Bush vs Kerry in 2004 - Research Paper Example

? Bush Vs. Kerry: 2004 of institute: Media The object of oratory is not truth but persuasion: Aristotle. The fundamentals of an election are still the same but the entry of media into the boxing ring has greatly changed the strategy of voter-swaying. In fact, it is fair to say that whole national elections are run on the airwaves. Television ads are now indelibly a hallmark of presidential races. According to West, they attract a larger audience and an effective way for a candidate to pass a message to his voters. Illustrative of this changing landscape are the 2004 presidential election campaigns. The top Democratic and Republican candidates were John Kerry and George W. Bush. Some of the key issues on which the campaigns turned included: the invasion on Iraq and generally the war on terror and defense issues, gay marriages, abortion, health, environmental issues, education, budget, trade and issues of gun control. It is on these controversial issues that voters divided between both the Republican and Democratic camps. It is mainly on media, specifically ad campaigning that opponents communicate ideas to the populace and it has proved instrumental in influencing voting patterns, voter turnout and even tipping the vote in tight races the main focus being in battleground states. The race between Bush and Kerry was so close that many issues were predicted to be likely to tip on the balance. One of these was television ad campaigns. The amount of financial resources spent was staggering. In 2004, with fifty sponsors, the Republicans having nineteen and Democrats the rest, hundreds of ads were aired up to over 670, 000 times in prime markets and on cable. Over $ 550, 000 was spent by these sources. Swift boating or shadowing can also be a function of election advertising campaigns; analogous to smear campaigns, these are attacks on an opponent’s credibility and patriotism. An unfortunate effect of media involvement in campaigns is that while policy issues are initially covered, these issues tend to get less coverage when the race heats up, when the public has more need for such information as focus shifts to strategy. Not surprising then is the Milbank& VandeHei research that affirms that voters learn more about candidates more from ads than the news. The Bush-Kerry race was a competitive one and one in which commercials were a dominant and decisive feature. The unprecedented amount spent on the 2004 election ad campaigns is one of its distinctive features. The second was that it commenced earlier than had been witnessed before, on March 4th and third was the record set by outsiders, non-candidate groups for example the SBVT, a veteran group which felt itself bound to step forward to apparently correct Kerry’s ‘exaggerated’ claims about his service in Vietnam. An anonymous source is of the view that while investigations into the effects of political ad campaigns hasn’t been proven to improve voter turnout or set the pace for the discussion of issues or other agenda they are widely agreed to affect a voter’s choice, stimulate interest in the election, help change perceptions about a candidate and generally increase knowledge on issues and policy. Candidates in election ads can acclaim defend or attack. Research according to Gallup & Newport shows that attacks on policy rather than the character or person are more effective. There are two major ads that can prove the statistics right. Kerry's "fought for his country" ad and George Bush's "100 days" ad are perfect examples of what electoral electioneering encompasses. “Fought for his country”- John Kerry The words spoken are in normal print whereas the music is italicized and the images are in prentices. The ad opens with a three way split-screen. As the announcer begins on Kerry’s history and soft music starts in the background and piano strokes continue throughout the whole commercial. Its upbeat music that progressively increases in tempo and pitch throughout the whole commercial. It then plays footage of Kerry in the Vietnam period, of him giving a speech and conducting a business consultation. The voice over that initially commenced the ad announces: For 35 years, John Kerry has fought for his country. Then comes Senator Kerry himself in a sun speckled room: We need to get something done in the country: affordable health care, rolling back tax cuts for the wealthy, really investing in our kids. The camera zooms in on him as he says: That’s why am running for president. As the commercial continues images of Kerry interacting with a Hispanic and white police officer as well as monochromatic photos of Kerry in uniform in a jungle with a rifle and helmet from the Vietnam War as the voice over speaks about American military defense as well as a picture of him receiving the silver star, Kerry shaking hands with white male factory workers in hard hats and