How much do attack ads damage our faith in our leaders?
CNN's Jack Cafferty reports an interesting article thats correlates to our course so well. The article presented is about how political campaigns are going too far and how they are getting more nastier and even more personal. I instantly refered back to the episode of South Park that was about voting for a school mascot. The two running were trying their hardest to persuade their classmates to vote for their party and it caused much chaos. In conclusion of the episode the characters came to agreement that the people running for these polllitical offices are nothing but giant doushs and turd snadwhiches. In class we learned how candidates will go to the extreme to get people to vote for them even if calls to bashing the other candidates for their benefit. The articles entails how this year candidates are taking attaack ads out of porportion by saying they are cruel and sick. They are stretching the truth to make us believe candidates are wanting to gas shelter animals, of wanting to inject young girls with dangerous drugs, of letting men beat their wives and most are coming from polititans who are already in office who thinks their job is in jepordy. One Florida Democrat calls his challenger "Taliban Dan." which makes voters believe that he is down with the Middle East which cause him to lose votes.
http://caffertyfile.blogs.cnn.com/2010/10/18/how-much-do-attack-ads-damage-our-faith-in-our-leaders/
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
When I read this article it makes me think of and revert back to the attentive public versus the inattentive public. The inattentive public, which is an audience that is generally unaware of political perspectives, would have a hard time distinguishing what is true and what is false. The attentive public, which is an audience that is aware of political perspectives, is going to be able to distinguish what is right and what is wrong. When politicians commit such attack ads the inattentive public can be easily swayed into believing what is actually being said about a candidate. The attentive public is going to be more aware and alert of attack ads and not allow the bashing to affect their political views as much.
ReplyDeleteThis article is a good example of campaigns using agenda setting. Going along with what devint75 said, the books says that "agenda-setting effects may be more prominent for those with less political interest and involvemnet.."(79). With that said, the attack ads are being framed and primed for the inattentive public to see and think that they are important issues when really the ad is harming not only the candidates reputation but the publics faith in them as well.
ReplyDelete