Enough with the Negativity!!

As we are getting closer and closer to the midterm elections, the negative political ads are airing more and more.  This week we are learning about the principles that are used in political advertising, which are stereotyping, association, demonetization and code words .  The one that has been most prevalent in Georgia has been association.  The association principle links a candidate to an unpopular cause or other person.

 As the image above portrays, the majority of the attack ads have been aimed at associating Michelle Nunn with President Obama and the Affordable Healthcare Act.  This has been the main ammunition used by the Perdue campaign and even more so with ads sponsored by Pacs.  Recently I was at the gym, and decided to count the number of times that ads such these were aired.  In a span of one hour on CBS, there were a total of  attacks ran that associated Nunn with President Obama and the Affordable Healthcare Act.  Each ad ran for about 30 seconds, which meant that a total of nine and a half minutes of a one hour newscast featured negative ads.  

That is not to say that the attack ads were one sided.  The Nunn campaign and supporting Pacs also bought airtime to run their negative ads.  In that same one hour span, there were a total of 9.  So in total, in a one hour newscast, a total of fourteen minutes was dedicated to negative ads.  Personally, I think that enough is enough! This a prime example of how politics has become so polarizing.  Like many, I am tired of all the negativity that has plagued every election that I have been eligible to vote in.  It decreases my motivation to even get out and vote.  I am confident that I am not alone in this, and strongly feel that going forward this aspect of campaigning has to change in order to avoid further citizen alienation.

Check out the ads below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TKVTXXqk_LQ
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TTHlO7HSkLU

Facebook Says Stop!!

The Drug Enforcement Agency is getting creative in finding ways to investigate and capture suspects.  A new means of investigation is through the use of social media. Agents are setting up false Facebook pages in order to initiate contact with suspected criminals.  They are using the names and images of those who have been captured in order to make further arrests and keep the cycle going.  The question is, "is this legal"?  According to Facebook's Chief Security Officer, Joe Sullivan, this is a direct breach of Facebook's user terms and condition, which state that a user agrees to be truthful about their identity.  Facebook claims that there have been several occurrences but that federal agencies have simply ignored their complaints.

Now there is ongoing litigation in the courts because of one such use.  Sondra Arquiett is suing the DEA and its agent, Timothy Sinnigen.  In 2010, Arquiett was arrested by a joint task force comprised of the DEA and DHS.  Her personal property, which included a cell phone containing several photos were seized.  Agent Sinnigen used those photos and other seized property to then set up a fake Facebook profile.  He used the profile for over three months in which time he made contact with several dangerous individuals involved in the trafficking of narcotics and other drugs.  The act was initially defended by the Justice Department who claimed that although Arquiett didn't give direct consent, she gave "implied consent".  However recently, the Justice Department said they would review the agents use of Facebook to see if it went too far.

The agent was very successful at making connections with other suspected criminals.  Social media is meant to be a place where one can make connections, but it is evident that this isn't what Facebook had in mind.  I question the legality of the DEA's action and the fact that it has not been dismissed by the courts backs that up.  The DEA not only used racy photos of Arquiett, some of which showed her in nothing but her underwear, but they also used photos of her children and other minor relatives.  This action puts those minors pictured in harms way.  Another aspect that I question is their broad interpretation of her agreement for them to use her information.  This should not be sufficient justification for a misuse of power.  To this I say:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014/10/18/facebook-demands-dea-stop-using-fake-profile-pages-to-conduct-investigations/

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/justice-dept-will-review-practice-of-creating-fake-facebook-profiles/2014/10/07/3f9a2fe8-4e57-11e4-aa5e-7153e466a02d_story.html

Our Next President???

For those of you that may not know, the man above is Martin O'Malley.  He is currently serving his second term as Governor of Maryland and a recent article on CNN dubbed him the "hardest working man in the Democratic Party".  He is so name because  he is well ahead of Hillary Clinton in terms of events planned and states visited.  His poll numbers are low now, but with strong support of issues such as same-sex marriage, repealing the death penalty, and firm anti-gun laws, O'Malley's stock is expected to rise.  

This week in class we looked at the four components that make up the core of a campaigns strategic communication process.  According to Bennett, the four components are message shaping, message salience, message credibility, and message framing (124).  For the purpose of this blog I am going to focus on message shaping and discuss if Martin O'Malley's message fits the description.  

According to Bennett, message shaping is "composing a simple theme or message for the audience to use in thinking about the matter at hand" (124).  O'Malley's initial message doesn't seem to fit the criteria as it involves several complex issues,  The only similarity is that it does have a specific target audience, which is the democratic primary voters. His message points to his successes in the legalization of same-sex marriage, in-state tuition tax breaks for young illegal-immigrants, having top rated schools, enforcing strict anti-gun laws, and repealing the death penalty.  These are all issues that will win him support but I question if it will be enough to make him electable.  Later on in the interview he goes on to say that "The twin themes he encounters most, are frustration with Washington and a palpable sense of economic anxiety".  It is my opinion that his message should focus on combating these two issues if he is to stand any chance of winning the primaries, much less the general election.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/10/08/politics/martin-omalley-2016/indlex.htm

Freedom of Speech or National Security

   VS  

There is much debate as to which is more important, freedom of speech or national security.  I think that both arguments have their own respective merits, but I can also understand their criticisms too.  Freedom of speech was guaranteed in the 1st Amendment of the Constitution and its one of the many freedoms that we enjoy today.  Like everything else it has evolved and we have found new ways to exercise it through technology.  Matters of national security have also evolved.  At the founding of our country we did not face the challenges of terrorism, cyber crime, and globalization.  So should we amend our rights to fit the times?  Should we give up something that may possibly keep us safe?  Those are interesting questions upon which I have conflicting views.

Freedom of speech is one of the foundations that this country was built on.  It was used in the Colonial papers to rally those to the cause of freedom.  It was used throughout history to keep the government in check, with examples being the Pentagon Papers and uncovering the Watergate scandal.  Most recently it was used to inform the American people of the government spying on them illegally.  On the flip side it can also be harmful.  The press is so quick to jump on a story that they forget about the ramifications of such action.  While I do agree with the release of some of Edward Snowden's information, I feel that some content may put American lives in jeopardy.

As someone who has served in the military, I feel strongly that national security should be a top priority.  Our nations defense is vital if we are to protect the liberties upon which we were founded. I agree that if a story is going to severely damage national security, then it should be censored to a certain degree.  However, since the passage of the Patriot Act I feel as though what is deemed as matters of national security may be not always be so.  I feel as though the government uses this as a carte blanche to hide information from the public and that some of this was exposed by Edward Snowden.

What are your thoughts?

For further elaboration check out this video below that discusses the debate between freedom of speech and national security since 9/11.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wr963WRYXbQ