We chose the republican ad from 1968 that used a quote from Robert Creel, founder of the KKK, saying that he supported candidate Barry Goldwater. The ad from 2008 we chose was a republican ad criticizing Obama for being associated with revolutionary William Ayers. Both ads use the tactic of guilt by association. Goldwater is "associated" with the KKK because Robert Creel says that he supports him and Obama is a crazy terrorist because he has called Ayers "respectable" and "mainstream." Both ads want to scare people into believing that the candidate they're attacking will let these bad things happen again. Goldwater will turn a blind eye to the atrocities of the KKK and Obama will not protect the country against terrorist attacks, both foreign and American. Immediately people think back to 9/11 when they see the Obama ad. The 64' ad uses a haunting image of members of the KKK and a burning cross moving across the screen to evoke fear and terror in viewers. The 08' ad uses a mirage of images of both Obama and Ayers, so we immediately link the two in our heads. It also uses images of old newspaper clippings and still shots of the Weather Underground. At the end of the ad both Obama and Ayers are shown on the screen side by side. In the 64' ad neither Goldwater or Creel are shown, but the quote the narrator uses is enough to develop a relationship between the two and a negative image for Goldwater.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Our group chose 1968-D2 (Law and Order Democrat, Humphrey, 1968) and 2008-D7 (Not Now, Obama / AFL-CIO, 2008) for comparison.
Both ads could be categorized as "negative" or "attack ads", but the tone of each is different. In the 1968 ad, Humphrey is very direct, camera fixed on him as he is presumably answering a question regarding the welfare of America in the wake of anti-war protests and the assassinations of Bobby Kennedy and MLK Jr. He very pointedly attacks the character and judgment of Nixon, and his verbal tone is clearly one of contempt, if not outright disgust. The ad is quite stark, in that there are no musical cues, visual effects or jarring editing-- the camera simply shows the reflective reaction of a younger journalist (in itself a very shrewd gesture, given the context of the 1968 sociopolitical climate) and the somber tone of the then Vice President gives a sense of urgency to the points being made.
The Obama ad from 2008 also makes an attack on the character and judgment of John McCain, though with a bit more subtlety and misdirection. We're told upfront (by a Vietnam war veteran, no less) that Senator McCain's record as a vet is beyond reproach. This presents an air of fairness and altruism on the part of the opposing candidate, and sets up the negative counterpoint nicely-- we're then told that his record of public service in the Senate is problematic, while images of armed soldiers and legless amputees are juxtaposed against school buses and blue-collar machinists.
From a production standpoint, the Obama ad eschews the stark nature of Humphrey's ad, instead utilizing musical cues (primarily minor key, ominous music), on-screen text and several editing cuts to emphasize the points being made. It is interesting to note that George Bush's name is mentioned exactly as many times as McCain-- in this way, the AFL-CIO (who sponsors the ad) is attempting to marry the name McCain with Bush, whose approval percentages are the lowest in history since Truman. By attacking the one core element and strong-suit of McCain's campaign (domestic and foreign security), the ad strikes a nerve with independent voters who may otherwise vote for the Arizona senator.
Our group chose 1964 D6(Poverty, Johnson) and R27(Dome, McCain).
Both of these ads show how times have changed and that campaign ads have changed too. In the poverty ad, the narrator goes into detail about how our children are being affected by the economy. It' shows still images of sad children in poorly dressed clothes portraying the message that there is no hope under a Goldwater administration. It doesn't directly attack the opponent, but gives the viewer a sense of what it would be like if Goldwater won the election.But that is not the same for now.
In the attack ad "DOME" by John McCain, it id using a fear tactic used back in 60's. The ad says that Obama wants a "MASSIVE GOV'T" and tax hard on everyone. This is what people consider socialism and many fear it. McCain is trying to portray Obama a big scary that will take all your money and control your life.
Both commericials deal with the economy , but only the 64' ad seemed more civil and got their point across without bad mouthing their republican opponent.It looks as if though elections have grown more savage and less focused on the issues about the campaign.
Each group so far has taken an interesting look at the ads in question. It does seem that the groundwork for our current political publicity machinery was indeed being laid more than 40 or 50 years ago. At the same time, the ads themselves have gotten more sophisticated. I wonder if you can comment on the way the ads are directed -- or what their effect is meant to be. How are you supposed to feel after watching these ads? and what elements are designed to get you there? I'd also like to see more direct quoting from the scripts of the ads, so we can see the language used. Good work.
Post a Comment