Campaign Commercial Analysis
1. What kind of campaign commercial is this? Explain your thinking.
a.) This commercial is a “policy attack” on the opponent. b.) This commercial is a “positive advertisement” about the candidate. c.) This commercial is an “ad hominem attack” on the opponent. d.) This commercial is a “defensive advertisement” that is a response.
2. How does the commercial make you feel about the candidate?
3. How does the commercial make you feel about the opponent?
4. How does the commercial make you feel about the issues?
5. What assumptions (warrants) does the commercial assert?
6. What types of appeals do the creators employ?
7. To whom is the commercial directed, the primary audience?
8. Which of the following examples of propaganda techniques do you discover in the commercial? Make a brief note of the evidence for each type you choose:
a.) This commercial is a “policy attack” on the opponent. b.) This commercial is a “positive advertisement” about the candidate. c.) This commercial is an “ad hominem attack” on the opponent. d.) This commercial is a “defensive advertisement” that is a response.
2. How does the commercial make you feel about the candidate?
3. How does the commercial make you feel about the opponent?
4. How does the commercial make you feel about the issues?
5. What assumptions (warrants) does the commercial assert?
6. What types of appeals do the creators employ?
7. To whom is the commercial directed, the primary audience?
8. Which of the following examples of propaganda techniques do you discover in the commercial? Make a brief note of the evidence for each type you choose:
Propaganda Techniques
- Ad Hominem (attacking the character of the opponent): the use of derogatory language or words that carry a negative connotation when describing the opponent.
- False Assertion: an enthusiastic or energetic statement presented as a fact, although it is not necessarily true.
- Bandwagon: an appeal to the subject to follow the crowd, to join in because others are doing so as well.
- Card Stacking: only presenting information that is positive to an idea or proposal and omitting information contrary to it.
- Glittering Generalities: words that have different positive meaning for individual subjects, but are linked to highly valued concepts – vague words that sound good, but really don’t mean anything.
- Lesser of Two Evils: tries to convince us of an idea, proposal, or candidate by presenting it as the least offensive option.
- Non sequitur (it does not follow): linking two unrelated ideas together or an attempt to make the audience view a certain item in the same way as they view another item
- Oversimplification: an attempt to simplify a complex situation in terms of clear-cut right and wrong.
- Plain Folks: an attempt by candidates to convince the public that their views reflect those of the common person, that they are also working for the benefit of the common person, and that they are “one of us.”
- Red Herring: an irrelevant issue used as a distraction to divert attention from the primary issue. Red herrings are usually used in attempts to deliberately mislead (origin – using a stinky fish to take the hunters off the trail)
- Slippery Slope arguments suggest that one thing will lead to another, usually with disastrous results.
- Straw Man arguments set up and often dismantle easily refutable arguments in order to misrepresent the opponents’ argument in order to defeat them. Putting words in the opponent’s mouth.
- Testimonial: quotations or endorsements, in or out of context, which attempt to connect a famous or respectable person with a product, item, issue, or candidate.