Political incivility, as discussed in
class, is a rising trend among politicians and politics. In the onset of this gruesome
battle between Republics and Democratic parties have grown many outlets, thanks
to the Internet and its growing popularity among the masses, where incivility
grows towards one politician to another through many forms. They have produced
attack ads, commercials, debates are held in public, and interviews are aired
with major news network channels and day-time television shows. With voting
starting in a few days, attacks ads have become the specialty that the public
has been served through all media outlets like YouTube, Facebook, and Twitter.
All candidates whether for the Presidential election or just the state
election, place attack ads everywhere and are seen by everyone. This commercial,
specifically, shows how far the Presidential campaign attack ads have spiraled out
of control.
The video above shows Sesame Street’s
famous children’s character, Big Bird. Now Big Bird has been discussed over the
internet like crazy and it’s spread like wild fire due to past debates. Mitt
Romney, the Republican Presidential candidate, has amended that when in office
he will cut subsidized funding towards PBS, the network that airs Big Bird and
his fellow friends. As with any opposing candidate, Barack Obama, the
Democratic Presidential candidate, uses
his team to turn this statement against Romney in this ad.
The video starts by showing a few
business men- Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, and Dennis Kozlowski- all who have
been involved in huge Ponzi schemes in Wall Street or made very risky and
illegal business trades in the market. Now all of these men have been caught
for their illegal activities and have spent or are spending time in jail. The
ad states that the evil criminal mastermind involved in all of these schemes
was the notorious Sesame Street character Big Bird. Now this is some-what
impossible and ridiculous to state since Big Bird is just a puppet and not an
actual human being, although he is played by one. Big Bird is a friendly
children’s character that teaches the children and provides entertainment as
well as educational learning- PBS’s medium message.
Now in
a normal attack ad the candidate would be featured in bad light by saying
something along the lines of cutting educational learning for children is the
type of President you’ll get if you elect him. But instead of jumping to that
conclusion, the Obama campaign, paints Romney in good light because he had
enough courage to name the evil master mind on Wall Street, Big Bird. Romney knows
that Big Bird is a “Big. Yellow. A menace to our economy.”
Now
this is where the ads twist the words of the other candidate and paint it in basically
an exaggerated light. Bird Big is of course not a menace to our economy neither
is PBS. But according to Romney, as the Obama administration observes, he is and
is taking tax- payer money to fund his evil vicious plans so we as a nation
must cut him off. Romney is stating that we shouldn't worry about all our retirement funds, or college funds, or investments,
or our 401 K, resting in Wall Street with greedy investors. Those are fine and
safe. What we should do through is check out how Sesame Street is doing. Who
knows, Elmo might be making shady deals with Oscar, and Ernie might not be
playing fair and cheating on his taxes. We should focus on this instead. This
is the message Obama was trying to point out to the audience by showing how absurd
this idea is.
Obama used a good word choice here in
the ad. Instead of saying that Big Bird was a menace to our country or national
security or even Wall Street, he simply says that Romney knows he is a threat
to the economy. Is that because, Romney being CEO of Bain Capital and knowing
the ins and outs of a business, also knows how the market can be affected and hurt
investments? That being a business man that we should trust his wisdom since
his business also depends on the market? Or is Obama using this logic to prove
that Romney might in fact not know anything about the market, mainly the fact
of how to raise it or fix it?
In regards to expanding your Big Bird argument, I would say that the advertisement is implying that Mitt Romney is unable to recognize the bigger problems facing the nation. The ad sarcastically implies that the focus should be on real criminals not Big Bird. By doing this the ad creates the idea that Mitt Romney’s attention is not focused on real issues but rather trivial ones. Why go after Big Bird when there are more pressing issues to address? You can tie this argument to values in popular culture regarding trust (can Mitt Romney be trusted to address the nation’s concerns?), solidarity (Why is Mitt Romney going after a favored American icon like Big Bird?), and connectedness (I like Big Bird, why doesn’t he?). Hope this helps!
ReplyDeleteI love your satirical advertisement because throughout the entire commercial the audience still has no idea as to why Romney said such things. If an individual were to watch this without any background information they would have to ask a lot of questions in order to fully understand what is happening, and what the connection is between Romney and Sesame Street. However, many Americans automatically believe Romney to be an idiot that does not focus on pressing issues, when they themselves are focusing on these ridiculous issues. I also believe this ad appeals to the American value of superiority in a way. It makes individuals feel smarter than a candidate running for president, giving them a false sense of power. Americans also value a connection with their candidates, and Obama offers that by making the viewer feel like she/he and Obama are sharing a personal inside joke. I enjoyed reading your essay, good work!
ReplyDeleteI love your essay so far! Quick note you wrote Bird Big instead of Big Bird in one of your paragraphs so just be sure to reread your essay before you send it to fix any of those errors. I also think that it would be a good idea to bring about one of the questions implied in the ad--that being that why would Romney cut PBS funding? Why PBS instead of something else. A lot of public television or radio holds fundraisers for their money and receive very little federal funding. Would cutting the funding for PBS really make a whole lot of difference in the long run?
ReplyDeleteAre you sure this is a really, really, rough draft? Its great so far! I enjoyed reading it very much. I won't tell you to revise it because its clearly stated in the title. I think an interesting subject to touch on is trying to analyze or infer why Romney cuts the funds for PBS, like does this mean education for the young ones isn't important? Or even education for adults because I believe PBS is a very informative channel. What does this have to say about him? Overall good job and thank you so much for your advice.
ReplyDeleteBig Bird became the face of the anti-Romney adds for awhile. I wonder why he even offered that up as ammuntion since it really had nothing to do with real issues and made little to know sense. Why cut back funding that is obviously beloved, (I grew up watching Sesame Street, and, in fact, learned to read by watching the show) and important programing. I cannot believe he was behind such a statement (indeed, more than one thing that came out of his mouth I can bet were not his idea to say). This would beg the question: Who writes the speeches for these political heads? And who points them in the direction in which they should go? I think that would be a nice addition to your essay.
ReplyDelete