Do negative campaign ads have a more positive or negative effect on the American electorate? Please use your readings to support your response. Also, make sure to also respond to someone else's point of view. Discuss!'
I honestly find this a tough question to choose one side for so I'm just going to choose one side and go with it. Negative campaign advertisements have a more positive effect on the American electorate. Unfortunately, negative advertisements are a form of entertainment, and as we all know - Americans love entertainment even if it's crap. These types of advertisements engage the less-engaged population of voters (which is a large amount of Americans). This could also be negative because this less-informed population many times feed into inaccurate information. Which actually makes it a perfect weapon.
In the article, Greer states that negative campaign advertisements promote democracy. One example he includes that supports his claim is that negativity makes 'accountability' possible and without accountability, democracy falters. He also mentions that democracy is the chance of open and free expression. (Which is a true statement).
In the radio interview we listened to in class on Friday, a speaker (of which I forget his name) reasons with negative advertisements stating that voters who are already loyal to a candidate will not likely be swayed by any form of advertisement.
Negative advertisement has been and still is used successfully - till this day. This is another factor that proves its effectiveness in campaigning.
I agree with Luxury. She made very important points. Negative ads are definitely a form of entrainment. Americans love drama! Also we know that the media benefits from this because viewes would be more likely to watch those ads since it catches their attention. So yeah, negative advertisement has some interesting effects.
believe that negative advertisement has a positive effect on the political process in America today. As John Geer said, sometimes negativity is needed! If everything was positive about candidates, it would be boring and also difficult for voters to decide for whom their vote will go for. Therefore, negative ads are needed in order to see both sides of the coin. Moreover, in Geer's article we can see how president Bush used 50% of negative ads while his opponent only used 30%. As we all know, Bush was the one who ended up winning so it seems like negative ads has many positive effect. However we can't hide the fact that as stated in the first article, negative ads provokes a sense of disillusionment among candidates and they are driven away from voting because of this.
I agree with you, too. I also believe that negative ads are necessary to see both sides of a candidate, and I also agree with the other points you make.
I also agree with Yohanna and Luxury. As mentioned in John Greer's article , negativity serves as a way of accountability. It makes the American electorate more informed since it puts pressure on the candidates to address their political platforms. Also since the candidates do not want to be portrayed as weak , they use negative ads to come back at their opponents. Negative ads also may suppress voter turn outs since people may end up having the wrong information. But people also love to feed on negativity and negative ads are a way of free speech.
Like Luxurie, I am divided whether or not negative ads have a positive or negative effect on American people. In John Geer's case, he does provide a strong point on how major events (ex: revolutions) were caused by negativity and criticism from the public. Democracy needs negativity because it provides a spark to create change and also bring a sense of reality for candidates who run. Positive ads only establish a "positive persona" for the candidate, but there are no facts behind it. Negative ads offer these facts as their opponents have done their research. However, in the first article, it does mention how negative ads causes non-partisan voters (independents) to view our government and politicians in a negative light. Non-partisan voters are tired of all the schemes and attacks they see, thus causing them to no longer vote and participate in our government. With these two articles, I believe that yes negative ads does have its drawbacks, but it does provide the American people a sense of reality during the elections.
I totally agree with you Alondra. Negative ads have both pros and cons to it, and they do in fact shrink the voter turn out and cause people not to participate in our government.
I also believe that negative ads have a positive effect on the political process here in America. Some voters want to see some competition in the campaign process. I feel as though the perfect balance of negative and positive campaign ads would be a little more negative than positive ads. That way, the electorate can see both the positive and negative sides of both candidates. John Geer claims that negative ads add to democracy, or rather make sure that the campaigns are democratic. The electorate would learn more from the candidates by these ads, whether they be positive or negative. I don't think it's fair for a candidate to be restricted from attacking the other candidate. It's part of the competition, and the candidates are trying their best to win.
