Assignment# 2 (First of the trilogy) - updated -
The United States is not the only country that suffers from an economic recession, but also countries all over the world suffer from the breakdown of the global economy. The worst moment of the recession started with the failure of credit system (Credit-Crunch) and it first occurred in the United States. Obama argues that George W. Bush has failed to create a successful and steady economy since Bush’s first election in 2000, which led to an economic recession. Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalist policies will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars. On the other hand, economy is not the only problem in the United States. President Bush could not handle the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks successfully. Now, the United States is seen as a reason for instability and an illegal war maker in the international arena. I believe the 2008 election has the potential for Americans to change their country's image in the international arena and to create a stronger economy. For the upcoming election, Barack Obama looks like a charismatic and an intellectual leader who can heal the wounds of his country’s problematic economy and bully image. It was a rocky road for him to become the democratic candidate. Furthermore, he has had to fight against McCain’s unethical campaign. In a few days, we will see if America has given him the right to govern them.
Recent polls show us that most voters care more about the economy than terrorism or security issues. However, McCain’s election campaign heavily depends on promoting the idea that Obama cannot find a successful way to deal with security issues. Instead of focusing on the economy for his election campaign, he focuses on his competitor’s inability to deal with security issues. Keep in mind; Gramsci argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today. People (voters) want a ruling class that can create wealth for the citizens. Obama understands that trend and focuses on the economy as the first priority. Additionally, national security is a very important subject in his political agenda. Obama usually combine the economical issues with security issues in his speeches, because he he thinks that national security spending is affecting the economy in a very bad way. Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).
In order to keep the status quo of electing a republican for the white house, McCain aired commercials that point out how Obama is unable to govern a country. Some media companies even tried to show Obama as a candidate, who is weak to fight against terrorism because of being a Muslim. Although he is not a Muslim, as he stated several times, relating a religion to terrorism was also a disgraceful approach. Gramsci believes that media are in favor of a status quo. Then, should we expect that media in the United States want another republican in office again? Even though there are media firms hating Obama as I mentioned before, I believe the answer to that question is no! Media companies are always trying to make money and unfortunately in last 8 years the economy did not go well. Today, media companies expect a change for the economy, which is Obama’s focus in his campaign. The change can bring the old status quo of Clinton’s era, which led media companies to generate great amounts of profits.
Finally, in every election period most candidates try to manipulate voters through commercials. They do it, and they will continue doing that. Politicians like Obama should not get frustrated with that kind of campaigns and they should continue on their way in order to create a better standard of living for their citizens.
Here is the video for assignment#3 (CLICK) (Second part of the trilogy)
Here is the video for assignment #4 (Last part of the trilogy):
- Please be patient, it will load the video soon -
In case it does not work on the blog, watch it from here.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I like your piece talking about the misunderstanding from the political commericals. The supporters for McCain may find out those ads useful when fight against Obama, but people who vote for Obama will easily figure out their misleading the messages in Obama's speech. As what you said at the end, truth is hard to cover, and those who remain undecided will find a way to the truth, not effecting by a single political commercials.
Interesting and timely post. It is amazing to hear that the U.S., U.K. and Iceland owe 300% of their national income. How will they ever get out from under this?
Your point about a different kind of capitalism is apt when we see republicans supporting the bailing out of private financial institutions with government money which is the money of the regular people.
On your point about the negative political advertisements of McCain, I can accept that McCain was more negative than Obama. But they both took part in the spectacle that we have come to accept as politics. In the Gitlin sense of pessimism, I believe, we expect and accept negative ads in political campaigning so therefore I would not place too much blame on one side or the other for engaging this tool.
In relation to the issue of Obama being identified incorrectly as a Muslim - Why was it relevant? What about separation of church and state? I would like if Obama had refused to say what religion he belongs to. But in this hegemonic society of ours religion is there in the foreground to give us an idea of who our leaders are. Separation of church and state, it seems, does not refer to our leaders. No one asked why there would be anything negative about Obama being a Muslim. Why not? In our progressive society which has elected our first African-American president no one, not even Obama, stood up and said, "Why does it matter if I am a Muslim". I suppose we still have a ways to go for equality.
On Gramsci you said, "he argues that people are in favor of reasons for their own good like economy today." My understanding of Gramsci is that he is interested in why people do things that are NOT in their own interest. For example why do regular people vote for the wealthy powerful people who will probably protect the wealthy powerful people and ignore the small regular folk? I think this is different to what you said - Any comments?