holding hands in a town meeting as the announcer talks about job creation and the economy. Then John Kerry appears approving the message. Three separate photos appear elderly white and black persons, a black girl and white mother and child. The text on screen says that Kerry approved and paid for the message and finally the announcer proclaims John Kerry as the new direction in America. This is Lessing's analysis. “100 days”-George W. Bush The commercial begins with President Bush approving this message. As a female announcer outlines the key concerns of the President in the first 100 days of office, a White House picture comes from opposite sides of the screen and rips apart. Words flash on screen as the voice over continues, detracting Kerry’s plan on various things such as spending and taxes as pictures of two distraught looking people, one black man and a white woman, come from opposite sides of the screen. As the topic changes to terror, three pictures of hostile looking people come on screen and focus is on their eyes. In white and red are words that claim John Kerry’s plan to weaken the fight and three pictures of a veiled Middle Eastern woman, a UN soldier and another of a man running. Text appears that declares Kerry wrong on various things. All these seemingly benign devices mean something. The Kerry ad used various persuasion narrative techniques. Firstly, the simplicity of the verbal script and lack of complicating action makes this an orientation ad that describes his character. After talking about the economy plan then the town meeting comes on screen as visual evidence of Kerry working on his plan. This invites conclusions about how he cares for people and how he’s action oriented. In Anderson's analysis of the electoral campaign, the photos of random people at the end of the ad are smiling signifying a promising future. The emphasis of the commercial is both on the past and the future. This ad was acclaim. The positive parts imagery uses different types of people to appeal to a wider demographic, a multi-racial angle yet noticeably Arab Americans aren’t present. Kerry’s text is in a non-threatening white lettering. They don’t jump out at the viewer but offer a calm message. The soft music played gives positive vibes and the positive increase in tempo. Even the pictures at the end with smiling people encourage hope about the future. The 30 second ad focuses on Kerry’s life story and is a bid to fight off the image painted by Republicans of him as a tax-raising liberal who’s weak on national defense. In contrast, the 100 days commercial is an attack that employs negative advertising. The verbal script to tell of events, abstracts and visual imagery to evaluate those events is not striking at all. According to Harris these devices are actually practically effective. The White House came together when Bush’s name was mentioned but ripped at Kerry’s name. Distraught faces at the sound of Kerry’s tax plan. Bush’s ad uses red lettering, a color as in this case most used for the opponents, to evoke moods and memories and change emotions. The flashing of red text to the viewer encourages them to consider the opponent negatively. Caesar and Busch are of the view that while Kerry wasn’t really planning to raise taxes by $ 900 billion tax hike it was an estimate of his health care plan over 10 years and he did actually vote for the Patriot Act his opposition to the Iraq invasion was being used by the Bush-Cheney team as a militarily weak leader . Psychology is the latest entrant in the political race and no doubt it will be the most enduring with millions being poured into research to find out how to influence public opinion, how to change attitudes, increase popularity and tarnish one’s opponent. Whether this emotional and psychological manipulation is ethical is treated as a secondary issue to the obvious effectiveness of media in electoral campaigns. References Anderson, N. (2004) “The Race to the White House. “The New York Times, New York. Lessman, K. (2004) “Extending the Appeal” United States accessed on 20th November, 2011 at12:42fromwww.gradfree.com [internet] Anonymous (2004) “The Presidential Elections” Accessed on20th November 18, 2011 at 11:15 fromwww.democraticunderground.com. [Internet] Harris, R. (2009). “A Cognitive Psychology of Mass Communication.” Publisher Taylor & Francis. ISBN 0415993111 West, D. (2009). “Air Wars: Television Advertising in Election Campaigns’, 1952-2008. CQ Press. ISBN 978-0-87289-778-6 Gallup, M. A. & Newport, M. (2004) “The Gallup Poll: public opinion 2004” Rowman & Littlefield. Caesar, J. & Busch, A (2005). “Red over Blue”.Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.ISBN-13: 978- 0742534971. Milbank, D. & VandeHei, J. (2004). “Scholars say Campaign is making History with often- Misleading Attacks “Accessed on 20th November 2011 at 12:23 from http/www.pcl.stanford.edu [internet]. Read More