I am 50/50 towards this question. I believe that utilizing negative ads during campaigns have both negative and positive effects. Like article 1 stated, negative ads drive away voters from the electorate because once they sense negativity they don't want to see themselves engaging into it so they withdraw from it and it's bad enough that we already have a tremendous amount of apathetic voters in America, so if negative ads are going to shrink the electorate then I do not believe they are at all that necessary. But, article 2 also makes interesting points on how negative ads play the role of informing we the electorate. Also, the negativity is somewhat interesting. I think with negative ads it makes the campaigns run more fun rather than just being all serious all the time. But yeah,, I am 50/50.
Well, I think that negative ads are a good thing. They let the candidate know what the opposing team can dig up/make up about them and know how to clean it up. And as how it affects the electorate, I believe if the ad is making jokes about the candidate some people will look up if those jokes are true and if it's funny, they might spread the joke so more people will know about the candidate (in an extremely convoluted way) but unfortunately as Derrick said, a good majority of the electorate stays away once there is something negative about either candidate. So, I think negative ads are beneficial for candidates to keep them on their toes, but it has a negative effect on the electorate.
I am in the middle of two sides as well, I believe negative ads are good idea but to an extent. Negative ads encourage the American people to split into two, the party loyalist and a non-voting public of apathetic. According to the Gallup poll, many people tend not to vote because they feel that the government does not represent their ideas and interest. Mainly negative ads are for entertainment purpose and should not be use to attack the candidates personally.
Like Zerlina, i am in the middle. Both sides have their advantages against each other. the good thing about these ads are, they show the true faces of the candidates. it will bring out the truth. The downfall to this is, it will make voters less aware of the real information. they will less likely vote after hearing all this trash talk.
Like Zerlina, i am in the middle. Both sides have their advantages against each other. the good thing about these ads are, they show the true faces of the candidates. it will bring out the truth. The downfall to this is, it will make voters less aware of the real information. they will less likely vote after hearing all this trash talk.
I honestly find this a tough question to choose one side for so I'm just going to choose one side and go with it.
ReplyDeleteNegative campaign advertisements have a more positive effect on the American electorate. Unfortunately, negative advertisements are a form of entertainment, and as we all know - Americans love entertainment even if it's crap. These types of advertisements engage the less-engaged population of voters (which is a large amount of Americans). This could also be negative because this less-informed population many times feed into inaccurate information. Which actually makes it a perfect weapon.
In the article, Greer states that negative campaign advertisements promote democracy. One example he includes that supports his claim is that negativity makes 'accountability' possible and without accountability, democracy falters. He also mentions that democracy is the chance of open and free expression. (Which is a true statement).
In the radio interview we listened to in class on Friday, a speaker (of which I forget his name) reasons with negative advertisements stating that voters who are already loyal to a candidate will not likely be swayed by any form of advertisement.
Negative advertisement has been and still is used successfully - till this day. This is another factor that proves its effectiveness in campaigning.
I agree with Luxury. She made very important points. Negative ads are definitely a form of entrainment. Americans love drama! Also we know that the media benefits from this because viewes would be more likely to watch those ads since it catches their attention. So yeah, negative advertisement has some interesting effects.
DeleteLuxurie*** lol sorry
Deletebelieve that negative advertisement has a positive effect on the political process in America today. As John Geer said, sometimes negativity is needed! If everything was positive about candidates, it would be boring and also difficult for voters to decide for whom their vote will go for. Therefore, negative ads are needed in order to see both sides of the coin. Moreover, in Geer's article we can see how president Bush used 50% of negative ads while his opponent only used 30%. As we all know, Bush was the one who ended up winning so it seems like negative ads has many positive effect. However we can't hide the fact that as stated in the first article, negative ads provokes a sense of disillusionment among candidates and they are driven away from voting because of this.
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with you because negative ads are also a way of informing people.
DeleteI agree with you, too. I also believe that negative ads are necessary to see both sides of a candidate, and I also agree with the other points you make.
Delete*It's okay :)
ReplyDeleteI agree with Yohanna on her points as well, including the one that mentions the first article.
