Hat Tip Gwenny Todd
Have you read the breakthrough novel of the year? When you are done with that, try:
In Search of Sungudogo by Greg Laden, now in Kindle
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
or Paperback
*Please note:
Links to books and other items on this page and elsewhere on Greg Ladens' blog may send you to Amazon, where I am a registered affiliate. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases, which helps to fund this site.
Um… okay.It seems the lady-in-the-video’s arguing against the use of “the politics of fear” in ad campaigning or the use of visual medial/advertisement to illicit fear/anxiety in order to influence voters. (at least thats what I gather)My issues with this argument:Being depicted in the stock footage doesn’t add or subtract to/from the argument of the negative effect that “fear” ads have towards political campaigning.Her being involved with the Obama campaign doesn’t add/subtract to/from the argument inferred from this video.Its good to hear that she isn’t scared and that she embraced hope, but it doesn’t seem to have any relation to the argument that is presented.My initial impression of this video was that its more of an ad hominem than addressing the issue of “fear in politics”. Pointing out that Clinton campaign uses “fear” tactics in their advertisement doesn’t address Clinton’s qualification/suitability for President nor does it address Clinton’s political opinions or arguments.In the end, this video is a moot point. Doesn’t really accomplish anything in my opinion. Just trying to be skeptical, not choosing sides.
In what way does this add elicit fear? Fear of what? I’m genuinely curious – not knowing US elections or campaigning too well I don’t always pick up on the undercurrents.For me it does two things – cuts away at a negative ad, by pointing out the man behind the curtain in a moderately clever way (I’m not sure if pointing out your opponent is using a negative ad is negative campaigning – it’s certainly getting into murky territory). The other thing it has is a very white young woman saying she’s for Obama. Which is largely a ‘so, who are you?’ – but I guess it’s a way of reaching out to white voters.
Ack. Subtract add and add ad.
There’s no question this isn’t a logical argument contained in this at all, but as a political advertisement it is very well done and strikes me as highly effective. Dare I say it, it uses “framing”?Idlethought, the main accusation made in regard to the original Clinton advertisement was that it tapped into/ reiforced the entire “OMG VOTE FOR ME OR WE WONT BE SAFE FROM THE TERRORISTS” sort of attitude. I’m not sure how fair that is but the response is in that context. Also, Obama has repeatedly called for rejecting the “politics of fear” in favor of the “politics of hope” so to some extent this is just connecting it with the previous messages that the public has hear.
I particularly like two things the ad does. I like that it breaks down things to be afraid of into blue light and a spooky voice. “See? Nothing left to fear once you take away the special effects. You’re being manipulated, people.” It’s one of my favorite games to play with ads. (The other is spot the unintended message. “It will take Clinton how long to answer that phone?”)But the thing I most like about it is that it suggests parents should think beyond being afraid for their children to what their children would actually want them to do. I’m for just about any message that promotes long-term thinking.
Idlethought:The American feminiSS left used the image of children sleeping in their beds to create the image that men are somehow bigger child abusers than women( they are not), and that sleep space is safe space when the matriarch is around ( less than true, when we consider the number of children abused by their mothers versus their natural fathers).So a ” young white woman” in the ad represents exactly the type of female voter that the same feminiSS left has tried to creep into the bedroom and the mind of, for the last generation–and this particular white girl is opposed to those transparent fem tactics. This ad is just an updated example of that politic, i.e., instead of father answering the phone( the feminists especially hated fathers in the home) we have the matriarch–‘safe and strong Goddess’ Hillary.Lastly, the ad plays on the famous Daisy ad of the cold war:http://www.conelrad.com/daisy/index.phpNote the blue child?The color blue has a lot to do with simple color theory, i.e. ‘the blues’ are sad, when you feel blue, and also ironically, one of the colors used to paint prison cells( most of which were built here in the U.S. during the feminist fear campaigns of the late 80’s, 90’s) in the belief that the color has a ‘calming’ or neutralizing effect.??;-)
Silly little girl.