a gigantic mistake if they discount the low risk (fiscally, at least), high reward area of social media.

A lot to talk about this week

Occupy Wall Street. I relish the opportunity to talk about something so hyper relevant, especially with the protests making their way to Phoenix over the weekend, and ending in the arrests of several Phoenix residents, including some of my classmates at ASU. It's a fascinatingly polarizing topic that makes a lot of strong opinions spurn up.

On to the actual topic: It feels odd to me that we're putting Current and MSNBC on the same scale in this discussion. I feel like Current openly displays it's bias. I mean, it hired Olbermann as it's lead news director, and did it after MSNBC cast him off after nearly a year of him openly displaying his liberal bias. Current is doing nothing to hide it's bias, so it makes perfect sense that Olbermann and other people on the network would be marking for the Occupy protests.

What makes me more angry is that MSNBC is behaving in the a similar way. Not only are they letting Olbermann dictate how they are reporting Occupy Wallstreet, they are ruining all their good graces they gained by cutting ties with Keith by continuing to pursue stories in a way that can be mistaken for a liberal agenda. Are Republicans excused for pushing the narrative that Occupy Wallstreet isn't a story so much as it's a bunch of misinformed rich people complaining and that MSNBC and their ilk are just marking for liberals by covering it? No, but MSNBC has been taking jabs from Republicans long enough to know how they're going to attack and how they're going to try to force the narrative. If nothing else, there's some smack of liberal pandering just by pursuing something that they know is essentially throwing a raw T-bone to the Republican attack dogs.

In the end, I think it's impossible to avoid promoting an agenda in the mainstream news. You report a certain way which leads to gaining a certain viewer set the expects you to report a certain way. In that sense, I absolutely believe that MSNBC is marking towards liberals in their coverage of Occupy Wall Street.

This brings me to my next point: Competition among cable news outlet is harmful for the quality of journalism these organizations produce. Because so much of their coverage has to be custom fitted to the audience that flocks to them, major news outlets like MSNBC and Fox can fall victim to bias sneaking into their coverage because it fills a need that the people watching their programs want. Instead of focusing on telling the story with the truth as the main idea, they can end up reporting biased ideas for the sake of ratings. This can strangle all of the journalistic quality out of their reporting.

Shortly after Steve Jobs passed away, I watched not only this speech but another that seemed appropriate. Though I was never much for his products under the Apple brand, Jobs' work in the creating Pixar films has always stuck with me and helped me focus and appreciate the beauty that is in the world. There are still moments in movies like Up! and Toy Story that rip my heart out and make me weep like a little baby, and that's such a refreshing thing. I look at creations that have the longstanding affects of a Pixar film or the technology Apple created and it drives me to create and try to find something inside of myself to create and to fight through the times where I just look at my writing and think it's crummy or derivative or silly. I reach for the things that keep me inspired and in awe at one a person or a few people can create, and it makes something as simple as writer's block that could put me into a cage and make it seem less lofty.

Fox News and a Media Analysis

I was quite amused watching the clip of Papa Bear O'Reilly speak with fire and brimstone about the "liberal media's" love affair with getting Barack Obama re-elected. While I've never been too big of a fan of Mr. No Spin, I occasionally flick on his show to see what kind of narrative the right wing is pushing. This is why I find his constant attempted take downs of left organizations quite amusing.

Since this is typical Fox News fair, it's not surprise that this HuffPo story states their viewers are among the most consistently uninformed viewers. What Bill O'Reilly is doing here isn't news, and it isn't even informed commentary. There are no sources, no reasons why he believes that the media is treating Obama with kid's gloves. The only piece of evidence - the Pew research study his source states - is actually against Fox News, but they present as if it is praising Fox News.

It baffles me that O'Reilly can stand up on his little anger pedestal and make these claims and bold faced lies on and on, and then play victim when he and his Fox News associates are called on it. It's quite disappointing.

For my Media Analysis, I ended up watching MSNBC's Alex Witt and Thom Hartmann, a radio/TV personality who's show airs on Free Speech TV. I figured this would be a good way to see how two programs that are considered "liberal" would cover similar events. The only thing they both talked about - because Witt ended up doing a feature heavy show where as Hartmann fired off on a lot of heavy, hard news for more rabid followers of politics - was Herman Cain harshly criticizing Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Hartmann was a lot more incendiary than Witt, taking Cain to task for a "lack of awareness" and calling it ironic, that Cain, a former CEO of a company, would find fault with people protesting, essentially, CEOs of companies. He also said he wasn't surprised about Cain's harsh words, pointing back to other times Cain has said harsh things on the spot.

Witt's analysis was much less editorial, focusing on what he actually said - strictly reporting it - and then also referencing Cain's attack on Muslims that he apologized for.

When Hartmann brought it up, he did not mention that Cain apologized for it.

2 Billion

When you consider the public spaces today as opposed to a century ago, it's a very different atmosphere. Because of population expansion and devotion to technology, we are becoming further and further apart from each other physically - the world just doesn't demand the intimate closeness it used to. This means that the town halls and the forums and large, community gatherings where people would meet, greet and exchange ideas are a thing of the past.

Now, we have to find a way to communicate and exchange ideas that isn't bogged down by physical restrictions. This has presented itself, as two billion people worldwide can attest to, in the internet. We've seen - especially in recent weeks with the London riots being mobilized over Twitter, Facebook and Blackberry messenger - that digital communication is the new forum for ideas.

The internet, since is presents that unique ability to connect over shared ideas with people you would normally not meet in your day-to-day life, has become a way of establishing new communities while helping existing communities connect without having to arrange meeting times or match schedules. The anonymity it grants also allows people to exchange their true ideas a lot easier than they would in a physical forum. This is where the problem can sometimes lie.

Because people can share any kind of ideas with a presumably limitless audience, this means that they can pretty rapidly spread an idea or concept that could be dangerous. This can be both a threat to government, who has to decide what ideas to act on and what ideas to ignore, and the people have to be careful to decide what ideas are worth fighting for, and then protect them from a particularly overbearing government.

It creates a dynamic juggling act that increases tension between the government and the governed, with the former finding the fine line of safety and censorship and the latter trying to filter out the myriad of opinions and ideas that are thrust upon them to find something that's really worth fighting for.

Having always lived with the 1st Amendment hearing of situations where ideas are being withheld and the internet being censored really ruffles my feathers. Knowing that words are powerful is no reason to fear them, and attempting to censor them just because to give your people the power of he idea makes the staunch information freedom advocate in me tremble with anger.

It's an interesting strategy, but when you're oppressing the populace, it serves more to rattle the cages you've put them in than it does to shut down their lines of communications. Whether it's utilizing the internet in the Occupy Wall Street or utilizing Blackberry messenger to organize the riots in London, the people are always going to find ways to mobilize (pardon the pun).

The biggest problem is that when they find a government has been trying to keep them down by cutting off those efforts, it's just going to stoke the core of the fire even more.