I also agree with Yohanna and Luxury. As mentioned in John Greer's article , negativity serves as a way of accountability. It makes the American electorate more informed since it puts pressure on the candidates to address their political platforms. Also since the candidates do not want to be portrayed as weak , they use negative ads to come back at their opponents. Negative ads also may suppress voter turn outs since people may end up having the wrong information. But people also love to feed on negativity and negative ads are a way of free speech.
ReplyDeleteLike Luxurie, I am divided whether or not negative ads have a positive or negative effect on American people. In John Geer's case, he does provide a strong point on how major events (ex: revolutions) were caused by negativity and criticism from the public. Democracy needs negativity because it provides a spark to create change and also bring a sense of reality for candidates who run. Positive ads only establish a "positive persona" for the candidate, but there are no facts behind it. Negative ads offer these facts as their opponents have done their research. However, in the first article, it does mention how negative ads causes non-partisan voters (independents) to view our government and politicians in a negative light. Non-partisan voters are tired of all the schemes and attacks they see, thus causing them to no longer vote and participate in our government. With these two articles, I believe that yes negative ads does have its drawbacks, but it does provide the American people a sense of reality during the elections.
ReplyDeleteI totally agree with you Alondra. Negative ads have both pros and cons to it, and they do in fact shrink the voter turn out and cause people not to participate in our government.
DeleteI also believe that negative ads have a positive effect on the political process here in America. Some voters want to see some competition in the campaign process. I feel as though the perfect balance of negative and positive campaign ads would be a little more negative than positive ads. That way, the electorate can see both the positive and negative sides of both candidates. John Geer claims that negative ads add to democracy, or rather make sure that the campaigns are democratic. The electorate would learn more from the candidates by these ads, whether they be positive or negative. I don't think it's fair for a candidate to be restricted from attacking the other candidate. It's part of the competition, and the candidates are trying their best to win.
ReplyDeleteI am 50/50 towards this question. I believe that utilizing negative ads during campaigns have both negative and positive effects. Like article 1 stated, negative ads drive away voters from the electorate because once they sense negativity they don't want to see themselves engaging into it so they withdraw from it and it's bad enough that we already have a tremendous amount of apathetic voters in America, so if negative ads are going to shrink the electorate then I do not believe they are at all that necessary. But, article 2 also makes interesting points on how negative ads play the role of informing we the electorate. Also, the negativity is somewhat interesting. I think with negative ads it makes the campaigns run more fun rather than just being all serious all the time. But yeah,, I am 50/50.
ReplyDeleteWell, I think that negative ads are a good thing. They let the candidate know what the opposing team can dig up/make up about them and know how to clean it up. And as how it affects the electorate, I believe if the ad is making jokes about the candidate some people will look up if those jokes are true and if it's funny, they might spread the joke so more people will know about the candidate (in an extremely convoluted way) but unfortunately as Derrick said, a good majority of the electorate stays away once there is something negative about either candidate. So, I think negative ads are beneficial for candidates to keep them on their toes, but it has a negative effect on the electorate.
ReplyDeleteI am in the middle of two sides as well, I believe negative ads are good idea but to an extent. Negative ads encourage the American people to split into two, the party loyalist and a non-voting public of apathetic. According to the Gallup poll, many people tend not to vote because they feel that the government does not represent their ideas and interest. Mainly negative ads are for entertainment purpose and should not be use to attack the candidates personally.
ReplyDeleteLike Zerlina, i am in the middle. Both sides have their advantages against each other. the good thing about these ads are, they show the true faces of the candidates. it will bring out the truth. The downfall to this is, it will make voters less aware of the real information. they will less likely vote after hearing all this trash talk.
ReplyDeleteLike Zerlina, i am in the middle. Both sides have their advantages against each other. the good thing about these ads are, they show the true faces of the candidates. it will bring out the truth. The downfall to this is, it will make voters less aware of the real information. they will less likely vote after hearing all this trash talk.
ReplyDelete