Response to part two of trilogy:
I couldn't respond to the video.
Very nice use of annotations to "blow the cover" of the dense commercial visuals and audio. This may be a very positive and proactive use of "talkback" features in new media.
Response to part 3 of trilogy:
Utku - you remind me that many people do not know the manipualtions used in the McCain ad. I need to be reminded. As a media student I assume people know.
Searching for or aspiring to the truth I can accept as noble, but knowing the truth, I think, as related to our human existence is an illusion.
Assignment 2: The Blog
“Although this devastating economic situation has not destroyed or will not destroy capitalism, it has started to change the way it works. Eventually, some of the purely capitalistic driven politics will have more socialist content. For example, many countries have already intervened in economic markets and have sponsored major banks’ debts worth billions of American dollars.”
How right you are—the Republicans rail against anything smacking of “socialist” ideology and yet, voila: our banking system has become socialized! They (Republicans) can’t seem to get much right, and their cover-up is losing its veneer—starting with no WMDs to Obama’s Muslim heritage. In the presidential campaign, they have done an excellent job of taking themselves down, but only after they took us all down with them with a huge deficit, rising unemployment, loss of civil liberties—the list goes on.
“Gitlin argues that consumers buy a product for its promoted qualities, because they think that they acquire those qualities. If we see Obama as a product to be sold to consumers (voters), then his message (political decisions related to security, economy, etc...) would be the qualities. Voters may want to buy (vote for him) Obama in order to acquire his qualities (politics).”
Your observation about Gitlin’s premise makes a lot of sense. I voted for Obama and many of us did. If our vote translates into intelligent and considered politics, then we made the right decision. We the people came together in a big way for this election in hopes of sending a message of our own: “We want a leader who is for the people—all of us, not just, the upper 1-3%”.” And it’s not the only problem rearing its ugly head. Your point about Obama’s charisma and intelligence is right on! It is in sharp contrast to the failed Bush administration as well as the pathetic McCain and Palin campaign.
The McCain-Palin ticket lambasted Obama on every possible issue they could think of—fraudulent, hate-filled rhetoric that sent a bigoted, hard line message about ethnicity and what it means to be patriotic: white is right. Fundamentalist Christians who don’t believe that women or homosexuals should have the same rights as they do. And yes, they are committed to bullying us into living according to “white might makes right”, just like the last administration.
You are also correct about the media industry: they wanted Obama because he’s friendlier to the media. Bush and Company hated the media and, in turn, the media despised them. As a result, McCain-Palin got the media shaft.
Assignment 3: The Response
You’ve really captured McCain’s essence here. He so wants to be an expert about something—anything—and that’s why he’s continued to emphasize his presumed national security experience over economic savvy, which, early on, he confessed he lacked. But of course economics and national security are so intimately linked! He likes to mention that he is the senior senator (citizen? So sorry…Is that ageist?). And who is this child running for Vice President? Why is his “daughter” his running mate? Oh, that’s Governor Palin.
Obama looks happy and confident because he is. In fact, Obama is not an adolescent. He is not looking for Massa’s approval. He’s the first black person to run for President on a major party ticket! Will the voters be swayed by “Big Daddy Rove” and his constant manipulation of the media? The proof is in the puddin’—Obama won!
Assignment 4: The Video
Obama’s truncated responses on McCain’s commercial are a far cry from the truth, and as you mention, why is this so difficult for some to acknowledge? Is it all part of the people in power misleading the masses? Is their primary objective to make it easy to tell a lie and make everyone believe it? Does it hinge on the maintenance of false consciousness? Who does it ultimately benefit? You are right--it’s child’s play manipulating a video. It’s too bad so many adults have such a hard time telling the truth. But hope is on the way ‘cause the McCain-Palin smear campaign didn’t work and the other half of the electorate won—the people who knew how to identify the truth.
.
Assignment 2:
I think you could've gotten slightly more controversial, but the point-refute-counterpoint strategy made for an excellent and enlightening read.
Assignment 3:
I think that your assignment is fundamentally groundbreaking. One day, campaigns might respond to attack ads by circulating videos of a quite simlar nature.
Assignment 4:
Great effort using new media to put a spin on a time-tested form of political response. Your entire project illustrates how new media can be a powerful tool in shaping societies.
Post a Comment